|
etalian posted:lol Oh my god this guy is tremendously full of poo poo.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
If there is something apartment towers need to be more of, it's definitely more disposable construction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:If there is something apartment towers need to be more of, it's definitely more disposable construction. Yeah I don't understand how it's a positive marketing point to describe lumber as a sustainable material. It must mean that it's environmentally friendly to dispose of your condo tower after you demolish it due to poor construction. Concrete and rebar are so toxic!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
If we are going to aim to density more, modeling everything on the Japanese works seeing they don't design their contemporary buildings to last more than a few decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:If we are going to aim to density more, modeling everything on the Japanese works seeing they don't design their contemporary buildings to last more than a few decades. That is more single family homestead apartment/condo buildings, and they certainly don't build 4+ story wood framed multi-unit buildings. North America would need a sea change in how developments get approved too. I had to laugh at my wife when she saw the community center zoning signs go up near our old place, because she actually thought the building would be ready for our yet unborn child. In Japan excavation would have started the next day. As it was I was surprised it only took them 6-7 years, which I attribute to a lack of any opposition to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Is there a particular reason that governments do not adjust mortgage rules to maintain housing affordability stability, when they lower (and raise) rates like this? From what I can tell it's mostly for economic reasons. In a fragile economy, like Canada's post-2008, housing is a major economic driver and curtailing it would probably affect growth enough to cause significant political damage. Real estate and construction accounted for more than 25% of BC's GDP in 2012, for example. Doesn't take much of a pullback before the province would be in recession. The end goal is really (though probably not in politicians' mind) to kick the can down the road and let another government deal with the mess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
etalian posted:lol So, particle board?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
It's a billion times more environmentally friendly to build a building out of concrete or steel that lasts centuries if cared for vs a wood building that will last 30-40 years, a bit more if very very well cared for. Wooden houses last a long time because they are very well cared for and a house has way less load on it. Don't forget about settling. In my 3 story 1940's wood frame apartment that was built super well for its day, none of the floors are level, rooms aren't square. In 6 story wood frame the settling issues become worse and worse. It's like stacking jenga blocks. 2 blocks on top of each other if there's a few degrees off it's not a huge deal, but every block above that gets more and more tippy. The builders I know have told us the settling in 6 story wood frame is ridiculous, even after not even a year some of the first ones they built are having unacceptable settling. Wood is an awesome material but it's not going to solve the housing problem. I mean it's mostly cheap debt but supply can be a problem too, mostly our hatred of density. But we can get more than enough density in our cities with 3-4 story wood frame town houses and apartments, we don't need wood frame condo towers. And the engineering is insane. For every dollar you save in materials you spend a dollar on engineering costs. And all the specialty hardware for wood frame is very expensive too, and labour intensive. Like I said, the builders I talked to said they saved 0 dollars by doing wood frame vs concrete after everything was said and done, and in the end they have a massively inferior building in terms of longevity, sound, and fire safety. 6 story wood frame is entirely political, it sounds good like the government is "doing something" for affordability and BC TIMBER JOBS. Plus only a few companies make these ridiculously engineered wood beams (if they can even be called wood after all the processes it goes through) and those companies happen to be big BC liberal donors. And stairwells, elevator shafts, and retail ground floors will always have to be concrete anyways Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Buskas posted:From what I can tell it's mostly for economic reasons. In a fragile economy, like Canada's post-2008, housing is a major economic driver and curtailing it would probably affect growth enough to cause significant political damage. Yeah basically it's tough to painlessly end a bubble once it gains steam due to dutch disease.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:So, particle board? Its Cross-Laminated Timber. Basically glorified plywood, but instead of using thin 1/8" sheets of wood they use dimensional lumber and glue them together. Here's a picture:  You glue them together off-site then swing it into place with a crane making a house Ikea-style. To be fair it is incredibly strong stuff, exceeding structural steel on a per-weight basis. But it is still wood and suffers from all the natural degradation that comes along with that. Imagine if your skyscraper got termites.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Imagine if water started leaking through your building envelope, into the wooden structure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Its Cross-Laminated Timber. Basically glorified plywood, but instead of using thin 1/8" sheets of wood they use dimensional lumber and glue them together. Here's a picture: Termites are easier to deal with than fire though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
That ted talk was hilarious, let's disrupt urban life by building wood skyscrapers. Just overlook how natural stone and concrete buildings have a much longer lifespan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
etalian posted:That ted talk was hilarious, let's disrupt urban life by building wood skyscrapers. Yeah but like concrete isn't "natural" mannn. There's a Victoria councilor who's big on this. Hates any builder taller than 3-4 stories because concrete and steel "lasts too long" and elevators "use energy". Literally she's against concrete and steel because the buildings last too long and wood is renewable and bio-degradable but when you demolish a steel and concrete building it can't bio-degrade. Also density isn't green because downtowns don't have green space but the suburbs totally have trees and grass thus are more "green".
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLhg8YxlzlU The one thing I can say about wooden structures is that when designed correctly, they can withstand some intense earthquakes without much damage. When I worked in an old, retrofitted concrete building in downtown Vancouver, I did experience a quake while on its top-floor (seven stories) and found myself not interested in staying inside in the event of a larger quake occurring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
etalian posted:That ted talk was hilarious, let's disrupt urban life by building wood skyscrapers. You should look up some of Richard Floridas bullshit, you'd love it. I had to suffer through him blowing hot air for over an hour last week and it was just brutal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Rime posted:You should look up some of Richard Floridas bullshit, you'd love it. I had to suffer through him blowing hot air for over an hour last week and it was just brutal. I stop reading any urban planning/issues article once they start quoting florida. He's such a piece of poo poo hack. He's the doctor Oz of urban theory and actual urban planners and economists despise him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Oh so he's the guy who came up with the Gay Index.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
His solution to the rapid increase in automation across every industry which will decimate most jobs over the next decade was literally "Cram everyone into super-dense cities where they can create new revenue streams as artists and stuff!" Almost verbatim. He spent a good twenty minutes talking about how the lack of high-paying factory jobs in North America was fantastic for our society, because we could all be artists and musicians now instead of working at a factory to afford that comfortable lifestyle he and his parents had. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
Sounds like Keynes Gone Wild.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Oh yes, the owners of Robotcorp will surely fund a renaissance of art and culture instead of enslaving the helpless masses whose jobs have been made obsolete.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Termites are easier to deal with than fire though. Oddly enough wood is actually better than exposed steel for keeping strength in a fire. Steel gets all bendy when hot while wood doesn't. But that's a useless comparison because we wrap the steel of modern construction in nice thick layers of concrete or other insulation. Works great as long as the insulation stays intact but if it doesn't and fire gets right up to the steel then things go poorly (see: World Trade Center). Random derail though. Wood skyscrapers are dumb and Ted talks are dumb (but not as dumb as TedX).
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
As a relatively newcomer to urban living, can anyone explain to me the big critique on density? Some of the neighbourhoods around Van are really against building up, while I've always been a big advocate for it because of the access it brings to such large numbers of people, and the environmental reasons. So far the only critique I have is: "tall buildings would LOOK WEIRD ON COMMERCIAL DRIVE!" or something to that effect. Is there actual legitimate critiques outside of that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:As a relatively newcomer to urban living, can anyone explain to me the big critique on density? Some of the neighbourhoods around Van are really against building up, while I've always been a big advocate for it because of the access it brings to such large numbers of people, and the environmental reasons. There are issues related to everything that has to support people being scaled up appropriately (i.e., "Is there public transportation or do these people have cars; if the latter do we need to build parking lots/garages?", etc) but most of the arguments tend to center around the concept of exclusivity. In other words, some people are thinking "I'm in a really good place, but it'll be ruined if too many [outsiders] join in, so I want to keep them away". It's the same line of thinking that led to segregated housing in the US, but it's not (inherently) racial in nature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:As a relatively newcomer to urban living, can anyone explain to me the big critique on density? Some of the neighbourhoods around Van are really against building up, while I've always been a big advocate for it because of the access it brings to such large numbers of people, and the environmental reasons. http://metronews.ca/voices/urban-compass-2/1030283/save-the-arbutus-corridor-not-for-the-creme-de-la-creme-twits-but-for-the-rest-of-us/ quote:“We are the people who live in your neighbourhood. We are dentists, doctors, lawyers, professionals, CEOs of companies. We are the crème de la crème in Vancouver. We live in a very expensive neighbourhood and we’re well educated and well informed. And that’s what we intend to be.” That comment was made in the early 2000s and no one should forget it. This what NPA voters literally think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
http://blogs.wsj.com/canadarealtime/2014/10/30/canadas-housing-market-defies-doomsayers/quote:
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
“The Canadian housing market will keep plowing ahead, unless any of these other scenarios happen then we are all hosed” Mr. Porter said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
.
Sassafras fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:As a relatively newcomer to urban living, can anyone explain to me the big critique on density? Some of the neighbourhoods around Van are really against building up, while I've always been a big advocate for it because of the access it brings to such large numbers of people, and the environmental reasons. The city is still replacing unseperated (storm and sewer), rotten ceramic, and in a rare case wooden, sewer lines around the city. The stuff down in Marpole around the Oakridge development for example is largely from the 1940's. I'm in favor of intense densification around transit hubs such as the redevelopment plan for the Brentwood site though. They've really got a futuristic mixed-use design going in there, and I hope it brings life to the region instead of being another lougheed-esque tower complex where it's scary to walk at night.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://metronews.ca/voices/urban-compass-2/1030283/save-the-arbutus-corridor-not-for-the-creme-de-la-creme-twits-but-for-the-rest-of-us/ I still don't understand what this has to do with densification. What I am talking about is the concept of building more apartments and housing in tall structures, centrally located to decent public transportation. This would cut back on vehicle use, and make logistics of living (like food, goods and services etc.) more effecient by being centralized. You know, building up rather than out, and eliminating further suburbanization. Honestly, I get that theres a lot of NIMBYs in Vancouver but Im just not connecting the link here between NIMBYs and densified neighbourhoods because its never really been articulated to me. quote:Honestly, there is a lot of research out there about what seems to be more commonly called "urban stress" leading to all kinds of negative health side effects. Phone posting, though, so no good links handy. Like what does this mean? How does it relate to densified housing? I just don't understand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Rime posted:You should look up some of Richard Floridas bullshit, you'd love it. I had to suffer through him blowing hot air for over an hour last week and it was just brutal. lol Florida's theory asserts that metropolitan regions with high concentrations of technology workers, artists, musicians, lesbians and gay men, and a group he describes as "high bohemians", exhibit a higher level of economic development. Florida refers to these groups collectively as the "creative class. he has devised his own ranking systems that rate cities by a "Bohemian index," a "Gay index," a "diversity index" and similar criteria.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Like what does this mean? How does it relate to densified housing? I just don't understand. If you look at zoning by-laws each specific area, every neighbourhood has a "saturation point" (or similarly-named concept) for specific types of development. Any well-run city whose politicians haven't been bought off by land developers has strict rules about the maximum allowable population densities for each area. The reason? Because you can only have so many people live in a specific neighbourhood before it causes massive traffic jams, overload on local schools/daycares, cost-inefficient waste disposal, excessive demand on public transportation routes, and even pressure on local watermains. Urban sprawl is bad. But cramming hundreds of people into tiny areas whose infrastructure may, or may not, be able to support them is also bad. As for the NIMBYs in Vancouver- residents in most areas usually don't want high-density developments for a lot of reasons. For example, they usually cite concerns about local traffic getting worse. Or some people don't want their view to be obstructed by high-rises. Others will take it a step further and lose their poo poo if the new towers block out sunlight. melon cat fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:As a relatively newcomer to urban living, can anyone explain to me the big critique on density? Some of the neighbourhoods around Van are really against building up, while I've always been a big advocate for it because of the access it brings to such large numbers of people, and the environmental reasons. Well there are infrastructure concerns that surround increasing density all of a sudden - increased usage of sewage pipes, traffic, emergency response stuff, water, the whole shebang. And I bet there isn't as much thought given to increasing those along with housing as there should be. But really, density isn't the big issue in Vancouver, we're a tiny city in terms of population, and while we should definitely be looking to build denser from here on out that's in the long-term, not the short-term - and is mostly to deal with gradually increasing energy prices and such.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
.
melon cat fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Mar 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
get people desperate enough and they will inherently turn to social and communal solutions or start eating each-other I guess
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Eat the
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
melon cat posted:I believe he's talking about the stress on local infrastructure that certain high-density developments, like high-rises, could have on an area that cannot sustain their presence. It's not just this - there's a growing body of research showing highly urbanized environments are bad for humans. Seemingly innocuous things like minor but constant light and noise pollution can have negative physical and mental health effects, and lots of urban "communities" lack any sense of community at all. As we busy ourselves with career and competition we forget how important it is to have a meaningful support network, and, sometimes, to just slow the gently caress down. Big cities encourage constant activity, which people were not designed for. Gabor Mate has some good writing on these subjects.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Buskas posted:It's not just this - there's a growing body of research showing highly urbanized environments are bad for humans. Seemingly innocuous things like minor but constant light and noise pollution can have negative physical and mental health effects, and lots of urban "communities" lack any sense of community at all. As we busy ourselves with career and competition we forget how important it is to have a meaningful support network, and, sometimes, to just slow the gently caress down. Big cities encourage constant activity, which people were not designed for. What's the alternative? Even worse soulless suburbia? Earthships for how ever million people the earth can fit at that lifestyle?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
More stupidity from Australia: Can't afford a deposit, the local council will provide it for you. quote:
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2649475/who-will-qualify-for-83000-home-deposit-scheme/ (don't read the comments)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
Someone I know on Facebook posted that she has a house-viewing, but it's an hour away from work and she has no money (presumably for the gas it would take to get there and back), ending the post with "House hungry much?". It doesn't seem like a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 12:30
|
|
