urbanSTL

^Neat seeing the early history. For most of my life I just used the word "themopane" (or interchangeably thermal pane, since I rarely if ever saw it in print) to mean any insulated multi-pane glass. The explanation for the spandrel panels is neat too. Great stuff! Thanks!

SeattleNative wrote: ↑

Feb 18, 2022

kipfilet wrote:^that + rising interest rates (30 year almost at 4.5% as of today) ==> more affordable housing

Eh, idk if you’re going to see prices actually drop. They just may stop climbing. And higher rates don’t actually make housing any more affordable unless you’re paying all cash.

A fair number of people have pointed out, too, that the construction numbers are wonky because there’s a lot of houses just waiting for windows or something. We might not actually be building much more than we have been.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

House prices are, historically, a super procyclical variable. I can guarantee you that they will drop if the economy starts slowing down to Fed hikes/hangover from fiscal policy. That drop won't be felt a lot in St Louis as house prices are way less volatile in the region, but this will certainly hit some of the nationally hot markets hard. 

By SeattleNative

NextSTL - Why aren't more people talking about the "next affordable cities" being in the Midwest?

https://nextstl.com/2022/02/why-arent-m ... e-midwest/

Xavier Riddle is a kid's cartoon on PBS where kids go back in time and meet their heroes. In one episode, they went back and met Jane Jacobs,  who taught them all about functional cities. I can't find the whole episode, but here's a preview:

 

^Huh! That's honestly pretty cool.

If any muni here tried this, MoLeg would pass a preemption bill in no time

Not sure what any of this means, but I thought some of you would find this interesting:

 https://www.archdaily.com/978522/zaha-h ... vauZp7xPwI

Zaha Hadid Architects - ZHA has unveiled a virtual "libertarian micro-nation" in the metaverse titled The Liberland Metaverse, where residents can buy vacant plots centered around a curated urban core, and access them as avatars. The community features hyper-realistic districts that encourage urban self-governance and zones where the absence of urban planning "allows for a spontaneous order via a free-wheeling discovery process".

Two powerful innovations are coming together in the metaverse we envision: the immersive internet allowing for a new level of life-like spontaneity in social interactions and the internet of value allowing for truly global economic collaboration without gate keepers, no matter which passport participants hold. We conceive of the metaverse as an open platform, based on freely circulating open source insights and technologies, building on and participating in the culture of permissionless innovation that has fuelled the crypto ecosystem in recent years. -- Patrik Schumacher, ZHA Principal

Liberland will function as free standing virtual reality realm with the ambition of becoming the go-to-site for networking and collaboration within the Web 3.0 industry. The project caters to both the community of libertarians and the community of blockchain empowered Web 3.0 developers, who collectively understand the power and potential behind a "permissionless realm of interchange" and "technology powered prosperity". 

Impressive amount of techno-babble in three paragraphs.

tech people love the smell of their own farts.

I was doing it on the Super Nintendo.

I'm not really sure what the metaverse is, exactly, but I've dabbled with various SimCity versions, as well as Cities Skylines. Just on my own; never in any kind of connected online interaction with others. 

This guy's going to make me defend 5+2s...  *sigh*

Firstly, comparing any architectural style to a pandemic in the middle of a pandemic that's killed millions is... like comparing football to war in the middle of a war, or calling something a 'cancer' to a cancer patient. Just... don't.

Despite that, I was ready to agree with the guy.  Mediocre boxes of sameness popping up everywhere, I'm getting to the point of rolling my eyes every time a new rendering pops out.  But the argument he builds against them sounds... like a pretty good case for building them?  

In explaining why they've become "a plague" he argues that they appeal to the desire of the new, they're cheaper to build, and can be built to code quickly and safely! They are dense mixed-use multifamily buildings (which is somehow anti-urban?) often with luxury amenities . They're popular and make money for the companies that build them. Oh no! It's amoral!

And apparently wanting "open, blank, affordable interiors in good locations" is somehow analogous to owning an F-150 for your sole mode of transportation? If we're comparing homes to personal transportation then the 'F-150 of homes' is a 4,000 sq ft vinyl-sided home in the back a subdivision in an exburb, not a dense mixed-use building built up to the street.

Would building smaller apartments (the only alternative listed here) "creat(e) a community, featuring craft, detail and visual delight"? Maybe? But not automatically, no. He doesn't even attempt to argue why.

What these buildings are are is the multi-family equivalent of tract housing - easy to build templates slapped together quickly with little attempt architecturally to differentiate one building from the other. They are often 'designed' and erected without consideration to their context - they can be a great addition to an urban neighborhood, or they can be plopped into a sea of surface parking in the suburbs. They're a good idea too often done lazily.

But that means they're based on a good idea! He should be arguing for better execution, not thumbing his nose at the entire thing because he doesn't like that some folks do it badly.  And they're not the only solution - they *are* overused. So be creative, architects! That's what you do. think outside the (nearly literal) box and you too can come up with clever solutions that balance building codes, profit margins, and desirability.

-RBB

^"What these buildings are are is the multi-family equivalent of tract housing - easy to build templates slapped together quickly with little attempt architecturally to differentiate one building from the other. They are often 'designed' and erected without consideration to their context - they can be a great addition to an urban neighborhood, or they can be plopped into a sea of surface parking in the suburbs. They're a good idea too often done lazily."

I'm not an architect/engineer/planner, but I agree with RBB's statement above and the general gist of his response to the ArchDaily article's sloppy thinking and blatant snobbery. However, given that Climate Change is unfortunately not a hoax and will likely be F***ing us all very hard sooner than we expect, I propose the evaluation of these buildings, or any others, must be focused almost exclusively on the energy and resource intensity of their construction, operation, and maintenance. To RBB's point, are these easily slapped-together, relatively cheap (and therefore) profitable developments going to leak energy and deteriorate quickly? If so, then we shouldn't be building them, period. If they are energy efficient to construct, use, and maintain, the we definitely shouldn't be wringing our delicate hands over the fact that they look like s*** and are everywhere. 

Look, I love architectural wankery just as much as any other non-architect layperson. Its why I've chosen to live in this amazing 100ish y/o South City money pit I can barely afford. Seeing these ugly Lego abortions everywhere makes me want to barf. I want everyone to have access to affordable housing that's environmentally sustainable.  And also aesthetically pleasing! But we need to accept the fact that the latter is a luxury society increasingly cannot afford.

SB in BH wrote: ↑

Mar 21, 2022

Climate Change is unfortunately not a hoax and will likely be F***ing us all very hard sooner than we expect

Just to clarify: we're already seeing wars, population migrations, plagues, wildfires and resource shortages due to climate change! It will continue to get even worse, but it's been observably very bad for a decade at least.

^Totally. When I say "us" I'm referring to American's generally and the comfortable classes therein specifically. Maybe St. Louis especially since our weather has always been highly erratic from day to day and year to year, making it easier to dismiss the insanity of multiple 75+ days in early March as typical and nothing at all to do with global warming. No, my dear boomer parents, there certainly isn't anything unusual or alarming about 81 on the Second day of March 2022...

^^^rbb and SB in BH,

What you guys said. I tried to read the thing and more or less found myself more in favor of the things than before. I don't aesthetically like them, but . . . what's the real downside to a higher density urban equivalent to suburban tract housing? Glad you guys had the guts to say something. And yes, changing our living habits to maybe, just maybe, shave a little bit of the worst of the damage off our environmental destruction is absolutely a good reason to densify.

How Japan Built Cities Where You Could Send Your Toddler on an Errand
https://slate.com/business/2022/04/old-enough-netflix-do-japanese-parents-really-send-toddlers-on-errands.html

Scary Mommy - Researchers Are Ripping The Gas Stoves Out Of Their Houses For Their Kids’ Health

https://www.scarymommy.com/lifestyle/re ... ids-health

This is a little off topic, but it's a fun jab at car dependency from one of my favorite urbanism YouTube channels:

The Orange Pill - Your City Will Be Changed Forever

Some local governments in China are letting private corporations develop new cities and provide public services
https://chinatalk.substack.com/p/jialong-sichuans-privately-run-city?s=w