Safer, saner cities

Jeremy Eades @ 24-04-2008

city park The more I go through life, the more I find that other people have very different experiences.  But if you’re from middle America, or any major city, much of Nature you’ve seen in your adult life has been through a car window going somewhere else.  And the traditional view of future cities has been a bigger and better version of the concrete jungle, like a bad SimCity where everyone lives in one area, commutes to work in another and goes shopping in a third.

A recent study found that more “walkable” neighborhoods bode well for the elderly, not merely for exercise and physical health, but also for their mental wellbeing.  Specifically,

Berke speculates that walkable neighborhoods might be so important because they promote social connection and reduce isolation, a major predictor of depression. “If people are out walking to destinations, they run into each other”, he says. “And then they talk, or interact, or share ideas”.  He adds that city streets with their shorter blocks, more direct routes, and greater number of intersections—can be more walkable than suburban ones. They also have greater population density, which increases the probability that people meet one another by chance.

This sort of connection between people in a neighborhood is something that has been lost in modern American cities and towns since the rise of the automobile and long-distance commuting became regular.  At least, it’s something that I’ve seen and heard about, but have never actually experienced.  But, with rising gas prices and actual debates going on about changing the way our cities grow, this is something that could impact our perception of futuristic cities.

(via SciTechDaily) (image from Andreas.)


Related posts

Tags:

Two miles high, one mile wide, and housing a million people

Edward Willett @ 30-01-2008

Cover of The World Inside In Robert Silverberg’s 1971 novel The World Inside (a book I remember fondly for having contributed a great deal to my early sex education), the bulk of the 75 billion people on a future Earth live inside Urban Monads, or Urbmons, each of which is three kilometres tall and houses 800,000 people. (Via io9.)

Architect Eugene Tsui has a proposal on his website for something similar: the two-mile high “Ultima” Tower, intended to be home to a million people:

There are 120 levels to the structure with great heights at each level. The scale of this stucture is such that the entire central district of Beijing could fit into its base. One must not think in terms of floors but, instead, imagine entire landscaped neighborhood districts with “skies” that are 30 to 50 meters high. Lakes, streams, rivers, hills and ravines comprise the soil landscape on which residential, office, commercial, retail and entertainment buildings can be built…the structure itself acts like a living organism with its wind and atmospheric energy conversion systems, photovoltaic exterior sheathing, and opening/closing cowl-vent windows that allow natural air into the interior without mechanical intervention….ecological efficiency is a rule and all areas of the structure feature resource conserving technolgy such as recycled building materials, compost toilets, nature-based water cleansing systems for all buildings, plentiful amounts of forrest, plant life and water-based ecosystems.

Even the setting would be beautiful:

The tower is surrounded on all sides by a lake. Sandy beaches, stone cliffs, water inlets, grass, trees and rocky islands create a beautiful and majestic setting…

Could such a thing ever be built? Well, Tsui’s concept dates back to 1991, and nobody’s breaking ground for it yet, or for similar projects like Tokyo’s SkyCity. (The projected $150 billion price tag might have something to do with that.) But the problems of urban sprawl and overpopulation aren’t going away, and structures like this could be part of the solution.

And to me, at least, it actually sounds like a pretty cool place to live…unlike Silverberg’s rather nightmarish (plentiful–mandatory, in fact–sex notwithstanding) Urbmons.

(Image: Amazon.)


Related posts


Greening cities from the top down

Jeremy Eades @ 12-11-2007

One thing about cities in Midwestern US - they can be ugly.  Skyscrapers look nice in a skyline, but they block sunlight and take forever to walk around their drab exteriors.  Not to mention in some places like Chicago, there aren’t nearby parks to eat lunch at easily because those spaces are taken up by monolithic city buildings.  That was my impression when I spent time downtown four years ago for a job interview.

Now, though, the drones have a more psychologically friendly place to have lunch - in the garden on top of their building.  Chicago’s now planted 2.3 million square feet of rooftop gardens.  Other notables are Washington, DC, New York City and Phoenix.  And it’s not just for people’s sanity.  These gardens mitigate the heat radiated by the roof in summer, and retain heat in winter.  In addition, they help control runoff from storms, decrease costs for heating and cooling, and provide a haven for wildlife.  The downside?  The initial cost which, even though it can be offset through lower utility expenses, raises the price tag, something that would make any developer flinch.  Fortunately, a new article in BioScience(subscription required) states that improvements in cost-benefit analyses might allay those concerns.

For those of you that are curious, the photos is of the under-construction California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco.  An illustration of the finished building and more info on it can be seen here.

(image via kqedquest)


Related posts