City Layout (sidewalks, sidewalk, versus, issues)

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by K.O.N.Y

We do have about 5 beaches in the city. What more do we need. Skyscrapers and beaches baby lol

Lol, we have beaches in Downtown Chicago too. But lets be more real, Los Angeles overall deserves more credit for it's beaches than New York City & Chicago combined. (We really do have some nice urban beaches though- and I do like skyscrapers & beaches!)

[K.O.N.Y]

Originally Posted by OmShahi

Lol, we have beaches in Downtown Chicago too. But lets be more real, Los Angeles overall deserves more credit for it's beaches than New York City & Chicago combined. (We really do have some nice urban beaches though- and I do like skyscrapers & beaches!)

ya chicagos lakefront beach is underrated. A clean beach right in front of skyscrapers=EPIC WIN

[gearedtowardssalad]

I've never understood the appeal of living in a sprawled city. Population density adds vibrancy to a city and an exciting sense of not knowing what could happen next. In my experience, it's also a lot easier to make friends in a dense urban environment. My ideal city to live in would probably be Tel Aviv.

[omgsh]

I said both but if I had to choose one, I'd say #2

[BPerone201]

Spreading things out for single family homes is a waste of space the ecosystem could of kept to itself.
People should live with people, it doesn't necessarily have to be overly dense, but to spread things out so sparsely and far flung doesn't solve anything in terms of "going green"

Rural living is an exception. They don't come in the tens of thousands to the center of their cities job market miles from their home.

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

I think there are variables of climate and topography that can make one kind of layout more sensible than another. In someplace relatively flat like NYC or Chicago, less is lost in building up. In Tucson or San Francisco, there are viewsheds of nearby mountains and waterfronts that are easily lost with tall development. I think many cities in the West sprawl because higher density undermines the feeling of wide open spaces that is part of the regional character of living in these parts of the country.

At some point in the near future, the issue of protected solar easements that provide access to the sun for photovoltaic panels is going to become a real issue. That will most likely favor medium density as an upper development limit for many parts of the country.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by BPerone201

Spreading things out for single family homes is a waste of space the ecosystem could of kept to itself.
People should live with people, it doesn't necessarily have to be overly dense, but to spread things out so sparsely and far flung doesn't solve anything in terms of "going green"

Rural living is an exception. They don't come in the tens of thousands to the center of their cities job market miles from their home.

Not really, for many people like myself, that type of lifestyle is quite nice, having plenty of room for yourself, while still being closely connected into a community.

I very much like it more. You have to live it for at least a few months to appreciate it though.

For someone with a high density background, yeah they won't like it at first, but it's something you can experience later on and then compare I suppose.

That is actually why I do like cities like Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix a tad bit more than Boston or Philadelphia.

Spread out, and still close to people. Not an ideal way to live densely but it's many peoples ideal way to live, not everyone, but a lot of people do.

I voted both, my lifestyle in downtown Chicago is nice, I just wish I had my car with me there. And my lifestyle in Houston is pretty nice, lol my friends and I take advantage of it.

It ultimately depends on what you have to value more, the quicker walk to never ending opportunities, and the lower cost for getting around, or the more spacious spread out yet still knit to the community type of way.

Either way can be a win.

[jimmyev]

This probably varies geographically. Where heating costs are high, it makes sense to build vertically and dense - it's more energy efficient. Where cooling costs are high, it makes more sense to build sprawling and horizontally - it's more energy efficient.

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by jimmyev

This probably varies geographically. Where heating costs are high, it makes sense to build vertically and dense - it's more energy efficient. Where cooling costs are high, it makes more sense to build sprawling and horizontally - it's more energy efficient.

I don't think so. The physics of aggregating buildings to reduce heat transmissivity work the same whether you're trying to keep the outdoor heat from migrating into the building envelope or trying to keep indoor-generated heat from migrating out. Aggregation is always more energy efficient than having detached dwelling units no matter whether you're cooling or heating.

[jimmyev]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

I don't think so. The physics of aggregating buildings to reduce heat transmissivity work the same whether you're trying to keep the outdoor heat from migrating into the building envelope or trying to keep indoor-generated heat from migrating out. Aggregation is always more energy efficient than having detached dwelling units no matter whether you're cooling or heating.

I was thinking of detached dwellings. In Pennsylvania I appreciate my narrow three-story because it's cheaper to heat than a sprawling ranch. In Houston I liked my sprawling ranch because it was cheaper (way cheaper) to cool than a two-story McMansion.

For the same reason, in an apartment I'd want to live on the upper floor in PA and the lower floor in TX.