US versus European Cities

[Kuciwalker]

Why would, say, a three-story flat-building, cost 2 as much to construct in the US as in Europe?

He was claiming the reverse.

[:) Smiley]

Stuff costs more to build in Europe because its designed to last longer. Much longer.

[chequita guevara]

AFAIC, light rail is critical to a decent metropolis. Miami's light rail blows chunks, but it's light years better than Jacksonville's, which is just unbelievably stupid. They're actually planning on build a light rail system here in Fort Lauderdale But it's gonna be at ground level. For some rason, they seem to think that we need a rail from the airport to this run down mall.

They are also talking about adding another commuter rail system, but it won't be for like ten years or something. Traffic here is pretty bad though. Not Atlanta bad, but pretty bad. Oddly, it takes me 30 minutes longer to get to and from work by public transit.

[Odin]

US cities are full of the most hideous suburban spraw imaginable. Endless numbers of identical-looking houses with huge yards, and Wal-Marts, and gas stations is not easy on the eye.

US cities:

European cities:

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Why would, say, a three-story flat-building, cost 2 as much to construct in the US as in Europe?

He was claiming the reverse.

Whatever. A three-story flatbuilding is a three-story flatbuilding.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Colon™


Why would, say, a three-story flat-building, cost 2 as much to construct in the US as in Europe? I was under impression that bricks, mortar and concrete are standard fare in the cities of both parts of the world.

I imagine permiting, labor, and inspections cost much more in Europe then the yearly taxes are added up on top of that.

[Colon™]

Well I don't, especially not in a city like New York.

[Tingkai]

The European cities I've visited tend to have very few new buildings. The quaint look of the old buildings soon gets boring. The few new buildings tend to be architectually innovative, but that's probably only because so few new buildings get built.

Major U.S. cities are amazing for their skyscrapers. The downside are the slums that every city seems to have. The slums tend to look like a battleground. Also, American cities seem to always have burned out buildings scattered around in every neighborhood.

As for mass transit, if Canadian cities can do it, then why not American cities?

Oh, and what's with the American cities where the downtown area become deserted after 5 p.m.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Tingkai
The European cities I've visited tend to have very few new buildings. The quaint look of the old buildings soon gets boring. The few new buildings tend to be architectually innovative, but that's probably only because so few new buildings get built.

Methinks that might be because you visited as a tourist and therefore went to touristy areas...

As a former Londoner I would totally disagree with you, given that whole districts of the city are nothing but modern 'tall buildings' (even our highest buildings cannot really be called skyscrapers). Same with Paris, Berlin, Brussels etc (though the latter are pretty ugly).

But at least our cities still have an historical core, buzzing with life after, say, 5pm...

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Colon™
BTW, one thing that struck me about American cities, is how little creative modern architecture there is. Sure you'd maybe have a couple of major public buildings such as museums that are architecturally interesting, but no houses, low-rise flat buildings or offices and the like. I've always been used to a certain degree of experimentation and didn't find any of it in American cities. Maybe always been checking the wrong neighbourhoods? No idea.

That's one thing that's missing in the UK as well... part of the reason I think is that we didn't get any cities totally flattened in the war, so there was no reason to start building whole neighbourhoods from scratch, and we didn't get caught up in the spirit of building new areas with exciting new architecture.

The only US city I've really spent much time in is New York and that's probably the greatest city I've ever been to. It does seem quite European in its feel though, other than being laid out in a grid rather than having evolved naturally. Most people seem to walk or get public transport there certainly.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
As a former Londoner I would totally disagree with you, given that whole districts of the city are nothing but modern 'tall buildings'

Well, if tall means 10 stories high, then maybe, but there didn't seem to be many of these in London. What's the tallest building there? 40 stories or something.

Meanwhile in Hong Kong, I was thinking about renting a place in complex with five buildings, each 66 stories high. Ended up not renting there and got a place in an old building on the 25th floor.

[MikeH]

There are very harsh building regulations on height in London, it's done deliberately to keep the older buildings and the skyline prominent.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by MikeH


That's one thing that's missing in the UK as well... part of the reason I think is that we didn't get any cities totally flattened in the war, so there was no reason to start building whole neighbourhoods from scratch, and we didn't get caught up in the spirit of building new areas with exciting new architecture.

I'm talking about architecture of the past 10-20 years, not that of the whole post-war periode. Call it post-modern if you like. I'd say it's typically associated with yuppies and urban renewal.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Colon™
Whatever. A three-story flatbuilding is a three-story flatbuilding.

Well, let's call it a 4-storey building so that we know for sure. A 4-storey building will use similar building materials in the U.S. and Europe, more or less (Smiley can discuss, if he wishes). However, you will have many more 4-storey buildings in European cities versus U.S. cities.

In the US, 85% of single family housing is wood frame (WSJ, a couple of days ago). Even in the city (not the downtown), most of the housing will be wood frame. Even those houses with brick facades are mostly wood frame.

It's sometimes difficult talking about a typical American city, when great examples of American cities (New York City, Washington, San Francisco) are atypical. I live in the city of Washington, which has planned references to Paris and St. Petersburg; the European influence, at least as far as the designers of the city interpreted it, is overt. Further, only 1/10th of the people in the Washington metro area actually live in the city of Washington. So talking about Washington the city doesn't get us much of anywhere. But even Washington is mostly wood frame housing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep, I was to make the same point that when talking about the "brick and mortar" that both US and Euro houses have, that most US homes aren't made of brick and mortar .