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 never said I lived in New York. I just said that I live in a small suburban city (somewhere I will not mention in the USA) but wish I lived in Manhattan.
No, your question was a very loaded question that conveniently and disingenuously framed suburban sprawl to be the sole domain of the Sunbelt. Last time I checked, the suburbs of the Tri-State area are littered with cul du sac subdivisions and strip malls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by City_boi
Well it also wouldn't be sustainable to spread all those offices out in low-rises. Renewable energy can be used for HVAC and lighting. And sure skyscrapers as a whole use a lot of energy, but what about each unit per capita? If all the units in a skyscraper were spread out into individual buildings, the units would use more energy.
Density doesn't entail having to build 50-80 story buildings. Just look at DC, or better yet any of the major European capitals. They're predominantly mid-rise development. You can still build a skyscraper in the middle of a vast parking lot. Height means nothing when it comes to development. What matters is that it ties in to the surrounding community where it can be accessible by foot or transit. As someone stated before, the amount of energy consumed to maintain the air pressure within skyscrapers, as well as control the climate and run the elevators is rather immense.[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by City_boi
What's your point?
My point is that sustainability also relies on interaction among residents and employees within a community. When someone resides in a tower over 20 stories above the streetscape, they are detached from the rest of the community. Also highrises tend to surpass the human scale, making life rather impersonal and creating a community of strangers. I would definitely argue that there is a larger sense of community in Greenwich Village and SoHo than there is among the highrises of Midtown Manhattan.
As someone stated before, the amount of energy consumed to maintain the air pressure within skyscrapers, as well as control the climate and run the elevators is rather immense.
I would say neither are very sustainable in this country. All it took was the invention of the car, and Americans left the urban centers at a speed of 60 mph. NYC is the only city in America where over half of the population move around without a personal vehicle. If this were sustainable, this would be the rule for every city in America. Manhattan's population is now growing again, however it still has 700,000 fewer people than it did 100 years ago. When Manhattan regains those 700,000 people, then we can say it is sustainable. Economic forces are driving us urban lovers away from the big cities. Until that changes, urbanity is an endangered species.
I would say neither are very sustainable in this country. All it took was the invention of the car, and Americans left the urban centers at a speed of 60 mph. NYC is the only city in America where over half of the population move around without a personal vehicle. If this were sustainable, this would be the rule for every city in America. Manhattan's population is now growing again, however it still has 700,000 fewer people than it did 100 years ago. When Manhattan regains those 700,000 people, then we can say it is sustainable. Economic forces are driving us urban lovers away from the big cities. Until that changes, urbanity is an endangered species.
If you check the history of the car, you'll find that a major push behind the scenes by--gasp!--the automobile industry in the early 1950s led to the demolition of streetcar, otherwise known as trolley, systems in cities throughout the United States.
Your argument that cities where people don't need cars aren't sustainable is wrong, because people were gently coaxed (understatement alert!) into abandoning the convenience of cities. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. The suburban model is the unsustainable one; it has to be propped up artificially.
Forget city sustainability. Which place can I live and sustain a decent amount of money in my pockets after all my monthly bills are paid? Living in NYC for 40 years and retiring with a $15k nest egg isn't a good look.
Forget city sustainability. Which place can I live and sustain a decent amount of money in my pockets after all my monthly bills are paid? Living in NYC for 40 years and retiring with a $15k nest egg isn't a good look.
Ain't that the truth. New Yorkers have been coming to the Carolinas in HUGE numbers for the last 3 decades. The #1 reason is cost of living. I love urbanity (hence my name) but why does good urbanity come with a $300 per sq/ft or better price tag? My neighborhood here in Charlotte averages $75 to $85 per sq/ft and 3 bus routes service the neighborhood (two light rail stations are about a mile away also). 5 miles north is uptown Charlotte and 5 miles south is Carowinds theme park. NYC crushes Charlotte when it comes to urbanity, but Charlotte is by far a much better bang for your buck. Even a condo tower in Charlotte is much cheaper than the same sized condo tower in NYC. If urbanity does not come down in price, urbanity will continue to be abadoned. It is what it is.
Ain't that the truth. New Yorkers have been coming to the Carolinas in HUGE numbers for the last 3 decades. The #1 reason is cost of living. I love urbanity (hence my name) but why does good urbanity come with a $300 per sq/ft or better price tag? My neighborhood here in Charlotte averages $75 to $85 per sq/ft and 3 bus routes service the neighborhood (two light rail stations are about a mile away also). 5 miles north is uptown Charlotte and 5 miles south is Carowinds theme park. NYC crushes Charlotte when it comes to urbanity, but Charlotte is by far a much better bang for your buck. Even a condo tower in Charlotte is much cheaper than the same sized condo tower in NYC. If urbanity does not come down in price, urbanity will continue to be abadoned. It is what it is.
This seems logical at first, but there's a big flaw. Do you think that Charlotte has more things to offer, the demand for homes is higher, and the value of land is much more expensive. All these factors measure into for the price. You cant find anything like it in the rest of the US so its much more of value.
This seems logical at first, but there's a big flaw. Do you think that Charlotte has more things to offer, the demand for homes is higher, and the value of land is much more expensive.
I don't know about other people, but for me having an option of 500 Italian restaurants, 350 of which I can walk to, is overkill. Five or six really good Italian restaurants, two or three of which I can walk to if I choose to live near downtown, is sufficient. Give me the five or six great Italian restaurants and a fat retirement nest egg. Others can have their 500 Italian restaurants and a measly $4k in the bank and a laughable 401(k) that's more like a 0.401(k) at retirement.
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.
