This video explores low and high urban densities and promotes the adoption of gentle density and traditional architecture to develop appealing, sustainable, and walkable urban environments.
Air Hockey Saloon by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Source: http://chriszabriskie.com/vendaface/
Artist: http://chriszabriskie.com/
how should we plan urban areas over half of the world’s population lives in urban areas it’s now more relevant than ever to plan Urban Land efficiently this means avoiding sprawl and separation of functions to ensure sustainable Urban Development if we take a look at energy consumption and urban density and compare North American Australian European and Asian cities the picture is clear in low density cities in North America and Australia energy consumption per capita is far higher than the amount of energy used in European and Asian cities so the question is what type of urban developments should we build to achieve High densities and is there a perfect density cities with very low densities that are mostly made up of spraing Suburbia are bad for everybody different functions like residential and Commercial are separated creating long distances between destinations and forcing people to to drive as a result a vast amount of parking is required just about everywhere creating ugly and inefficient cities if we create a small hierarchy of building typologies in the middle we have something that can be referred to as gentle density this could be regarded as the perfect density a sweet spot that is not too overcrowded and not to sparsely populated built at a human scale alternatives to driving like Ive modes of transportation and public transport are only viable in dense urban areas only in such areas where destinations are nearby and there is a mix of functions it’s possible to have most daily necessities and services available within a short walk or bike ride and this doesn’t mean that we have to build skyscrapers to achieve High densities in cities with very high densities something seems wrong housing people in compact Horror’s developments is for sure an efficient way but it feels way too overcrowded you sort of feel like being crushed when walking around hores are complicated structures that lack a human scale this is particularly evident when tall buildings are situated closely together as done in Asian cities or North American city centers Horrors is placed closely lead to issues such as heat entrapment reduced natural ventilation and the formation of large Shadow areas further more Harris buildings come with increased costs related to foundations and the heating and cooling of such structures but when it comes to developing info projects in highly desirable locations and zoning regulations permit har reses developers will construct them to make return so do building hars as results in high densities and lowers as results in low density take a look at these two developments a high development and a lower development the H res seem to have a high population density and the low Rises are less densely populated but the population density is almost the same and the low density development even has a higher dwelling density than the hris development people often confuse density with building type assuming that detached buildings have a lower density than large housing types various Urban forms can be achieved at the same density meaning there is literal relation between density and urban form while haris is generally signify high density and lowers as indicate low density this is not always the case this example demonstrates that a higher dwelling density can be achieved through lowrise buildings this results in a much more pleasant human scale neighborhood of course we could always build higher to increase the dwelling density but then it would feel way too overcrowded cities that are considered some of the best Urban living environments in the world are characterized by gentle density including midrise mix use buildings and roow houses these are cities formed by traditional Urban blocks that create cohesive islands of urban fabric the uniformity of facades and circling city blocks remains uninterrupted forming a continuous streetcape however with the rise of modernism planners and Architects began constructing open blocks this disrupted the uniformity of the urban fabric and allowed for more noise pollution in the backyard and with the Risen modernism came the notion that form follows function modernist architecture lacks detail and thus identity when you think of a Street Cape in Amsterdam you think of their tow houses when you think of Paris you think of its Limestone buildings when you look at modern developments it’s soless you don’t think of any particular place frenly these buildings stand out and demand attention rather than blending in with our surroundings and creating a cohesive Urban fabric cities and countries around the world should have their own architectural Styles giving each place a unique identity and making every location interesting and we can still construct aesthetically pleasing buildings just as we have done for centuries but before sprinting outward and building new neighborhoods it’s essential to densify the existing Urban Fabric and make it a desirable place to live so let’s keep building what people have come to enjoy and make cities great places to live
35 Comments
amen
From Sukhum. Abkhazia
Word
Word
You deserve way more subscribers than this , great video!
great video mate, totally agree
Thank you for talking about the importance of traditional, beautiful architecture. There aren't many videos about urbanism that talk about this topic!
Is there any scientific evidence to back up the notion that high rise developments are inherently worse for people than mid rise buildings? That doesn't seem to be the case, and you even admit that high rise developments are much more energy efficient. One thing that is undeniably true is that building taller allows for more outdoor pedestrian and green spaces, which a lot of people tend to value. High rise development more easily justifies high capacity and frequency public transportation which is partly why East Asian countries have such good public transportation. Since high rises add such a large amount of housing supply, they bring down average rents of nearby areas and make cities more affordable. The opposite of that which is height restrictions and other artificial constraints on housing supply, is a major problem in western countries right now. It seems more likely that this sentiment against high rise development is a mostly Western European and North American thing and is based on what you're familiar with.
This video was amazing I totally agree! :] Maybe you could make one dispelling the myth that modern looking trams are somehow way more efficient than more classic looking trolleys? I am a fan of both but see nothing wrong with a vintage looking one. I do hate when boring modern buildings ruin cohesive hisoric urban fabric.
I ageee with your video, gentle density is great. However, thats not totally possible in cities that still have massive swaths of single family development, which pushes the only dense housing onto extremely small parcels, incentivizing developers to build tall or build nothing at all
This channel will be huge soon if you continue! Great vid!
2:54 if Low rise and high rise have the density, it is obvious the in the case of LOW-RISE the buildings will take up MORE LAND and the HIGH-RISE will take up LESS LAND (as these pictures show). Therefore if you have high rises then(in the same density) you can have more land freed up for other uses such as parks. Just look at the difference in park land in the same area.
Yes, let's do the thing that you said we should do in the end. Imagine how cool it would be if you could look at a photo of a city and know where in the world it is
I live in what could be described as a Dutch suburb and, considering the fact that it's on the outer edge of a small ish city (around 100k inhabitants), I quite like it. It's still relatively dense (row houses, which makes for good density even though every house has a front and back yard and sits on about 125 m2 of land, yards included), about a 5 minute bike ride away from the shopping center, and about a 20 minute bike ride away from the main train station. Suburbs don't have to be sprawling seas of terribleness. You can also just have relatively dense suburbs, which is still beneficial even in lower density areas.
I like high sky buildings
This is like pronouncing that “a city should have no more than 5 subway lines. Anything else means the residents spend too much time underground instead of interacting with the city.”
Housing density is partially about economic needs of the city. SoHo and the West Village in NYC are very pleasant and places like that should be preserved, but they’re also the single most expensive places to live per sqft precisely because there is just less housing there.
Obviously massive towers without any amenities like the public housing projects of the 1960s are alienating and bad, but you can have large towers at density with sufficient green space and residential amenities. Stuy Town in NYC is a good example of a “Towers in the Garden” model down right.
very good film, contains valuable knowledge. but my advice comes from the heart, don't read individual words, but read groups of thoughts. you speak too clearly, which gives a sense of artificiality, try to say it like a speech and not like a lecture. good luck on your journey yt
I love living in low density sprawl
*Phoenix not Pheonix
Meh. As a Dutchie and a New Yorker currently doing another round of life in the Netherlands.
I definitely prefer the upper east side. Nothing in Europe comes close to that level of livability, and the density of dutch cities is laughably low when compared to real cities, while auto use is actually extremely high.
Where is that location in 5:13 minute?
I disagree. High rises are great because they allow more people to live closer together and closer to everywhere they want to go. You just can’t get the kind of densities you can with high rises with low rises, unless you want everyone to live in a closet. The example you gave of low rises being about the same density as high rises was laughably bad because those high rises weren’t even that tall and also were very very spaced out while the low rises filled the picture to the brim. You mentioned a lot that high rises make you feel small and crushed, but that is completely subjective and they make me feel inspired. I also think that your part about needing every place to look different is ok, but really has nothing to do with high rise versus low rise. I don’t really see the importance though, and I think that it is much better for a resident to be able to know exactly where in their city they are, rather than for outsiders to what city they’re in just by looking. Buildings that try to stand out achieve this much better.
Masterfully done! Just watching the footage of traditional structures and cityscapes alone was really soothing.
It's sad but there are some poor countries who are not qualified to pursue aesthetic human scale development even before solving their housing crisis.
Would love to see more neighbourhoods like these in my city! Also, love the production quality of your content. Keep up the great work👍
3:46 is in Ukraine and is Kyiv. I recognise certain types of buildings (projects): 111-96, Т, КТ.
UPD: The older smaller grey 20-floor highrise on the right is 17 Polyarna Street. It is a special project with big windows. It is filmed from the Simyi Kulzhenkiv Street.
Greetings from Kyiv the capital of Ukraine.
Soviet districts are not bad (better than suburbia) but outdated if not modified with bike infrastructure, safer road design, on-street crosswalks instead of underpasses and asphalt trails instead of concrete slab trails that make impossible to navigate for the disabled. They are not very dense. They have big spaces filled with greenery.
Historically, the underpasses were built to make pedestrians go under the road to cross so that would make easier to drive faster for people on cars that were not very common in the Soviet Union that meant that drivers are de-facto privileged.
People for disabilities were moved to special towns across the USSR so the general public doesn't see them.
Vai jūs esat PC biedrs gadījumā?
America was made by idiots for idiots.
Not everything needs to seem European
foršs video!
I think the real evil behind such ugly soapbox is the deindustrialisation(bay area construction employment took 7 years recover to 2000s level) and financialization(5-over-1s are held by corporate landlords, mostly private equity.), or there's no reason why the rich young professionals even can not afford something looks like the pre-war boarding home. And actually the "tower over parks" was carried out by the enemy of urbanist Jane Jacobs——Robert Moses. Jane Jacobs preferred the shorter but denser buildings. For further reading:http://properscale.blogspot.com/2012/03/squeezing-jane-jacobs-density-question.html
Impeccable video! Thank you. Indeed, we need to build better than we have. We know what makes cities beautiful, and we can replicate the magic elsewhere. Although constructing attractive buildings brings its costs, ugly, low-cost developments do nothing to enhance the environment. Here, in the Netherlands, I see wrecking balls eliminating a fair amount of cheap buildings from the '70s, '80s, and '90s. Those bland buildings had often replaced beautiful Dutch buildings (albeit sometimes in disrepair).
Who are you or anyone else to decide how anyone else should live, typical communist!
👉 Promo'SM
Where do you get the data for the graph at 0:34? The data for density seems to be waaaay too erratic. It looks that some cities have the density of the city proper, others the density of the metropolitan area, others the density of just the urbanised area… IDK, I might be wrong, but it doesn't pass the sniff tast for me.