daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 9th, 2013, 08:26 PM   #21
10011
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 29

I'm currently living in a suburb to Stockholm, it's too depressing to put in words. All that light bullshit you see going on in this thread, that has made the buildings in many of our suburbs so sparse it's ridiculous. Things like how close it is to your kids school, your job, your supermarket, accessibility - actually having an environment people like to be in. That hasn't even been considered, the holy light can't be disturbed. But it's great, because this means we get room for all the parking spaces we need cause of this type of planning.

The most enjoyable suburb I've lived in was in the Netherlands. By far. And it wasn't even one of the better ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon5738 View Post
So your point is what, that light is not important in the wintertime
It's nowhere near as important as the drawbacks you automatically get with the more modernist approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon5738 View Post
Adding a few meters does not break city structure (usually the reason why you are not allowed to build tall buildings too close to your estate limit) and yes, it does provide with more light. If you do not believe me, go to Sweden in December and measure it for yourself. Neither does it constitutate a problem to walk a few extra meters, that has to be the most absurd argument I have ever heard.
Yes. Yes, it does. It can be countered (somewhat) by having a wall, a fance, a bush - something lining the estate limit. But these semi private areas truly disturb the structure.
10011 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 9th, 2013, 10:00 PM   #22
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 70,989
Likes (Received): 12205

The term "suburbs" is very, very broad so there may be a temptation to compare apples to oranges. There are wonderful old tree-lined suburbs for the well heeled, newly constructed suburbs that don't even have shrubs yet, and run down economically depressed suburbs with war-zone commie blocks.

Somehow I suspect people may pick and choose examples from different categories to make comparisons...
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman
Taller, Better no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2013, 11:27 PM   #23
Jon5738
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 18
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10011 View Post
I'm currently living in a suburb to Stockholm, it's too depressing to put in words. All that light bullshit you see going on in this thread, that has made the buildings in many of our suburbs so sparse it's ridiculous. Things like how close it is to your kids school, your job, your supermarket, accessibility - actually having an environment people like to be in. That hasn't even been considered, the holy light can't be disturbed. But it's great, because this means we get room for all the parking spaces we need cause of this type of planning.
Yet, the argument that is most commonly used by the "ehtical council" or whatever they call it is the protrution over older buildings. And you cannot eat the cake and still have it which seems to be the argument here. Either reduce density or screw urban renewal altogether. Why build taller buildings unless you also add more traffic space, parking garages and green areas?

Quote:
The most enjoyable suburb I've lived in was in the Netherlands. By far. And it wasn't even one of the better ones.
My point being the architecture should be made for the location, not make the location fit the architecture. Having taller buildings than the spaces in between offers functionality in central Europe but is not optimal in northern Europe.

Quote:
It's nowhere near as important as the drawbacks you automatically get with the more modernist approach.
It is not modernistic in essence, it is pragmatism. Why even bother plant a tree for hundreds of dollars if it will die within a few years and the replacement will cost thousands? And WHY does not the architect carry the liabilities when the architect design planting sites that does not correspond to the ISA guidelines? And what exactly is your argument for it? That it is too dificult to assign a proper space for a plant in the design process? Is it difficult to place concrete blocks around the tree so it actually might survive a passing car?

Quote:
Yes. Yes, it does. It can be countered (somewhat) by having a wall, a fance, a bush - something lining the estate limit. But these semi private areas truly disturb the structure.
Let me get this straight, you think it is an argument to walk 10 meters? If so, I guess you are in a wheelchair? If so, isn't it better for the buildings to be taller so the the roads can be wider? Or you the only person with disability that I have met that thinks otherwise?

A typical day in Stockholm you walk AT LEAST 1 km, quite often way more than that. You say there is a notable difference walking 1010 - 1100 meters over 1000 meters and that is a sufficient argument for reducing the available light in the first and second stories of the building? Seriously?
Jon5738 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2013, 11:02 PM   #24
Galro
Humanity through Urbanity
 
Galro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,248
Likes (Received): 9795

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon5738 View Post
My point being the architecture should be made for the location, not make the location fit the architecture. Having taller buildings than the spaces in between offers functionality in central Europe but is not optimal in northern Europe.
Yet many of the areas that are considered to most desirable to live in have equal or higher density with traditional closed blocks.
Galro no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu