Urbanizing The Suburbs
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2022
- Did you know that 8% of Americans live in buildings that are 20 storeys or higher, which is almost the exact same percentage as people living in a mobile home, vehicle or a boat in the U.S.
It puts it in an interesting perspective because you would assume that living in a boat should be somewhat rarer than living in a building of a 20 storeys, wouldn't you?
And here, with the GO Expansion, some big changes are coming to our suburbs: with a big investment in transit, these will be the right places for intensification.
So how are we going to get it right? - บันเทิง
I think it's an interesting fact that the same percentage live in 20+ story buildings as in RV/vehicle/boat in the US, but talking about 20 story buildings gives the impression that it is the one true way to density. I used to live in Hoboken, NJ and there are some high rises, but most people live in 3-5 story apartment / condo buildings. With this type of construction, they achieve a density of about 50,000 / square mile. In the DC area where I live now there are plenty of rowhouse neighborhoods with high density, walkability, and transit.
The way I interpreted that claim she made was that if you counted people living in 10 or more story buildings, it would overwhelm mobile homes (&c). If you counted 5 story and above it would overwhelm it even more and so on. Twenty stories is where it balances out and residential buildings of that height are not common at all.
@@tomtrask_YT20 story buildings are complex to build . Skip zoning and mixed used iin residential neighbourhoods . When you transform 7 of the 61% detached homes into semi detach any housing shortsge could be solved. Just 1 in 10 single family zone plots into a duplex ..No new road structure needed ...
Ahould be not so difficult imo.
(And .., build ( mix used) midrise around every transit station ...)
Make the station the destination. I don't understand why that's such a hard concept to grasp for city governments. Great vid!
Great video!
Yeh its not hard to believe most economic output is the cities because suburbs don't output anything 😂
At least you are honest in your disdain for suburbs which is a lot more than I can say for most other new age urban planners. I'll take living in nature before I live in a city any day.
False dichotomy
If everyone lives in nature nobody lives in nature.
You think living in a suburb is "living in nature"? I live in a densely populated area of Stockholm, Sweden with subway access, but still have a ten minute bike ride to two different large nature reserves, I think that is much preferable to the endless sprawl that is American suburbs. Suburbs are just a different kind of urban form, they're not nature simply because people have private lawns.
@@dijikstra8 that’s nice. Have you been to America?
@@NoirMorter Yes I have, lived in NYC 15 years ago.
the "if you love nature don't live in it!" statement is wrong. As someone who loves nature and lives surrounded by nature I can tell you with certainty that people ARE meant to live in nature. You can not live without it... I mean, technically you can live without nature, but it will be detrimental to both your mental and physiological health, so you should remove that motto from your life if you don't want to be guided by it continuously and suffer.
I dont think thats whats being said. People often live in suburbs to have the idea of "living in nature" but really the sprawl is just ruining the environment. Cities are often planned so poorly that they do not incorporate the parts of nature that you are talking about that are good for mental and physiological health. We should be adding those aspects to cities rather than making cities just endless freeways, parking lots, and department style stores. Some examples are much of chicagos shoreline being given to the public as different types of parks. Also when you look at cities like portland oregon they include lost of trees along streets. large parks like central park are also one thing. anyways, cities need to add lots of that along with density to create the green space and visual interest needed. The visual interest with architecture is another thing too.
I think we can agree that you are right that people are meant to live in nature. but I think that we need to achieve that with density to also protect it from the negative externalties of sprawl. Also, when most people think of a "city" they are just thinking of a poorly planned city. It seems like you are thinking a city is the polar opposite of nature.
@@benjamindumezI think the best way to go about this is to build nature into the city rather that building the city into the nature. Though urban expansion is inevitable, I believe that there is a lot of value in terms of preserving some of that nature within the urban realm
I would never raise my kids in a suburb. No freedom. No connection. It was awful for me, and will be awful for the next generation.
I specifically want to move to the suburbs to get away from all the "urbanization". Its nothing but ugly roads and crime.
Going to the suburbs to escape ugly roads? U sure?
@@MrAronymous yes actually. I can at least drive on the roads in the suburbs without having to worry about my car's or bike's suspension.
@korcommander enjoy the suburban roads now before they break and suburbs cant afford to fix all of them.
@@Knightmessenger The big city couldn't fix its roads way before, despite all the money.
@@korcommander makes you wonder why we keep building new infrastructure instead of fixing the existing one first.