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.
There was a chart I saw somewhere that showed the ideal relationship between a person's height, the streetwall, and also how tall trees are. From what I've mostly seen, the ideal height is 2 to 3 stories, partly because that's how tall most trees in an urban area will grow to without disturbing the surrounding pavement/utilities. If I found the chart, I'd be more sure of it, but I think that was the gist of it.
a tree is an interesting model for ideal building height. gives you a sense of natural proportion any person can relate to. the ancient roman architect Vitruvius said 'architecture is an imitation of nature.' as birds and bees built their nests, so humans use natural materials to shelter them from the elements. his 10-volume treatise 'De architectura' was based on classical greek orders doric, ionic and corinthian and might be the single greatest influence and basis of almost all (non-modernist) western art and architecture. da Vinci's famous drawing of ideal human proportion 'Vitruvian man' was named after him. I don't know if its related to your chart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
For whatever reason I prefer 2 stories over 1 story. One story is too low slung and flat feeling.
short buildings that are wider than they are tall, gives one an (unconscious) sense of sleeping or lying flat on the ground. rather like a coffin. which I think explains in part why aptly named 'bedroom communities' seem like deathly dull places to live.
a tree is an interesting model for ideal building height. gives you a sense of natural proportion any person can relate to. the ancient roman architect Vitruvius said 'architecture is an imitation of nature.' as birds and bees built their nests, so humans use natural materials to shelter them from the elements. his 10-volume treatise 'De architectura' was based on classical greek orders doric, ionic and corinthian and might be the single greatest influence and basis of almost all (non-modernist) western art and architecture. da Vinci's famous drawing of ideal human proportion 'Vitruvian man' was named after him. I don't know if its related to your chart.
It was more similar to these two charts though it was more colorful.
A circular shaped city with 4-5 storey buildings throughout and with a radius of 20 miles would also have about 50 million residents (assuming 40k ppsm average density), more than any existing city by a good bit.
That's still sprawl. Sprawl is synonymous with widespread horizontal development. And would want to live in an environment like that?
I don't have much of a preference... I guess 2 stories gives more of a sense of enclosure. Beijing's hutongs are predominantly 1 storey: Beijing hutong | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
As for congestion due to skyscrapers, it's surprising how few cars you see in Hong Kong on streetview. Most of the vehicles seem to be buses, trucks and to a lesser degree taxis with just a few cars. Sidewalks and roadways are busy, but aside from the busiest streets, I wouldn't call them crowded/congested. Its subway is not that extensive compared to Western cities when you consider Hong Kong's population and density, so if it was expanded it wouldn't have so many buses taking up street space, not to mention Hong Kong's population is fairly dispersed with thin strips of urbanity in valleys and along the shore separated by unpopulated mountains, which increases distances.
hong kong has a great transit system, but doesn't rely so much on private automobiles. their congestion is due more to the density of people than cars. I don't know what its like to live in a city with those characteristics, but seems like an interesting place to visit to see what its like in person. some asian cities seem to be in a class of their own. there's lots of skyscrapers in hk, but I wouldn't necessarily consider the city ugly, though the slum areas would qualify. I can't put my finger on it but there's a certain energy and liveliness about hong kong in general that seems attractive. its certainly a popular tourist destination.
interesting links. I think life between buildings should be required reading for all architecture and urban planning students in NA. along with geography of nowhere and home from nowhere. throw in all 10 volumes of de architectura for good measure. sure beats whatever crud the schools are spoon-feeding them now.
interesting links. I think life between buildings should be required reading for all architecture and urban planning students in NA. along with geography of nowhere and home from nowhere. throw in all 10 volumes of de architectura for good measure. sure beats whatever crud the schools are spoon-feeding them now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's more complicated than what's learned in school. There are stakeholders involved in the urban planning process that do not care about urban planning. A lot of stakeholders don't even know about urban planning. "Who?" you ask? The general public and politicians.
I don't disagree with that. but gotta start somewhere. the old geezers may still dominate our political system with an iron fist, but they wont live forever. there might still be hope yet for the younger generation, as the old farts begin to die out. and it begins with their education.
I don't disagree with that. but gotta start somewhere. the old geezers may still dominate our political system with an iron fist, but they wont live forever. there might still be hope yet for the younger generation, as the old farts begin to die out. and it begins with their education.
This assumes that urban planners and architects are making the political decisions. It's the politicians and the general public doing it. And if they're not interested in urban planning, they're not interested. It's like explaining the engineering that goes into a typical car to a typical car buyer - eyes will just glaze over because all they will want is car that takes them from A to B.
And if it goes out in all directions for, say 10-20 miles, what do you have? Sprawl!
[dense sprawl is still sprawl]
I understand your position. Nonetheless, I've always used "sprawl" to mean development that is extensively outward but not upward. So, I would use sprawl in regards to a city/area that has not encouraged densification but has continued to grow through horizontal expansion.
A city that city as large as you describe that bottoms at 4 floors I would call sprawling, but I wouldn't use the pejorative colloquial form, "sprawl".
In your context, your use of sprawl makes sense to you but not to me.
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.
