James Howard Kunstler's argument against skyscrapers

[ChargerCarl]

Sweet jesus...

[10023]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

London does poorly per km of track. I think they're the data point in the far right corner.

I find this hard to believe, given how overcrowded it's been on basically every train I've ever been on here.

[ChargerCarl]

Well if you're only riding in the core then yeah.

[10023]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Well if you're only riding in the core then yeah.

I'm including intercity trains to places like Bournemouth.

If London public transportation is considered to have low ridership per mile of track, that's only because there are so many damn miles of track.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by 10023

I'm including intercity trains to places like Bournemouth.

If London public transportation is considered to have low ridership per mile of track, that's only because there are so many damn miles of track.

Its accurate I just verified the numbers myself to make sure. It gets less ridership per day than every major Japanese system.

[Gordo]

The difference is mostly frequency. There are no lines (from the various subway companies or JR) in Tokyo where a train isn't coming every 5-10 minutes or less. Central London frequency is this high, but not the outer lines or ends of the lines. In Japan, these outer line areas would be densified right around the stations and frequency would be increased, since the expensive work of building the tracks and stations is already done.

[Shawn]

Gordo and Charger nail it together: zoning which allows for density in places where similar densities would never be allowed in North America or most of Europe, coupled with frequencies outside of the core - facilitated by the densities.

Never mind that during peak commute times, the Yamanote comes every 90 seconds. During peak times way the hell out in places like Hachioji or Sagamihara, commuter line trains come every 4-5 minutes. This would be like if the Metro North line left New Haven for Grand Central every 4-5 minutes, instead of every 40-50 minutes like it currently does. You also have a lot more semi-express, express, and super-express lines which move the fringe commuters in and out of town a lot more efficiently. Why can this happen? Because Hachioji and Sagamihara have residential densities of 30-40k pp/sq mile around their main stations (plural), despite being nondescript bedroom cities 30-40 miles east of Tokyo. You don't see that in most of Europe; you never see that in the US or Canada.

I'd add a third component: crosstown line coverage not seen anywhere else in the world. Want to go from one of the Shonan suburbs southwest of Yokohama to somewhere in Saitama's suburbs? Not a problem, and there's no need to route through central Tokyo to do it. As far as I know, you cannot take a train from New Brunswick NJ to Newburg NY without heading into Manhattan first, which would be roughly equivalent.

[RST500]

Originally Posted by Gordo

The difference is mostly frequency. There are no lines (from the various subway companies or JR) in Tokyo where a train isn't coming every 5-10 minutes or less. Central London frequency is this high, but not the outer lines or ends of the lines. In Japan, these outer line areas would be densified right around the stations and frequency would be increased, since the expensive work of building the tracks and stations is already done.

Tokyo was damaged badly from WWII and had to rebuild most of their city from scratch. London was already very dense in the 19th Century prior to the Construction of the Underground.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by RST500

Tokyo was damaged badly from WWII and had to rebuild most of their city from scratch. London was already very dense in the 19th Century prior to the Construction of the Underground.

Um, London was pretty badly damaged during WWII as well - that's why it's often called a modern city with a medieval street layout or with areas "planned by the Luftwaffe". Also, Tokyo didn't significantly alter their train ROWs after the war any more than London did.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Um, London was pretty badly damaged during WWII as well - that's why it's often called a modern city with a medieval street layout or with areas "planned by the Luftwaffe". Also, Tokyo didn't significantly alter their train ROWs after the war any more than London did.

And most of those Tokyo ROWs were laid down 1890-1910, at the tail end of the Meiji Restoration and at the start of the Taisho Republic.

[RST500]

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/...-dense/505541/


Why are European Cities so dense?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Um, London was pretty badly damaged during WWII as well - that's why it's often called a modern city with a medieval street layout or with areas "planned by the Luftwaffe". Also, Tokyo didn't significantly alter their train ROWs after the war any more than London did.

London wasn't terribly damaged from WW2, though. The UK had no destroyed cities like on the Continent or in Japan.

German bombing in UK was pretty limited compared to the German attacks on places like Rotterdam, and the later revenge bombing by the UK and US. The Brits, in particular, eviscerated a number of German cities, long after the war had been decided, in what people generally agree were revenge or morale-crushing bombings, rather than bombings with military objectives.

[RST500]

I'm somewhat skeptical of this theory, but one of Kusntler's points is that he predicts massive power outages so buildings should not be taller than a person can be able to walk up stairs. But it's also depends on the region, and the type of building.

[mhays]

And how freaking lazy most people are.

[RST500]

A lot of people are to lazy to even walk up one floor but even someone on decent shape would struggle walking up the stairs of a 30 story building during a power outage.

[memph]

Originally Posted by RST500

A lot of people are to lazy to even walk up one floor but even someone on decent shape would struggle walking up the stairs of a 30 story building during a power outage.

It would be a PITA to do on a regular basis but it's still perfectly doable if you're in half decent shape.

[mhays]

What's a stairclimb compared to the distances most people travel every day? You'd get in shape quickly.

[memph]

Originally Posted by mhays

What's a stairclimb compared to the distances most people travel every day? You'd get in shape quickly.

It would be like a bunch of vertical cul-de-sacs. Doing 30 floors of stairs would be about 15min if you're able to do it with little to no stops? So roughly equivalent to a 4000 ft long cul-de-sac, but with the ability to have a much high density of "cul-de-sac entrances" once you reach ground level compared to a suburban array of cul-de-sacs.

The amount of people you'd pass doing 15min of stairclimbing would be about the same as walking 15min along a cul-de-sac of SFHs so the amount of amenities you could support within the building itself (ex at midlevel) would be relatively limited. Once you reach ground level you'll have a lot without walking distance, so for the typical 30min commute that works alright compared to a more lowrise alternative where most people don't have cars.

However, if you have to go 20-25min for groceries including carrying them up a lot of stairs that would be annoying. You'd probably want to make sure you combine them with a work trip and only take up a day's worth of groceries. So it might be better than the alternative if the alternative is sprawl, but not as effecient as midrises (vs highrises being more efficient than midrises today).

[mhays]

I'd say more like five minutes without stopping.

Also, the average resident of a 30-story building would be on floor 15 or 16.

Midrises would probably be more popular though, true.

[scalziand]

Personally, I'd put the limit for walkups at about 10 floors. That answer might change as I get older though