Livable Densities Through Traditional Urbanism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.พ. 2024
- This video explores low and high urban densities and promotes the adoption of gentle density and traditional architecture to develop appealing, sustainable, and walkable urban environments.
Air Hockey Saloon by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: chriszabriskie.com/vendaface/
Artist: chriszabriskie.com/ - บันเทิง
I live in what could be described as a Dutch suburb and, considering the fact that it's on the outer edge of a small ish city (around 100k inhabitants), I quite like it. It's still relatively dense (row houses, which makes for good density even though every house has a front and back yard and sits on about 125 m2 of land, yards included), about a 5 minute bike ride away from the shopping center, and about a 20 minute bike ride away from the main train station. Suburbs don't have to be sprawling seas of terribleness. You can also just have relatively dense suburbs, which is still beneficial even in lower density areas.
2:54 if Low rise and high rise have the density, it is obvious the in the case of LOW-RISE the buildings will take up MORE LAND and the HIGH-RISE will take up LESS LAND (as these pictures show). Therefore if you have high rises then(in the same density) you can have more land freed up for other uses such as parks. Just look at the difference in park land in the same area.
That is true, but that high rise development was demolished and similar low density rowhouses were constructed instead because that is what people prefer. Also, with rowhouses, everyone gets their private green space whereas with large flats you don't.
@@streetscaping So you wanna build cities where no one interacts in the public, keeping to themselves and feeling no sense of community? just continue the surburban sprawl then lol why even bother inventing the buzzword "gentle density" it's ridiculous.
@@streetscapingprivate green space is wasteful and harmful in a city. Less private green space can mean more public green space.
@@patrickboldea599 do you have a hatred towards humanity?
@@bd3531 quite the opposite. I love humanity and I hate selfish people who think that their privacy outweighs to common good and fulfillment of others.
I like high sky buildings
Same
This is like pronouncing that “a city should have no more than 5 subway lines. Anything else means the residents spend too much time underground instead of interacting with the city.”
Housing density is partially about economic needs of the city. SoHo and the West Village in NYC are very pleasant and places like that should be preserved, but they’re also the single most expensive places to live per sqft precisely because there is just less housing there.
Obviously massive towers without any amenities like the public housing projects of the 1960s are alienating and bad, but you can have large towers at density with sufficient green space and residential amenities. Stuy Town in NYC is a good example of a “Towers in the Garden” model down right.
Unfortunately, the "Towers in the Garden" model you are referring to is considered a poor practice in urbanism. I recommend that you look into the project called Ville Radieuse which was planned in Paris and could have destroyed the city but thankfully wasn't implemented.
@@streetscaping firstly, the towers in the garden model is considered bad form amongst a particular kind of urbanist that prioritizes aesthetics over functionality. The towers in the garden of the early 20th century were considered failures at the time largely due to their poor funding and lack of amenities.
Secondly, cities are not canvases for painters. They are living organisms, each distinct and requiring different things. The small scale “gentle” urbanism that is in vogue now amongst a particular kind of effete bourgeois “fuck you ive got mine” liberal espouses universal maxims that are self proving at best and at worst contradicted by empirical evidence. The “low rise density” model does not work at scale. When it is implemented it tends towards being unaffordable for the masses regardless of its countryside idyllic presentation. Towers are necessary where there are jobs and demand to live in a condensed area. Manhattan would not be better served if every neighborhood were the West Village.
Put simply, SoHo is every bit a failure of urban design as is Pruitt Igoe.
@@streetscaping and none of this is to say that there is no place for gentle density. Suburbs should be organized along these models as should smaller towns and smaller cities where there is limited demand to live there and more limited availability of jobs. Housing forms should conform to the forms demanded by the local market, not the local planner and interested property owners wishing to increase the value of their investments through scarcity.
great video mate, totally agree
Would love to see more neighbourhoods like these in my city! Also, love the production quality of your content. Keep up the great work👍
Masterfully done! Just watching the footage of traditional structures and cityscapes alone was really soothing.
You deserve way more subscribers than this , great video!
Impeccable video! Thank you. Indeed, we need to build better than we have. We know what makes cities beautiful, and we can replicate the magic elsewhere. Although constructing attractive buildings brings its costs, ugly, low-cost developments do nothing to enhance the environment. Here, in the Netherlands, I see wrecking balls eliminating a fair amount of cheap buildings from the '70s, '80s, and '90s. Those bland buildings had often replaced beautiful Dutch buildings (albeit sometimes in disrepair).
The problem with demolishing 70s buldings like those in Almere, and constructing new modern boring boxes is that they will also get demolished 50 years from now on which is unsustainable. It's a cycle, people don’t see value in ugly architecture. That is why constructing beatiful buildings is so important because future generations will want to preserve them.
@@streetscaping Well said!
Thank you for talking about the importance of traditional, beautiful architecture. There aren't many videos about urbanism that talk about this topic!
The Aesthetic City is another channel to check out if you haven't already!
Yes, let's do the thing that you said we should do in the end. Imagine how cool it would be if you could look at a photo of a city and know where in the world it is
London, Washington DC, and Louisville :)
@@streetscaping Do you mean that's what can be seen at 5:17 - 5:19?
@@smb6995 Yes
@@streetscaping well, the 3rd picture definitely looks like United States, but I would've never guess Washington DC from the second one. London is also somewhat recognisable. It's a very interesting problem of how we can make our cities more unique and recognisable? I hope all the "pre-modernist" styles and local traditions made with modern materials and technologies will help us with that!
I disagree. High rises are great because they allow more people to live closer together and closer to everywhere they want to go. You just can’t get the kind of densities you can with high rises with low rises, unless you want everyone to live in a closet. The example you gave of low rises being about the same density as high rises was laughably bad because those high rises weren’t even that tall and also were very very spaced out while the low rises filled the picture to the brim. You mentioned a lot that high rises make you feel small and crushed, but that is completely subjective and they make me feel inspired. I also think that your part about needing every place to look different is ok, but really has nothing to do with high rise versus low rise. I don’t really see the importance though, and I think that it is much better for a resident to be able to know exactly where in their city they are, rather than for outsiders to what city they’re in just by looking. Buildings that try to stand out achieve this much better.
As I said, if we were to build higher than that example, it would feel way too overcrowded. And you have to ask yourself, In which of the two neighborhoods would you rather live in?
@@streetscaping The “overcrowded” one.
@@spacefun101 You are an anomaly. Even most Asians used to high density high rises prefer lower density low rises.
@@vmoses1979 I think it really depends on situation. I think that living in one of those towering Chinese megacomplexes where every building is the same as was shown sometime in this video would be rather depressing, but I don’t think that that has much to do with the height, but rather design. I live in Chicago and here, the skyscrapers are definitely not depressing. Each one is unique, they are angled differently and have different heights, and they have setbacks so while the first few floors are often filled completely with a low to mid rise height, the towers are decently spaced apart. Plus, while it is not the most popular architecturally with many, the reflective glass curtain walls in newer towers reflect a lot of light, and all of this together means that you still get plenty of sunlight, even if not direct, at ground level and the buildings never feel foreboding. There are also many parks and plazas around the city that further reduce the negative effects of the concrete jungle. It is also important to know that high rise development is correlated with many other factors. There is no reason that high rise apartments and condominiums have to be smaller than those in low rises, or that high rise development has to be more polluted, more dangerous, or less child friendly. People choose to live in suburbs for a whole lot more than because they like short buildings better. And, many people choose and enjoy living in high rises because they provide many advantages. There are right and wrong ways to construct a city of high rises, but when it’s done right, it allows for more people to be in the urban core than low rises could ever.
@@vmoses1979 I think that living in one of those towering Chinese megaplexes would also be very depressing. In my city, many design choices such as varying heights, setbacks, different angles, and even building material mean that a lot of natural light still gets to the street. Combine that with ample parks and plazas at the street level, and the skyscrapers never feel foreboding and the city isn’t overcrowded. There are also many correlated factors that aren’t caused by high rises that may turn people off. There is no reason high rises have to have smaller rooms, be more polluted, be less child friendly, or be more dangerous, but areas with them usually are, contributing to people’s negative perception. Many people probably don’t choose to live in low rise neighborhoods because the buildings are short. And, many people love living in high rises because of all their advantages. There are right and wrong ways to construct a high rise city, and when it is done right, more people can live happily in a smaller urban area than low rises could ever achieve.
Is there any scientific evidence to back up the notion that high rise developments are inherently worse for people than mid rise buildings? That doesn't seem to be the case, and you even admit that high rise developments are much more energy efficient. One thing that is undeniably true is that building taller allows for more outdoor pedestrian and green spaces, which a lot of people tend to value. High rise development more easily justifies high capacity and frequency public transportation which is partly why East Asian countries have such good public transportation. Since high rises add such a large amount of housing supply, they bring down average rents of nearby areas and make cities more affordable. The opposite of that which is height restrictions and other artificial constraints on housing supply, is a major problem in western countries right now. It seems more likely that this sentiment against high rise development is a mostly Western European and North American thing and is based on what you're familiar with.
High rises are not more energy-efficient, especially ones with glass facades. And there are studies that have found that people living in high rises are associated with mental health problems and people just generally prefer smaller buildings.
@@streetscaping Energy inefficiency is not an intrinsic feature of high-rises. Solid glass facades are not inherent to skyscrapers, especially for residential towers common in Asia. Some designs, such as Broad Holon Building, incorporate multi-pane windows, rock wool insulation, and efficient heat pumps to further increase efficiency.
In terms of interactions with the rest of the city, after a certain amount of floors up you are a lot less likely to leave the building regularly. Buildings 6/8 stories tall are close enough to the street that you feel a part of the street scape, it still provides eyes on the street in terms of crime reduction, it allows natural light to pass through onto the pavement.
There's numerous studies suggesting that high rises lead to decreased social interaction both with neighbors and the rest of the city, causing fewer friends and acquaintances. There's numerous mental health issues and negative outcomes that result from that. Other studies also show high rises cause issues due to lack of natural light and isolation from the outside world
@@nickd8310 The opposite of this supposed fact can be found in Whittier, Alaska. The key to social interaction is Third Places, and the Begich Towers, where the majority of residents of Whittier live, are full of them. The building is itself like a small town. Basically, the problem of most high rises is that they are often built without much adaptability. So typical high rises, become in essence a 3D manifestation of Euclidean zoning, carrying with it the same problems that Euclidean zoning (proper) is known for.
Word
From Sukhum. Abkhazia
3:46 is in Ukraine and is Kyiv. I recognise certain types of buildings (projects): 111-96, Т, КТ.
UPD: The older smaller grey 20-floor highrise on the right is 17 Polyarna Street. It is a special project with big windows. It is filmed from the Simyi Kulzhenkiv Street.
Greetings from Kyiv the capital of Ukraine.
Soviet districts are not bad (better than suburbia) but outdated if not modified with bike infrastructure, safer road design, on-street crosswalks instead of underpasses and asphalt trails instead of concrete slab trails that make impossible to navigate for the disabled. They are not very dense. They have big spaces filled with greenery.
Historically, the underpasses were built to make pedestrians go under the road to cross so that would make easier to drive faster for people on cars that were not very common in the Soviet Union that meant that drivers are de-facto privileged.
People for disabilities were moved to special towns across the USSR so the general public doesn't see them.
Where do you get the data for the graph at 0:34? The data for density seems to be waaaay too erratic. It looks that some cities have the density of the city proper, others the density of the metropolitan area, others the density of just the urbanised area... IDK, I might be wrong, but it doesn't pass the sniff tast for me.
European environment agency
Where is that location in 5:13 minute?
This channel will be huge soon if you continue! Great vid!
foršs video!
Vai jūs esat PC biedrs gadījumā?
It's sad but there are some poor countries who are not qualified to pursue aesthetic human scale development even before solving their housing crisis.
I ageee with your video, gentle density is great. However, thats not totally possible in cities that still have massive swaths of single family development, which pushes the only dense housing onto extremely small parcels, incentivizing developers to build tall or build nothing at all
Yeah, unfortunately, that is true.
*Phoenix not Pheonix
amen
👉 Promo'SM
very good film, contains valuable knowledge. but my advice comes from the heart, don't read individual words, but read groups of thoughts. you speak too clearly, which gives a sense of artificiality, try to say it like a speech and not like a lecture. good luck on your journey yt
This video was amazing I totally agree! :] Maybe you could make one dispelling the myth that modern looking trams are somehow way more efficient than more classic looking trolleys? I am a fan of both but see nothing wrong with a vintage looking one. I do hate when boring modern buildings ruin cohesive hisoric urban fabric.
I love living in low density sprawl
masochist fr
@@ZariDim3012 I love having a big garden and a driveway. I love my house
@@rachelwhittle8800 I love using frequent public transport (which I've used since I was 5th grade while the earliest you could drive is in the USA at 16) and having pretty much every shop in a 5 minute walk distance
@@ZariDim3012 good for you then!! Not sure why you’re under my comment?😂😂 I love low density living and its my choice. I love my car. I love my back garden.
@@rachelwhittle8800 Not sure why you're commenting under this video, either... It's like commenting how much you love paying high university fees under a video outlining the advantages of free education
Meh. As a Dutchie and a New Yorker currently doing another round of life in the Netherlands.
I definitely prefer the upper east side. Nothing in Europe comes close to that level of livability, and the density of dutch cities is laughably low when compared to real cities, while auto use is actually extremely high.
Not everything needs to seem European
Word