Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I crave space a lot but I also do not like wasted space. I think the best way would be if there were no decorative lawns unless it is a public park amenity. That is why I like big dense cities like NYC, and I also find tower in the park models too space inefficient. Front lawns on houses I think should be minimal and/or not there, and the person can have a backyard. If you don't like having no setback, my idea would be to put a fence plus a staired porch between the sidewalk and the front door. The fence would act as a psychological barrier separating your house from public sidewalks, and the porch acts as another one. You don't need a 25 foot deep setback to feel private. It is far better to build densely and have lots of space for parks like Central Park in Manhattan and leave the mass majority to pure wilderness than to build into the wilderness, destroying it in the process. You can have a lot of space in the city. It just requires some thought to set up things that act as forms of mental barriers, as well as efficient use of space such as large city parks to allow people the space they need without the wasteful and enviornmentally destructive need for huge lawns and setbacks.
Another issue I think psychologically is when you are close, noise is the thing besides safety and privacy that make people want to be farther apart. Security can be handled by having things like deadbolting doors or locks, althought deadbolting might not be good when there is a fire and the firemen need to come in and they can't come and save you. Noise can be made at a modest cost to soundproof the house, so even if your house is close to the street like in a city, it can be noise insulated and you'd think you're in a sound proof room, although that too can have the bad side effect of if you scream help then no one will hear you and come to your aid. Privacy can be handled by having these small windows to let in light but people from the ground floor cannot see into them.
If you handled the issus of noise, security, and privacy then people would feel much more comfort living close together because it gives the illusion that you live far apart. I bet a noise insulated apartment will be quieter then a standard suburban house where I can hear everything outside and the setback is 15-30 feet or more from the street.
I crave space a lot but I also do not like wasted space. I think the best way would be if there were no decorative lawns unless it is a public park amenity.
My lawn may be a '"waste of space" to you, but it is not to me. If you don't want a lawn, don't have one, but do refrain from pontificating that no one should have one.
Quote:
Front lawns on houses I think should be minimal and/or not there, and the person can have a backyard.
Awfully nice of you.
Quote:
Noise can be made at a modest cost to soundproof the house, so even if your house is close to the street like in a city, it can be noise insulated and you'd think you're in a sound proof room, although that too can have the bad side effect of if you scream help then no one will hear you and come to your aid.
Not to mention that opening the window to let in some fresh air shoots your flawed plan even more to hell.
I crave space a lot but I also do not like wasted space. I think the best way would be if there were no decorative lawns unless it is a public park amenity. That is why I like big dense cities like NYC, and I also find tower in the park models too space inefficient. Front lawns on houses I think should be minimal and/or not there, and the person can have a backyard. If you don't like having no setback, my idea would be to put a fence plus a staired porch between the sidewalk and the front door. The fence would act as a psychological barrier separating your house from public sidewalks, and the porch acts as another one. You don't need a 25 foot deep setback to feel private. It is far better to build densely and have lots of space for parks like Central Park in Manhattan and leave the mass majority to pure wilderness than to build into the wilderness, destroying it in the process. You can have a lot of space in the city. It just requires some thought to set up things that act as forms of mental barriers, as well as efficient use of space such as large city parks to allow people the space they need without the wasteful and enviornmentally destructive need for huge lawns and setbacks.
Another issue I think psychologically is when you are close, noise is the thing besides safety and privacy that make people want to be farther apart. Security can be handled by having things like deadbolting doors or locks, althought deadbolting might not be good when there is a fire and the firemen need to come in and they can't come and save you. Noise can be made at a modest cost to soundproof the house, so even if your house is close to the street like in a city, it can be noise insulated and you'd think you're in a sound proof room, although that too can have the bad side effect of if you scream help then no one will hear you and come to your aid. Privacy can be handled by having these small windows to let in light but people from the ground floor cannot see into them.
If you handled the issus of noise, security, and privacy then people would feel much more comfort living close together because it gives the illusion that you live far apart. I bet a noise insulated apartment will be quieter then a standard suburban house where I can hear everything outside and the setback is 15-30 feet or more from the street.
What constitutes wasted space is opinion anyway. Like I said in an earlier post, I have acreage in a rural area and don't consider it wasted space at all. I am not interested in walking to a public park a few blocks from my house. I want a pleasant living environment right outside my house. If I had the money, I would like to own 1000 acres with my home setback 2000 feet or more. Until I win the lottery, I'll have to settle for the 400' setback I currently enjoy. I had a 35' setback when I live in the Chicago exurbs and you could not even park 2 cars end to end without a part of the second car being over the sidewalk and in violation of some crazy village ordinance. This and other reasons was why I got fed up with living close to other people. There's an old saying that says 'good fences make good neighbors'. My experiences in life have taught me that the more distance you put between youself and other people, the less friction is likely to occur between you and others. I have no problem with working with other people, but when I go home for the day I want privacy, quiet and open space around me.
If you need deadbolt locks for security, you're living in the wrong neighborhood. As for noise, the more space you have between yourself and the noise source the quieter it will be - noise decreases exponentially as the distance increases. Again, you're living in the wrong neighborhood if you have to noise insulate your house; I consider noise insulation in a residence rather extreme.
And the last time I checked, there is NO shortage of land in this country for those that prefer to live suburban or rural. We have so much land to grow food on that we export vast quantities each year. This whole perceived problem of urban/suburban sprawl is not a problem at all. People should and will live the way they want since Americans cherish individual rights and decisions. One size definitely does not fit all for living arrangements. I have no problem with people living in cities; that's their choice. The same goes for others who choose suburban or rural.
You said electric rail vehicles are quieter than cars; I beg to differ, and a trip into the NYC subway or near one of the elevated sections ought to disabuse you of that notion. Metal on metal is LOUD.
Everyone would like to get rid of traffic noise, but getting rid of traffic noise by getting rid of traffic is a terrible trade-off. Until we're all plugged into the Matrix, we all have to go places.
I see your dream city as rather dystopian, a concrete and steel prison packed full of people surrounded by a moat of greenery -- a moat that most people in the city can't practically get to very often, as your transport is so restricted.
I see your dream city as rather dystopian, a concrete and steel prison packed full of people surrounded by a moat of greenery -- a moat that most people in the city can't practically get to very often, as your transport is so restricted.
Have you ever been to Venice? Venice is an example of a very good car free city. It doesn't have rail in it, but yet its a very livable one. They use electric pull carts instead of cars to haul supplies in. I think that Nei's vision can in some ways be similar to Venice, except instead of water or whatever else it is around, it'd be similar but with green wilderness surrounding it. I think it'd be possible to access it even without a car for most people in the city if they're kept small enough.
This is a video about Masdar City which seems to be similar in concept. Here, it is desert wilderness surrounding it. But there is lots of space in the park. Look at the video 1:49. Even in a dense urban like enviornment that is all new there can be space.
And the last time I checked, there is NO shortage of land in this country for those that prefer to live suburban or rural.
I disagree with the notion that the availability of natural resources are somehow unlimited and infinite. Land is a resource that is neither infinite nor unlimited. I also don't agree that limited resources should be exploited irresponsibly or for short-term monetary gain with no regard to the long-term consequences. Historically, societies often collapse because of resource depletion, mismanagement and unsustainable practices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPlainsDrifter73
We have so much land to grow food on that we export vast quantities each year.
Exports that are possible only because of vast US government subsidies provided to big agribusiness. These subsidies incentivizes mass overproduction for the export market, lining the pockets of big ag at great expense to the taxpayer. Another example of exploiting or abusing limited resources for short-term financial gain. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.
Land is a resource that is neither infinite nor unlimited. I also don't agree that limited resources should be exploited irresponsibly or for short-term monetary gain with no regard to the long-term consequences. Historically, societies often collapse because of resource depletion, mismanagement and unsustainable practices.
Land isn't infinite, but it's not being depleted to any significant degree either.
Quote:
Exports that are possible only because of vast US government subsidies provided to big agribusiness.
Whether true or not, it fails to address the point that land availability is in no way a limiting factor for food production in the US.
Land isn't infinite, but it's not being depleted to any significant degree either.
Whether true or not, it fails to address the point that land availability is in no way a limiting factor for food production in the US.
An arguable opinion. There's a lot of land out there, but not all of it is created equal. Much of it is not suitable for human habitation and farming. What we do have should not be taken for granted. When you are exploiting the land in a wasteful and inefficient manner, it won't be long before it stops being productive for you.
Toss in the twin threats of rapid population growth and high oil prices and you soon start to have some real problems, threats that exacerbate the problems of inefficiency. Industrial agriculture depends on cheap oil, which is what the chemical fertilizers are made of and fuels the giant tractors and heavy farming equipment. What happens when oil is no longer cheap? What happens in the next few years when oil goes to $150 per barrel and US population shoots up by 50%? These are tough questions the leadership of this country prefers to ignore. The political leadership never thinks beyond the next election cycle. And as we all know, the way you get elected is by telling people what they want to hear. Not by telling them the truth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
