• We're a fun, friendly, and diverse group of planners, placemakers, students, and other folks who found their people here. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! Use your email address, or register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

Should we be less vertical?

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
In our quest for higher density, downtown high rise apartments/condos have a certain appeal. However, with the intelligence "chatter" indicating imminent terrorist action against the US with apartment complexes as probable targets, should we discourage this form of development?

How much longer before the below linked headlines have North American addresses?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_448000/448993.stm
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
Vertical vs. Horizontal

Certainly, a large apartment building makes an attractive target. But, so does a municipal water supply, a suburban shopping mall, or a major freeway bridge. By encouraging energy consuming low density development, we are expanding our exposure to people who hate us.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
33
Re: Vertical vs. Horizontal

BKM wrote:
By encouraging energy consuming low density development, we are expanding our exposure to people who hate us.
An interesting view - it makes me think I could argue either side and still not win the debate! Care to expand on your thoughts?
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
Vertical vs. horizontal

Just that our entire energy profligate lifestyle (heck, I am certainly to blame too, I don't drive no Insight, and I drive a lot) means that we import a lot of oil. The Middle East (and the government of Venezuela) don't like us. We have to help prop up unpopular governments. That encourages terrorism.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a "blame America first" ideologue. Just pointing out that our lifestyle-particularly if more low density, high driving patterns continue, inevitably exposes us to terrorism.

This is just a poorly written opinion, of course. But, to avoid the wrath of that one poster, gotta get back to work :)
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
I am not sure this was intended to be a horizontal v vertical debate. I still strongly support higher density. The only question being how high?

In our personal plans for future residence my wife and I had been leaning towards a mid rise (approx 10 floors) condominium tower. The even taller residential towers in places such as Vancouver were very appealing too. However, now we are thinking that a live over work townhouse just outside of a downtown CBD (but still accessible to public transit - preferably rail/trolley) would be better. Part of the "better" is the perception of being less of a target.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
Well, some of the neotraditionalists (and old traditionalists) would certainly argue that you can get pretty high density in a relatively low-height environment. A townhouse over live work sounds like a great option. I think the major goal is mixed use, less car-dependent lifestyle.

But, I need to practice what I preach :). Although, I do live in a townhouse next to downtown Vacaville, I work ten miles away and drive to the central Bay Area a lot on weekends.
 

Lee Nellis

Cyburbian
Messages
1,371
Points
28
To quote from Christopher Alexander's The Pattern Language (a book I find far too few planners know) "Tall buildings make people crazy." Alexander defines anything over four stories as tall.
 
Top