Re:Parking kills businesses, not bikes or buses
by kkfx on Saturday April 09, 2022 @04:30PM
(#30971747)
I generally that those "against car ownership" are just PR and PR-convinced guys, really, that's not intended as an insult but as an (hopefully) open minded consideration:
- those who work and live in a "small" area, witch means in bike/foot range for anything do consume far less, yes, but to sustain those sober lifestyle many others run on km and km on gasoline trucks & other transports means;
- European style cities (where from I came from, switched to a mountain area few years ago) are a nightmare in the modern world because being dense means being unable to evolve. There is no room to change because there is no space to move and when something exceptional but not so exceptional happen is a disaster;
- most tend to think living in apartments, very concentrate is efficient, like a big factory tend to be more efficient than various little and spread, that's false actually. Environmental costs of tall buildings is FAR superior to many equivalent (even bigger) single-family homes, those buildings demand structure and infrastructure that single home do not need at all and not only: as dense cities they can't evolve. So we can build a "A-class state-of-art" building today, in 100+ years it will be the same building, probably in a dangerous shape, very inefficient and can't be rebuilt.
We need a certain density because transportation costs and social life, idea sharing etc demand a bit of aggregation but we all know pushing aggregation is a vary bad move. Actually the dominant idea is "small and smart cities" but even these can't really scale because today we can build them (well, at a hyper-big cost) for today needs, tomorrow we will be still unable to evolve them because of density. IMVHO the sole scalable model is the Riviera one, where living and working buildings are spread together but residential parts are single-family home with enough room to be rebuilt on generational change, and factories except for those who demand a certain size, can be single-purpose areas so something that can be rebuilt at a certain point in time with enough ground around to do so. That's also have another positive aspect: it stop the possibility to concentrate to many people in small places making them nightmare like many modern city-states.
In the Riviera model we have schools like campus where students can aggregate to develop ideas and social life, but again they are single-purpose complexes so easy to rebuilt/change as needed, there is a bit of travel but not too much, a bit of aggregation perhaps less effective than a dense city one, but without risk to became too dense etc.
- those who work and live in a "small" area, witch means in bike/foot range for anything do consume far less, yes, but to sustain those sober lifestyle many others run on km and km on gasoline trucks & other transports means;
- European style cities (where from I came from, switched to a mountain area few years ago) are a nightmare in the modern world because being dense means being unable to evolve. There is no room to change because there is no space to move and when something exceptional but not so exceptional happen is a disaster;
- most tend to think living in apartments, very concentrate is efficient, like a big factory tend to be more efficient than various little and spread, that's false actually. Environmental costs of tall buildings is FAR superior to many equivalent (even bigger) single-family homes, those buildings demand structure and infrastructure that single home do not need at all and not only: as dense cities they can't evolve. So we can build a "A-class state-of-art" building today, in 100+ years it will be the same building, probably in a dangerous shape, very inefficient and can't be rebuilt.
We need a certain density because transportation costs and social life, idea sharing etc demand a bit of aggregation but we all know pushing aggregation is a vary bad move. Actually the dominant idea is "small and smart cities" but even these can't really scale because today we can build them (well, at a hyper-big cost) for today needs, tomorrow we will be still unable to evolve them because of density. IMVHO the sole scalable model is the Riviera one, where living and working buildings are spread together but residential parts are single-family home with enough room to be rebuilt on generational change, and factories except for those who demand a certain size, can be single-purpose areas so something that can be rebuilt at a certain point in time with enough ground around to do so. That's also have another positive aspect: it stop the possibility to concentrate to many people in small places making them nightmare like many modern city-states.
In the Riviera model we have schools like campus where students can aggregate to develop ideas and social life, but again they are single-purpose complexes so easy to rebuilt/change as needed, there is a bit of travel but not too much, a bit of aggregation perhaps less effective than a dense city one, but without risk to became too dense etc.
In medio stat virtus. A lesson too many forget.