Re:Why haven't China's cities learned from America's mistakes?
by claudius on Thursday August 28, 2014 @05:17AM
(#8236488)
I think the key here would be to limit both – no buildings higher than ~6 stories (~30m) and a limit on urban boundaries, either enforced by land planning or economics.
Standard mansion blocks of six stories still have a much higher population density than suburban sprawling single-family homes while avoiding some/all of the issues with too high a population density – two-lane roads are usually quite sufficient and the sun does reach the ground from time to time.
See e.g. Berlin and Munich for (IMHO) decent examples of this.
Re:Why haven't China's cities learned from America's mistakes?
by Herbert2 on Thursday August 28, 2014 @07:58AM
(#8236787)
I'm all for less sprawl but artificial limits like the ones you're describe would IMO only needlessly accelerate gentrification. For instance, it's very difficult to get a spot at a daycare in Munich, not because there isn't space in the system but because the city can't afford to hire staff that can afford to live in Munich.
I live in Oregon, where we have strict urban grown boundaries. Here in Portland, light rail has been developing since the 1970's and still expanding. Bicycling is pushed by city leaders. "In-fill" housing is going up in most every part of town.
Utopia? Not everyone thinks so. Sure "urban sprawl" is mostly avoided, and farmland is preserved. But road traffic is a nightmare, and the toll of increasing population density is palpable.
Now there's talk of the undesirable effects of "vertical sprawl", a reaction to the ever-increasing height of new condo buildings and the like. There's a growing murmur of objection to the "canyon-like" landscape that many feel has a negative impact on urban quality of life.
So here we are again, there are always trade-offs, which is less corrosive, suburban or vertical sprawl? Maybe it just goes to show, we can overdo any good thing.