Something I don't get about America (and most of Europe) is that 10-story is seen like "wow, too big".
I live in the 14th floor of a 18-story building (4 apartments per floor), and next to me there are other ~20-story strictly residencial buildings. Life is amazing here, I have swimming pool, gym and sauna in the condo and it costs me next to nothing since the costs are shared between all residents. And it's never crowded. But the best part is that there's a positive side-effect: since I have everything at hand, I don't need to leave my home often and that made me switch to remote work full-time (the office started to seem boring).
It means, I'm living in a densely populated building and commuting less than I was when I lived in a smaller apartment complex.
I really think cities should consider this for their future: taller buildings with built-in amenities, ready for remote work. Make people want to live there and also don't want to commute. You get the density without the associated traffic congestion.
This sounds horrible to me. I don't want to share hallways or lobbies or parking lots or pools. When I lived in an apartment someone hit my brand new car. No such problems at my house. My house has a pool and hot tub. I can use it at 3 am if I want to and I don't have to even think about it.
I have family in Europe too. They live in a 4 story townhome in a small German city with their own garage and driveway and front door very similar to American townhomes. It's the middle of town next to a three story American style mall built right into the town center near a castle tourist destination. But it's also so rural there's nothing if you drive even 10 minutes out of town. And there's nothing to do at night.
They also own a small piece of land nearby where my grandparents hang out all day and grow food. In essence it's not much different from an American lifestyle just with excellent walkability and a train direct to Berlin or Hamburg
I'm not a fan of that either; I'd rather live in a townhome or small condo building. But I'd still prefer that apartment in the 20-story building over a single-family home in a neighborhood where I have to drive everywhere.
You’ll be forced to buy an expensive car, pay for insurance, maintain it, get in car crashes and become maimed, pay for gas, and advocate for politics that require massive amounts of death and destruction to secure your oil supply and you’ll be happy.
The first problem is that we don't need to frame this discussion as "cars vs no cars". I'm not advocating for getting rid of cars because that wouldn't make sense and would be wildly impractical. Instead, what is being advocated is not having car-first infrastructure.
The second problem is that this preference, like other "decisions" is done without complete information or a feedback loop besides a monthly payment and gas prices. You don't feel the weight of the maintenance and taxes that go to paying for new highway construction. You don't really experience climate change in a feedback mechanism. You also aren't presenting equivalent options. Would someone prefer to walk over to the neighborhood grocery store to get their groceries or drive 5 miles away to a big-box retailer? I bet if you actually polled people you'd get 90%+ preferring the former. Framing it as "I want a car" versus not having a car presents the person being asked a question which implies taking something away from them, which is bad practice.
The third problem is that people prefer to own cars because we intentionally design our cities such that owning a car is the only choice. There's no competition. But you can clearly see that this isn't society's actual preference, because walkable neighborhoods across the country built before cars were prevalent usually have higher property values than the suburbs in the same city. If there was a mechanism such that people could choose neighborhoods they'd vote for or buy medium-density mixed-use neighborhoods where they can have a car with street parking or in the garage behind their house for less frequent activities and then they'd walk to the local grocery store, let their kids walk themselves to school, etc.
> Would someone prefer to walk over to the neighborhood grocery store to get their groceries or drive 5 miles away to a big-box retailer? I bet if you actually polled people you'd get 90%+ preferring the former.
Would they? Because I have actually had it both ways and I much prefer driving to a huge supermarket. Prices are lower, quality is better, selection is better.
> But you can clearly see that this isn't society's actual preference, because walkable neighborhoods across the country built before cars were prevalent usually have higher property values than the suburbs in the same city.
Per acre of land, sure, because you can cram in tons of apartments in the same area that one house would take up. That doesn’t mean more people actually prefer to live that way.
It is nice to be able to walk to school or church or whatnot, but when it comes to commercial retail, my experience is that suburban car-bound freeway mayhem is pretty fucking great. From my current suburban house in Texas I can reach almost any retail or commercial business I need within 5-15 minutes, and those are full size, full service retailers. Instead of a “neighborhood grocery store” that’s barely one step above a convenience store, I can go to H-E-B and get almost any kind of food I can imagine for extremely reasonable prices. Instead of a neighborhood hardware store I can go to Home Depot or Lowe’s. Either one. I used to live in an apartment in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, close to an actual supermarket (which kind of sucked), and even then I had nowhere close to the same access to retail. Maybe the biggest point in favor of walkable neighborhoods was that it was relatively cheap and easy to go to bars, but at some point I realized I could save money and drink with my wife at home (especially if we can drive to a cheap big-box liquor store!)
I do understand the appeal when it comes to things that are more community oriented than commercial. For instance, I understand that Orthodox Jews tend to live within walking distance of their synagogue because they can’t drive on the Sabbath, which means they live within walking distance of everyone else who goes to their synagogue, which means they can have physical communities. And that sounds really nice. But for the typical secularized, atomized American, what’s the point? Living cheek to jowl with total strangers and learning to ignore homeless people fucking sucked and I’m glad that part of my life is behind me. And the reason most of this country is built out the way it is, is that most people actually feel the same way.
I go grocery shopping once a week for my family. I'm not carrying home all of those groceries. You can count me in the < 10% preferring the latter. Our very good grocery store is about a half mile away. I drive about 5 miles to get a majority of our stuff at Costco, and on the way home I stop at the grocery store for the very few items that make sense to get there.
Ok so why would we design all cities and all infrastructure to cater to a small minority of people and use cases to the exclusion of all others? And the worst part is that if we designed for the 90% you’d still be able to do the thing you want to do, and it would be cheaper and faster for you. Instead we all have to drive to Costco.
I'd greatly question your 90% figure. I live close enough to live like you want. You could easily move within walking distance of a store, which is next door to a pharmacy, a couple of local restaurants, a barber, and a laundry mat. The reality is that people that live nearby still don't predominately walk to these places. Occasionally, sure. I'll go for a stroll.
The reason for that is because the infrastructure is still designed for cars. Roads are hostile to walk next to, people literally throw things at you. You can't ride a bike half a mile because there's either no sidewalk, or if there is you're supposed to use a painted bike lane and ride alongside traffic going 40-60 MPH. At least that's what keeps people in our current suburban area (and pretty much every one that I've ever seen or visited) from walking anywhere. It just comes down to infrastructure, which is extremely weak and fragile in America by design. You can't protest what your government does when you have to find parking first. You can't boycott Russia when you depend on them for your livelihood.
You can see that this is true because when you visit an actual neighborhood there are lots of people walking around and bikes and greater levels of economic activity. I'm not sure what metro area you live in but if you live in one I bet you have an area like I'm describing. It's probably where you and your friends or significant other go out for a nice dinner. Most of the country could be like that and you could still drive your car to Costco once/week.
You're literally inventing problems to explain why people in my town don't walk to a grocery store. We have quite a few grocery store spread out. Most of the city is easily within walking distance to one. It is not hostile to ride bikes here, we have sidewalks on every street, and I've never had anyone throw anything at me. The streets aren't clogged with traffic. I even see plenty of people walking and riding bikes, they just look like they're doing it for recreation.
Well I can't speak specifically to your town without knowing where it is, but it sounds like you live somewhere similar to where I currently live, and both areas are pretty hostile to anything but driving to participate in society. One of the red flags to spot is walking for recreation and only seeing people ride bikes for exercise versus day-to-day activities.
Even if you disagreed with some or all of the things I've said, dismissing them as an "invented problem" is pretty unfair.
For most people a car is the best compromise. There are cost is worth it, but the car is just a tool for getting around. There are a few collectors who own a car for other reasons, but most it is transportation. If they lived someplace where public transit was enough better they wouldn't own a car.
Enough better for transit is complex. It is a factor of cost, how nice it is, ability to get places when they want to, traffic, and a few other factors. The denser the city the more likely it is that transit is better.
I've lived in Hong Kong and Kyoto for a long time and most people here do prefer not to have a car. Even though it's relatively affordable in Kyoto, out of 15 people in my company only 2 had a driver's license.
10 stories is expensive. 3-5 stories is less than half the cost while getting you halfway there to a 10-story building. My parents live in a condo in a 20 story building, and the fees to maintain the condo are more than a brownstone apartment costs in some areas.
I live in a three story, single family home located at the top of a hill, with views for miles, surrounded by wooded acreage, in an area zoned “forest”.
Life is amazing here. I exercise outside, explore the landscape and the hiking trails surrounding me, and not only is it never crowded, it’s also safe, quiet, and beautiful.
The best part is that since I have everything at hand, including natural beauty, I don’t want or need to leave my home often, and have worked remotely for a Bay Area company for several years.
I often walk out my front door and go for a hike before starting my work day.
Living in an 18-story building surrounded by 20-story buildings would be, for me, a hellish existence.
You couldn’t pay me enough money to want to live there.
It does coexist in some cities, Hong Kong has amazing hiking trails less than 15 minutes from where I live while being one of the densest city in the world.
Likewise Kyoto is a relatively big city, 30 minutes away by public transit from Osaka which is even bigger but there's easy access to nature (although in the last 5 years before covid it was overrun by tourists)
Electricity and water are usually close to 100% paid for by the bills and if not it's not exactly a big difference if they are. The roads and the occasional big investment in something like a water treatment plan are paid via taxes. The money taxes a circuitous route to get there since so much money goes to fed and state taxes who then fractionally fund these sorts of infrastructure upkeep things. Unless a community is exceptionally rich or poor the people living there pay roughly what it costs +/- a few percent. Rich communities get less because their taxes get redirected to poorer communities to a larger extent. If poorer communities were not benefits of this wealth transfer they find ways to make do with less but it wouldn't be the financial devastation that many here like to imply.
Schools are an infinite money pit. Their expenses grow to consume what is available. Likewise their expenses can be trimmed if the money is simply not available. As we've learned from pumping poorly performing schools full of money, expenditure is only loosely correlated with results.
Children need to be schooled whether they live in a large house or are crammed into a tiny condo.
True, but doesn't seem relevant to the discussion. GP said homes pay as much in taxes as they receive in services.
I disputed that by pointing out that even with very large homes, the people in the home receive far more educational services than their taxes pay for.
Your response to that is to say children need education?
Most of the suburbs, small cities and towns I've been in are predominately single family homes, yet they somehow all have schools paid for by taxes. People that tend to live in very large homes tend to pay disproportionately larger shares of taxes.
small cities and towns I've been in are predominately single family homes, yet they somehow all have schools paid for by taxes
That somehow is because they tax people that don't have kids in school. In fact, municipalities can nudge this.
Approve a 55+ community and it will give the community a net tax benefit. Same thing with a condo community. But approve a plan for a community of single family homes with 4+ bedrooms and you will have a huge drain on the tax base literally forever.
It seems to me that's where most of the world is going (except America?). I moved yesterday in a similar setup in Istanbul. I could take the elevator down and in a 100m radius there is a coffee-shop, convenience store, gym, food places, and other commerce. There is also a co-working space in the next building. I've been in similar places in Bangkok/Kuala Lumpur.
America is seriously the only country that seems to think single use zoning is a good idea. Mixed use has always been the default in the rest of the world.
I think the problem is that buildings like you describe don't contribute to the city at street level. If the residental buildings are smaller then the gym, sauna, swimming pool will have to be in the neighborhood available to everyone.
I wouldn't swim in a "neighbourhood pool", doesn't seem hygienic.
A neighbour gym would also be crowded all the time, all my friends that have to go out for the gym always complain about that.
The public sauna seems ok, but I've never seem any of that in the streets besides "erotic saunas" that are not really intended for the same purposes...
> I wouldn't swim in a "neighbourhood pool", doesn't seem hygienic.
It is as hygienic as any other swimming pool. Unless you literally have your own pool in your backyard, which overwhelming majority of swimmers dont, you are not getting more hygiene.
> A neighbour gym would also be crowded all the time, all my friends that have to go out for the gym always complain about that.
This may depend on locality, but fair solution to that is allowing simple capitalism and more businesses. Someone gonna build second gym.
> It is as hygienic as any other swimming pool. Unless you literally have your own pool in your backyard, which overwhelming majority of swimmers dont, you are not getting more hygiene.
(Former) private pool owner here. I'd bet most public neighborhood pools are much more hygienic than a private pool where we'd only test the water when algae started growing. Public pools have proper maintenance and much better systems for chlorination/salt cleaning.
One thing I learned from friends in Panama: a pool comes with a pool guy and if it doesn't it'll quite literally convert into a cesspool all by itself. Pools need regular upkeep and that's a lot of work.
It’s not “affluent and sheltered” at all. My cousin just moved from Bangladesh to the Dallas suburbs, after having lived in Queens. I bet if I asked her how she feels about having a house with a pool now she’d say the same thing.
See, I've never actually heard about these sort of high rise mini neighborhoods here, I think we only have a handful of buildings that count as skyscrapers at all. Most building are actually 10 story or less and we have a huge amount of small terraced houses for one family.
I live in the 14th floor of a 18-story building (4 apartments per floor), and next to me there are other ~20-story strictly residencial buildings. Life is amazing here, I have swimming pool, gym and sauna in the condo and it costs me next to nothing since the costs are shared between all residents. And it's never crowded. But the best part is that there's a positive side-effect: since I have everything at hand, I don't need to leave my home often and that made me switch to remote work full-time (the office started to seem boring).
It means, I'm living in a densely populated building and commuting less than I was when I lived in a smaller apartment complex.
I really think cities should consider this for their future: taller buildings with built-in amenities, ready for remote work. Make people want to live there and also don't want to commute. You get the density without the associated traffic congestion.