Why Build Higher?
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 05. 2024
- Get your $50 discount for Video Blocks at: videoblocks.com/RealEngineerin...
This one took me a little while longer because of its length. Thanks for your patience. Let me know what you think!
Check out Wendover Productions' video about Urban Geography: • Urban Geography: Why W...
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, darth patron, Zoltan Gramantik, Josh Levent, Henning Basma, Karl Andersson, Mark Govea
Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=282505...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Twitter:
/ fiosracht
A large portion of this video was inspired by this article by Edward Glaeser:
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/a...
Big thank you to Kian Yap for allowing me to use his drone footage of the Taipei 101
• Taipei 2016 Drone 4k ...
To get a more human look at this problem, check out the Vice News documentary on the gentrification of London:
• The War to Live in Lon...
Once again thank you to Maeson for his amazing music. I used 5 of his songs in this video. "Hi", "The Catch", "Winter", "Noir" and "Time". Check out his soundcloud here: / tracks
This video is sponsored by VideoBlocks - Věda a technologie
Compelling as always. I, for one, quite like the longer format. You make great stuff, and if it takes 16 minutes to fully develop an idea, it's probably just a sign that it's an idea particularly worth sharing.
Completely agree
You too make great videos man. You both are very good at your works.
Wow
Agree!
Does all of you math, science, and engineer guys watch each other's videos?
*Height limit for building is 256 blocks*
NOICE
New update came
smh, when will notch learn to use long long's?
@@robertcrawshaw9978 512! Is a heck tall
And it used to be 128!
Hi, Parisian here. I love the channel overall and am a subscriber, and did enjoy the video, but there is a pretty big problem with the fundamental idea carried in it : building higher does not necessarily increase density, far from it.
Since the 60s the APUR (Atelier parisien d’urbanisme) has regularly debunked in a multitude of studies the idea that there is, in the Paris urban region, a correlation between elevation and density. In fact the exact opposite is more likely. In Paris the highest density areas consistently are 5-7 stories blocks with a high ground surface occupation (typical example : the four blocks forming a cross around the rue Eugène Sue / Simart, these have Manilla levels of density). The lowest density areas aren’t the few remaining areas with 2-3 stories tall buildings, but, again with amazing consistency, the ones with the highest elevations (typical example : residential towers in the 13th arrondissement). The funny thing is that they’ve also surveyed the local residents regarding how dense they felt these neighbours are. A majority of them mistakenly felt that areas with high elevation were denser - in spite of the lower ground surface occupation - and that these neighbourhoods were more oppressing.
The same applies to jobs density : some areas in Paris’ western and central arrondissement have similar jobs density than la Défense, in spite of the former’s regular elevation and much higher residential density on top of it, and the latter being your typical high rise business district.
In the end, with its current urban form, Paris (the city proper and a number of neighbouring cities), already is one of the highest if not the highest density large city in the higher development world (at least as dense as Manhattan, probably higher actually, and for a slightly larger population across a continuously built area - around 2,6 millions people in the Paris region live in an area comparable in density to Manhattan’s average). It would be possible to raise the density to Manilla standards while preserving the current available surface per capita by raising the buildings, possibly around 10-12 stories tall, but it’s highly likely that this would result in a highly unpleasant and unlivable urban form, put the already strained infrastructures in complete disarray (the Paris metro isn’t doing much better than NYC’s subway these days), and kinda ruin the whole look of the city in the first place. It isn’t particularly realistic frankly.
This lack of correlation between building elevation and density is to be found in most cities across the world. Even in Hong Kong the areas with the highest average elevation aren’t necessarily the ones with the highest density.
Many hypothesis have been drawn to explain Paris’ housing prices significant rise in the last decade. I think that it’s unreasonable to single out one in particular. One of them, for example, is the increase in totally unoccupied residential units, year round (low estimate is 110 000, 8% of the residential units stock, a majority without even a subscription to an electricity provider). Although one could argue that this rise could be a consequence, not a cause, of rising prices as it makes for a good capital investment. It’s just one hypothesis among many and it’s probable that a lot of variables are contributing to this problem. What is 100% sure though : lack of elevation has nothing to do with it, and as already said lack of density even less. Most large, urban cities have seen housing prices rise spectacularly in the last decade, regardless of their urban form, including elevation height.
Personally I think that the Parisian region has much better gains to make in raising the average elevation of the remaining neighbouring cities with lower densities to a uniform, Parisian standard (these cities already have a somewhat similar level of infrastructure than the other neighbouring cities already with a Paris-like density, and the Grand Paris metro extension will help), continue the conversion of unused or unproductive areas (such as older train depots) in usable areas for either constructions or parks, and take bold actions against unused residential units. Might also be a good idea to decentralise towards less populated cities in France. We don't need to have all the 150 000 or so people who work for the ministry of finance right here in Paris.
There’s a good argument to make that in the 21st century building past 8-10 stories is completely pointless, regardless of application, provided a proper, well developed urban form with decently designed urban regulations, plots and infrastructures. As Paris demonstrates (and without the properly designed infrastructures or such a well developed urban form - many mistakes have been made in decades past) this height is already largely enough to reach near top of the charts density, whether in terms of residential or jobs density, and it’s unclear whether it’s realistic to go past that density without making infrastructures crumble and quality of life excessively deteriorate.
Hey! New Yorker here in the department of City Planning! I work as an Engineer mainly but I've done consulting work for various districts (both high-rise and midrise) so I hope I can give my argument as to why going taller than 10 stories can work and create healthy neighborhoods (not that we absolutely need it everywhere or even in most places, it should be rare exceptions to your rule). I wanted to provide a different perspective since I believe in friendly debates and making sure everyone knows both ends of the story since this is a top comment!
A few points I wanted to make:
Paris is not anywhere near as dense as Manhattan statistically, I would like to know where you got your stats from? Paris is denser than NYC as a whole yes but 4 of the 5 boroughs are heavily suburbs. Paris reaches a density of ~21,000/km2 whereas Manhattan reaches a density of ~29,000/km2. This is including the fact that most of Manhattan isn't skyscrappers or tall buildings. Statistically most of Manhattan is under 10 stories which make up approximately 90%+ of our building stock. We can't build towers without an economic reason to do so, and in order to preserve our historic districts which never really allow new building at all, we must build higher in our other districts which gives everyone a win win. The highrise buildings are concentrated in 2 districts both of which get population densities even higher. In a place like NYC 8-10 stories would be viable only if we can make all zones like that, which just isnt feasible to happen since anything involving upzoning gets pushed back for decades and most of out land is reserved and landmarked as "historic". The mentioned historic districts are the "medium density, cozy neighborhoods" that cap off at around 5-6 stories and regardless of whether high rise towers are more dense or not we would never touch them. Having a diversity of districts that cater to different kinds of people is the key here, high rise towers given proper planning and infrastructure upgrades can yield really high density while giving people a good quality of life, this can be seen through our demand for upzoning proposals where people want to live the most. This is also a cultural thing I believe, Parisians appreciate their history (so do we!) but in general they don't prefer to live in high rise buildings. People from NYC and Chicago are more likely to want to live there than someone from Europe. But my point being with Paris it's a bit of an anecdote just like NYC is, it depends on the social needs and where people want to be and how the city plans for it's taller buildings.
As for your Hong Kong argument, I would like to take into consideration the reason why the taller buildings will never have the same density as the smaller ones and that's due to the slum conditions that the really poor and unfit to work citizens have to live in. Generally these people live crammed together, usually 4 or 5 in one room subletting into older apartment for the cheapest rent possible. The sheer amount of people living in these conditions (as well as cage homes which are even more dense) skews the statistics towards the mid rise, which have some of the most horrible conditions imaginable. There's good argument to make that this is more of a policy and management issue from the government than it is an issue with taller buildings not being sufficient for density.
Now onto your job concentration. I agree we see similar results in Manhattan too where job growth is not too far off around districts but here's the difference, it's the type of industry being served. Paris is by far where the collection of the most people are this catered to a lot more general businesses and service industry jobs. Just like for us East Village provides an incredible amount of jobs but again this isn't generally the same type of industry a skyscraper district caters to. La Défense caters to some of the biggest companies (Fortune 500s, Société Générale, TotalEnergies, Engie, KPMG, even Amazon) which simply require the need for bigger office space and remember it's international which means it needs to cater to more than just those who want to live in Paris full time (similar to Manhattan). But when it comes to sheer amount of office space the 8th and 9th arrondissements do their fair share of employing plenty and hosting a lot of corporate head quarters actually the QCA in . Lower Manhattan and Midtown are some of the most valuable plots of lands because all the bigger companies need to be near each other, this drives up land prices where it just isn't economically feasible to not build a taller building that allows multiple of these tenants who want to be near each other. La Défense was created as a response to an economic need and it filled that role rather well for what it tried to achieve. Which is why I love the way France catered to their need in demand, keep historic districts as they are but have districts that cater towards modern needs. Again, Manhattan is pretty similar in that we only have 2 districts that are skyscrapers and high-rises, most of the residential ones are actually mid rises.
As for rising up housing prices, it always boils down to a supply and demand issue. There are plenty of studies to support this, see here:
www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w10124/w10124.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0S795G7nkPVMOU0FJgkmeTb-h9QBQ-oiQpxCMtKKhtJ4bIiiDi3EPGEKg
What it boils down to is that Manhattan isn't expensive because of high-rises, rather it's that we don't build enough of them and it's generally really hard to build anything new taller than a few stories. As an engineer I make an okay amount of money but you'd be surprised to figure out that I can live in the high rise districts and generally find apartments available but when it comes to West village I cannot go anywhere NEAR that due to them not allowing any sort of upzoning or building for the past decades due to "historical significance" and preserving the neighborhood. It became a country club for our cities top 1% with units rarely ever being available since everyone just sits and lets their property values skyrocket. This seems to be the case for a lot of the "goldilocks density" neighborhoods (Quoted from Jane Jacobs) which is the majority of Manhattan.
Now to bring myself to a conclusion I don't believe in making every place a high rise haven or even most places, cultural and historic arguments can be made for perserving neighborhoods the way they are and I'm all for that. But if this is such a case then it should also be a case where there should be good planning for higher building districts. With good planning these neighborhoods can be just as beautiful and amazing as any other. The key here is mixed used neighborhoods with shops on the bottom floor, good public transit and infrastructure, especially bike lanes and more public squares and plazas. Some of our most in demand neighborhoods are high rise districts near our public squares, people can certianly be happy and have a great quality of life in them, the key here is to make sure it's planned well and that it's only made IF there is a demand for them. Most neighborhoods should be mid rise in my opinion with options for the "extreme ends" of the spectrum. People in the USA do like their single detached family housing so there will always be zoning for them. This contributes to the fact that a lot of people won't be catered with the planning of mid rise only Paris, I hate the suburbs as much as anyone but the second we try to talk about upzoning there people look at us like we want to take their first born child. A high rise district planned away from everyone else can counter balance this and give everyone their preference to what they want. France does this beautifully with their historic districts and districts to meet modern demand.
Manhattan and Paris are both great responses in their own right to the problem. Culture should be taken into account just like anything, here in NYC it just makes more sense to allow to go higher because we have plenty of people who love that about New York with just as many people who hate that and for them they also have their options. One thing you are absolutely spot on for is that creating more density for the sake of it isn't helpful without the demand as well as the infrastructure upgrade supporting it. NYC needs to do a better job with public transit, but recently they've done pretty well with making pedestrian only zones, I would like to see more ban of private cars and more buses and train support which this city takes ages to work on. While im not an expert on Tokyo planning I believe they also have an amazing solution where they have their dense districts for business and people who want to live in high rises all separated from their other districts and it's "clustered" around the city so anyone who doesn't like them never really has to interact with it, I would love to see more cities be able to adopt this rather than just say "we should go higher!" which doesn't take into account people's wants and needs for a particular district.
Greed is the only reason why rental price went crazy in Paris. There is no reason other than that.
@@ThisIsntmyrealnameGoogle I know this is old, but I'd like to thank both of you for your insight on the subject.
@@lau5140 Glad you thought it was insightful!
See, what I've always heard about Paris' renovation is that the reason they destroyed the narrow streets is because they were terrified of another revolution: the narrower the streets, the easier it is to barricade it. They completely changed the layout of the city to make it harder to conquer by it's own people and advertised it as making it more beautiful.
I've attempted to read Les Misérables on multiple occasions, I think I know what you're talking about.
As someone living in Paris, I would like to give some slight corrections to what you said about Paris :
Paris is a very small city, having approximately the shape of a circle of 12 kilometers of diameter, so when considering Paris' struggles in term of urbanisation, you have to also consider its suburbs. Making you analysis on the base of Paris' Highrises policies is a bit reductive.
You also have to take into account, when criticizing representatives' lack of will to change things in Paris, that a crushing majority of parisians don't want beautiful historical buildings (the ones built by Haussmann but also the few medieval houses still standing) to be destroyed, and if no one in a city wants tall buildings, it's a fantasy to think that tall buildings are going to be built.
Combining the two preceding arguments, I would like to come back on what you said about La Défense, it's a perfect example of a combination of a respect for architectural heritage and realistic vision for the need of high buildings : the site of La défense was previously occupied by small and ugly buildings and warehouses, so destroying them to build towers did not offend a lot of people (except for people living there as they were attached to the buildings they were sometimes born in -especially old people-). La Défense shows that you can build high building very close to Paris (5-10 minutes in train), without destroying the beauty of Paris.
It is true that the suburban area of paris is a gigantic urban sprawl, and it's true that it's not efficient as a way of conceiving our cities, but it's the result of many families desire to like close to Paris to find a job, but also to have big gardens for their children, and they accepted to trade this in exchange for the discomfort of traffic jams. It's not easy to forbid that way of life as people are free to decide how they want to live.
Finally, saying that only rich people live in Paris is only partially true. It's true in the sens that the Very center of Paris is extremely expensive, but it's only a tiny area, as Paris is already a tiny city, the rich center of Paris can be crossed in 20 minutes with a bus (including traffic jam), and on the outskirts of Paris, where I live, are much cheaper (for example my parents live here with around 2000 euros/month each, they are teachers in primary school) and are only two to three subway stations away from the very center of Paris (approximately 10 minutes). If you are even poorer, you can live right at the exterior of Paris, only 30 minutes away from the center, for a very cheap housing value.. What makes the center of Paris expensive is not that you don't have to be in traffic jams to go to work, it's that people love to have small buildings, plaza, beautiful and relatively calm city, all of those things are compromised by oppressive giant building (and also a lot of people are afraid of heights and simply could not live in or pass by a 40 or more storey buildings.
Despite all of that, very nice video, I love your work as a French student in engineering.
The being too afraid to pass by a tall building because of a fear of heights statement is silly but the rest of what you said makes sense.
I loved the long, more in-depth approach.
Me too. I got so immersed in this video
That's what she said.
That's the best "that's what she said" joke I've ever heard
Personaaaaa
same
It honestly doesn't matter how long your videos are as long as the content is relevant and thorough, subsequently if they are, i prefer longer videos simply because i am enjoying them :). Keep up the good work.
One of the few videos out there that has actually encouraged thought and reflection on how modern cities are built, amazing work.
The longer video is nice, because it's packed full of knowledge, but I feel that 11 or 12 minutes is a better sweet spot.
The video overall was very good, as usual.
1.25 speed... ur welcome
i feel the same!
Because 1.25x is still perfectly legible without overwhelming you. 2x is not.
if they speak clearly than 2x is easily understandable. and he speaks clearly so it can be understood, whether it's relaxing to watch like that is another matter entirely
Akhil P NOT ON MOBILE *cries*
Yoooo great video!
Saw it early though so I already knew that :/
Wendover Productions hai wendover
Wendover Productions I love your channel keep up the good work
Love both this channel and yours, keep it up
I really like you both, coming out of nowhere, growing really fast. Big thumbs up for both of you :)
I love you Wendover Productions you make me happy and you are allong wih real engineering are the best chanels ever!
But why build higher when we can build lower? Our underground is really underutilized and further transport and storage space could be provided by tunneling.
Cost, light, water.
@@aitorbleda8267 and the mole men
I agree in Korea we had a 5-6 story building? Not sure how tall but right below it was an underground supermarket
Living underground? That enables an interesting experiment, we can compare the suicide rate between those living under and above, probably adjusting for socio-economic difference, and glean at the real number how much lack of sunlight kills people.
@@lolipedofin Valut-Tec wants to know your location
The best video you have made so far!
I am active in politics in Sweden and more precisely i work with housing questions and will take into account every aspect that you brought up in the video. Very nice job and i hope to see more like this!
Let me know what you think everyone. It's a lot longer than normal, a bit nervous it's too long.
If you haven't please click that little bell next to the subscribe button. CZcams has been acting funny lately and there are reports that some videos are not showing up in the subscription box. That button will get you notifications when I upload.
If you have any questions my twitter is the best place to get hold of me: twitter.com/Fiosracht
Tbh i prefer a long video. Nice vid btw :D
Long video's are very nice, but please don't put an ad in the middle
2 8 minutes videos are better for us and for you. 1 ad per video is fine too, everybody who thinks otherwise can fuck off
Real Engineering Thanks for existing and making this channel exist.
No need to name calling! Call me what you want, but I don't appreciate my subscribers attacking each other.
I live in Seville, Spain. The first skyscraper in the city (Torre Sevilla) was finished less than a year ago, but construction was halted for more than a year because some assholes said that it couldnt be built. Why? It was going to be taller than the "Giralda", the tower of the largest cathedral in the city (Santa Maria de la Sede, largest cathedral in the world).
I love the Giralda, and all the religious buildings in the city, but the past cant be allowed to dictate where the future goes.
hi, could you please do more videos on architectue/construction/housing politics? This one was great!!
You're one of my favorite engineering channels. Keep up the good work!
While I see the concerns some people have in regards to longer videos, quality and quantity of information in longer videos is unparalleled to shorter videos.
The problem many people don't seem to understand is, videos like this are more educational. The issue here is, you can't teach or even begin to explain an issue in relative depth in 5-10 minutes.
Short videos are convenient for people with short attention spans, but they do a disservice to those who want to actually get an in depth view of stuff you're talking about.
You can remedy this by making longer videos with a condensed version for those who have attention spans of a 5 year old child. However, that's a lot of work, and you don't have enough editors to that, so doing it would be something straight out of the kindness of your heart.
On a side note, you should do a video on Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure plan. Would be nice to see the perspective of an engineer on this.
Anyone who replies to this, keep the politics out of it. I'm not not interested in a debate on here.
What is his infrastructure plan? I can't seem to find un-biased information on it. Lol
Max Fung It's more about how it can effect the economy and the US as a whole. What kinda things his plan would have to tackle and prioritize. More like a guide of what would be the most important and why. Then tie in what information there is about his plan and see how that would bode against what he says.
Also you can check his plan on his site. Remember, the news had to get that info from somewhere right? Look for the sources. In this case it's not that hard to find.
Sadly most news that pops up on a Google search loves putting click bait and ads at the bottom instead of references. That is the culture we live in. We consume, but don't check. Reading through his website right now. In agreement that there should be a focus on American steel industry as cheap subsidized import steel has taken away jobs and production here. But I'm worried about his focus on expanding our coal industry... This would directly impact our environmental footprint. I don't see anything at all in the realm of sustainable energy. :/
Max Fung I agree. News has become sensationalized entertainment for the mindless drones. It's really sad. Whatever their political leanings are, they should all root for a successful president. Oh well. One can hope.
He definitely has some interesting ideas, but I agree, the coal one is just plain terrible. I hope the pressure him into focusing more on solar and wind. Those are renewable, and an investment in that tech will not only support the infrastructure needs of this country for years to come, but it'll also give us thousands of jobs. I hope he sees that and doesn't make that colossal mistake.
Naturally any sane man would hope that Trump will be a good president. At least if you live in USA. Not matter what your political stance is. That of course is not reason to give up you voice when it comes to criticizing him when doe do something you feel is wrong. And it is only healthy to be sceptical, especially towards Trumps claims.
Anyway back to topic! Personally I do not dislike a longer videos. Especially not when there easy to listen to. I have been starting to watch videos that are half a hour or longer more and more often. And that much thanks to higher quality. Should be noted that a lot of the longer video I watch are more Podcast like in there style so I can easily multitasking when following them. This would be a good example of such a video.
It would have been good to have a two sided arguments. High rises have also a lot problems one of them being indeed the lack of sun light and views on the lower floors (in central Manhattan a hotel room below 20th floor is discounted because of that), another one is that they consume a great deal of surface area for circulation and technical shafts, lift, (even though Burj Khalifa design does improve things) etc.. Actually it would have been interesting to actually say that the whole of Paris is about half the density of Manhattan but three times denser than New-York density (even with greater Paris it is still 4 times denser than greater new-york).
There is a mid way between doing a 100 storey high rises and km-long lane of terraced houses... Besides for instance using public transport, dramatically reduces land usage for streets and greatly increases city density.
Nice point
Very true.
Another issue is the increased density of people living and in need of transport.
If you want to do this efficiently you really need good public transport.
Well, the better suggestion is to keep the average building at 10-15 story high insead for residential and commercial areas. Downtown areas would be equipped with 50-100 story building. Massive roads and parks to keep the building far away part from each others. That way the sunlight would still be able to penetrate most of the building as well.
But the problem is, tall building with glass tend to create the glass house effects. So less sun on the lower floor would really help the electricity bill to cool them off with AC. The top floor would needed to use the cold air from the sky to help reducing the dependence to the AC.
Tall building = more space for Open space = more space for the sunlight to penetrate the building.
Autumn Shag
Yes that was all the craze in the 60's. large parks with very high tower in-between (Le Corbusier was a big proponent of this)... but as many examples have shown this does not work very well in the long run. I don't know why but people seems to prefer denser, lower height buildings (but the it may only be because this was mainly tested in social housing with its own set of problems) .
As for AC, it is know possible to build very efficient glass tower (with high tech glass and clever self-cooling system that uses almost no energy)... but it is way more expensive to build.
***** Of course they prefer 2 story houses. But it won't work for the future. 2 story houses would be a luxury.
The AC I'm talking about is an AC that uses air from higher altitude to cool down the building. This technology have been implemented in Masdar City to cool down the streets.
The problem with Le Corbusier concept is that he doesn't study the effect of modern empty city planning. He created a concept of what European architecture would look like if you stack them up and make them similar in sizes. Modern day city planning have different take on these issues. As I suggest before. The Tall skyscrapers are meant for Downtown areas where most offices are located. Residential and Commercial district would be limited to around 10-15 story high with big sidewalks and road + green areas around those sidewalk.
I really like this longer format, pretty cool. As a Parisian I can tell how well you understood the situation of this overcrowded city
The video length is great! Excelent videos, audio, quality, and explanations! You're awesome. The only thing I would add is the use of a narrative voice, the way it's done in documentaries (because I consider this more like a documentary than a normal under-5-min video). It would also make this attractive to more people. Keep it up!
I loved it (the length etc. ) !!!
That's what she said.
James swagdank not to you though
BURNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
James swagdank you derp xD
James swagdank wtf
I had the thought that the more socio political point had nothing to do with engineering... but on further thought, it could be easily argued that engineering - particularly civil engineering - is deeply entrenched in socio political arguments as it shapes the environments and civil supports of cities and countries.
nice video.
Agereed, you can't separate technology from the societies that make it. Maybe if you're a physicist or a mathematician you can live in a pure and idealized world but engineering is first and foremost about people. Too many engineers forget that.
Alexander Roderick I just commented on this subject. I have lived in cities from over 1 million in population to villages with less than 10 people. My decisions were based on community standards and behaviors. How strong is the local school district? I raised my children in a district that has NEVER failed to pass the local school tax levy. Even when the largest employer ceased operations and unemployment rates shot up to 18-20%. There's no substitute for a positive, well supported school system. My town was, and still is, poor by comparison to other similar sized cities, yet it is continually feted and given awards for community initiatives and programs. Citizen ownership and engagement are vital for healthy communities.
I currently live in Singapore and am really surprised to see Singapore being mentioned since many people have no idea what or where Singapore is usually. Compared to many cities out there, I feel that Singapore does do well in terms of planning where residential areas are still pretty connected to the Central Business District (CBD). Like it takes me around 40 mins or so on train (we call it MRT) to reach the more modern shopping malls and so, though we also usually have a mall nearby if you just want to do a simple shopping. Thank you so much for your videos and the longer video format really makes it more enjoyable and immersive!
Dude, Singapore is probably the most efficient and well designed city in the world. I've been there and it's an absolute utopia! People are respectful towards each other, the streets are the cleanest I've ever seen, crime is almost zero and the public transportation is great. The weather is a bit too humid, but besides that, probably the best and safest place to live in the world.
But the government of Singapore only have to worry about one city, and no rural area. European governments in densely populated countries like Germany and the uk have to try and create modern cities, while maintaining a high enough quality of life in rural areas to feed the population. The US government have 350 million to deal with, over a huge area of land, so that’s why they can’t keep up with Singapore in terms of quality of life and modern urban development.
I spent a couple weeks in Singapore, it is a really neat city. Clean, safe and easy to get around.
WTF dude?? Singapore is the epitome of modern urban planning. It is probably the most sophisticated modern city in the world. I have been to New York, LA and Hongkong, and I can say of all modern cities in the world, the only city I like more than Singapore is Tokyo.
If not for the big brother gahmen, SG would have been perfect leh...
@@lolipedofin what's so good about tokyo ? Is it easy to approach and have casual chitchat than sg
brilliant, loved the longer video, clearly gives you the time to unpack the principles to give a fuller explanation.
3:20 ... black car, center lane ... LMAO ... awesome dude, whomever you are
Tokyo has the right idea. There are multiple urban "islands" at major rail stations with skyscrapers separated by dense neighborhoods for living in between. Hard to describe...sorry
I've lived there and understand what you mean.
They got some good infrastructure. But thier social and working ethics are absolutely horrendous. Do not adopt them
@@33korki77 Brother revert to Islam and be saved from the everlasting and the eternal hellfire, brother Muhammad sallalahoalaehewassalam is the last and the final messenger.
@@yahyakhan9745 No one asked you, "Brother". We're here for engineering, not Islam. I'm happy you love your faith, but I'm also happy as I am.
@@nathanchildress5596 Brother you will burn in the everlasting and the eternal hellfire if you don't accept Islam.
You're channel is one of the best.
So well informed and you also share the sometimes painful but obvious truths.
Keep up the good work.
New sub. Los Angelino who got to live in Dublin for 3 years so always love hearing the accent! Content is up my alley as well. Legend!
I'm from São Paulo, Brazil. One of the biggest cities in the world and one of the cities that were not planned, and since it's beginning in history it did not have a plan, with engineers, except for it's sewer system, that is quite crappy(Pun intended) and it kinda grew on itself, with the center being for riches, and the outskirt for the poor, the working class here has to wake 4:00-5:00 to get into work that starts at 7:00 depending on how far they live, it's fucked up, two hours of transportation only to get to work. Also, we have one of the worst traffic in the world.
Eros Viana same as jakarta indonesia, jakarta is still young enough when transforming to urban city on 60's but still no plan for road or city block. And nowaday all roads are so confusing,small and even sewer system is small and bad causing flood every year.
Im so sorry dude. I bitch and moan driving 45 minutes to and from class everyday!
I feel ya.
You know, it may sound arrogant but Sao Paolo and places like Jakarta and a lot of cities in the ME, Asia, Africa could do with a visit from some advanced European and Japanese/South Korean architects. Often issues of a huge urban landmass aren't noticed by the people who have lived in that country all their life. It sometimes takes the point of view of someone who has only visited and seen or noticed the 'all around' problems of a city like Sao Paolo to make changes for the better. When you live in a badly 'designed' or 'created' city you rarely 'see' beyond your own expectations. And that can be a bad thing as it often results in only certain priviledged - or rather 'chosen' - areas being rebuilt and modernised, even though these areas might have been the worst places to live at one time. This benefits a few but Sao Paolo and other cities need major structural and social reforms. In some ways it is a lot like Western cities but the issues with the West are not as acute [although they are getting there]. And with many changes comes a distinct impression that some people have been left out. Change is the most terrifying prospect for urban people so it is often best that the changes occur at an almost covert level.
What people don't know can't hurt them, right?
I know nobody will believe this but as late as the late 1990s many northern cities of the UK were still left in rubble [carefully 'hidden'... don't ask how] and huge tracts of inner city land were hidden away, as well as abandoned and smashed railway stations etc... all hidden behind huge advertising boardings that are 30-40 feet high. As a child, me and friends would break through into these areas and found the bombing of the Germans in WW2 had been quite effective but it was whole housing estates rather than any industrial landmarks that they hit [the Germans did bomb at night and in 1940-41 accuracy was based on crude targetting]. The south was heavily bombed but was soon put aright.
But the industrial north had taken a pounding and massive post-war housing schemes of the 1950-60s placed people in isolated housing estates were crime and unemployment eventually turned them into 'hellholes' [and the oddest thing is it only takes 2 or 3 'anti-social families' to turn a peaceful friendly place into a nightmare where it is not safe to wander alone at night... like the saying 'one bad apple spoils the whole barrel'].
There are some cynical types who believe the sole reason for the UK joining Europe was to receive european money or tax incentives to repair the damage done by German bombers over 50 years before. Certainly, the unemployment in the UK by the late 1970s had reached such massive figures that it far outstretched the unemployment rate in the late 1920s-early 1930s.
Wow. Another long post.
Sorry.
If you have read this far you get College Credit! Huzzah!
they dont need a visit from some western urban planners, the issue is that in 3rd world countries they lack the political courage to make any radical changes
All their policies are populistic and any radical change will be seen as benefiting the rich and higher classesand the poor living in the outscirts dont like to be kicked out of their new homes (as newcomers) the changes that happened in 1st world only happened when a 2nd generation descendants of new urban newcomers decided to move further inside the heart of the city and live in new buildings or rent apartments
After it those old urban surroundings that served their purpose (children grow and moved elsewhere) before they got demolished.
Also the new generation are less populistic and will end voting for change and modernisation, thats how it happens
when they need to modernise and change they automaticaly find urban planners to do that needed job
This video is all wonderful when viewed through the ideological futuristic keyhole, but it overlooks a lot of other very pervasive arguments surrounding the problems of high rise buildings and the dependence of inner-city living in any society. To a fireman, a high rise building is a death trap, and history is replete with descriptors of the horrifying death choices one faces in a burning or foundering high rise. Then there is the question of life expectancy. The Empire State Building has been through many technological upgrades, but the question of outlasting or being as beautiful as the Palace of Versailles or Notra Dame is a profound question. It's still a foregone conclusion that old school brick and mortar out lasts steel construction materiel because of that phenomenon metallurgists know about called "corrosion" which they define as nature's means of a metal not found naturally to return to its original ore. All forms of steel deteriorate. Lastly, but not conclusively, is gravity and nature (wind, weather, earthquakes, etc.). The higher, the more complex the materials are required. Your video jumps over this completely, but the problem of gravity and earth quakes alone present the realistic problem of height. And no matter how well engineered, the likelihood of investors putting their money into high rises constructed in earth quake zones like LA are slim to nil. It will never happen.
Madd Dogg Japan does have a few high rises though, where land is at a premium
Madd Dogg good points. The city of Malmö, Sweden, where I live, is making a concerted effort to make the city more dense and stop urban sprawl from happening. It's mostly four and five story buildings that fit into the existing cityscape so I think you might like it
I'm packing! ;)
If a city were an arrangement of very widely-spaced towers connected with bridges every 3 floors, then not only does that get rid of the streets, vehicles, and associated costs, but it makes it possible to evacuate a building pretty much no matter what level you were on since at most you would be a flight of stairs away from the nearest building exit. Of course, then there's the costs of the bridges, but simple suspension footbridges would do the trick to enable horizontal egress. They would be assembly line-manufactured for lower cost. I would keep the number of floors to 30 stories or less and keep the space between as nature/backyards to reduce visual and noise pollution. I do have a wiki-style website that explains this design in more detail.
sho.wiki/now/Frontier_Fork#Smallocracy
It even has a simple picture to help you visualize how much space there would be between the buildings.
Have you ever heard about Le Corbusier, or CIAM for that matter? They proposed similar all-inclusive designs (though in function of cars though - we're talking '40-'50). There're some rather famous drawings of him for the redevelopment of centre paris (cite radieuse). It doesn't work. The communist parties tried the schemes plenty of times in eastern Europe. It simply doesn't hold. Turns out: people like exceptions, something they can appropriate and shape themselves, having a sense of belonging and a sense of living in a unique location. NYC is like a modern version of the medieval city (like Paris) in that way: though the grid is very strict, and there're some building restrictions, there's enough money and interest in trying to add stuff as interesting as possible. Everybody is doing there own thing so it's a stylistic mess but everybody kinda likes it! Paris did the opposite. It cut the medieval historical fabric into pieces (as I was taught for crowd control - the French revolution was not the only city wide revolt leading up-to Napolean the III ascension to the throne, there were 4 more) allowing wide boulevards for the army to march into the city and creating a uniform city scape reflecting the grandeur of the Emperor. I find Paris pretty dull because of this reason. I mean there're still many places where the historical fabric is still in tact, but there's no comparing Napoli to Paris for example in respect of feeling the liveliness of a city.
heh, i was wondering why all 4 of the tallest buildings in my city were exactly 40 floors!
very interesting.
love the longer videos. halfway through i paused it to check if it was about to be over, because I was so used to your shorter ones. I was excited when I saw that there was more video to come. My city is las vegas and gentrification is not so bad, but we definitely are like everyone else in that we could benefit from green buildings.
you should make a series on rocket science
There is definitely more videos coming about rockets and space in general
Real Engineering thanks man.
nice!!!
Is that Galway
tis, that's where I am from
I have been interested in how Germany dose things, with lots of medium sized cities instead of one or two large cities like the UK.
SnazzBot my theory is that its because it was lots of kingdoms until the 1880's just like Italy and that prevented those countries to centralize a lot. but countries like UK for example have existed as an united country for much longer and that derived to centralization. plus more factors of administration I ignore.
Thats what I was thinking but feel the spread out way is better. Like if London goes under all of the UK is in trouble, just if Berlin dose the same the other cities can take the slack. But what would I know I'm just some slob with a keyboard.
But that was not a planned thing, it is a reasult of the historic federalism in germany. We did not have a central government until the 19th century, so all the small kingdoms etc did their own thing and saw their own cities grow... So I guess we were just lucky :)
True point. One of the strenghs of German economy lays on the relatively well balanced spread of its big cities. France is Paris centered, and the biggest part of the country's economy is made in the capital's region, while german landers economic weight shows no big difference between them.
Supercocoquentieux We have our economy quiet good spread, yet east germany (former DDR) lacks behind economically comparing it to west germany (BRD) 26 years after the reunion in 1990.
I love this channel. It is compelling in ways that even my WWII history videos (a favorite) cannot match. I like the variety and technical depth of the subjects. Longer videos would be that much more interesting, particularly with all of the technical and contextual information you provide on your subjects. Thank you for your work.
i live in chicago-
no one knows wtf 'willis tower' is.
it's the 'SEARS tower'
My parents are from Chicago. They’ll never call it the Willis tower, which is like a weird hill to die on if you ask me but I digress.
I recently started studying environmental engineering. Thank you for giving me confidence in my decision! :)
have you looked at the sustainable city designs by Jacque Fresco of the venus project? ...it's very interesting how he arrives at the design of circular cities and the buildings within..everything has an engineering and societal aspect reason.
Dionyzos can I take away your confidence?
Dionyzos congratz, but get ready to fight a very hard battle. welcome to the club
Dionyzos good luck to you!
Oh yeah I forgot to mention that I live in Germany and will probably be moving to Norway in a few years. I think that's an important side note.
My friend visited from Africa and asked "so you have so much clean water you water your lawn and flush the toilet with it?!"
Yeah, we could do so much better with water in the US. Mostly with toilets. Drain the sink into the tank, add the ability to do a small flush for urine, and add bidets to conserve toilet paper (which somewhat counterintuitively uses far more water in manufacturing).
And of course get over the stupid lawn obsession.
dekutree64 Saving water is nice and all, but we're trying to fix the problem at the wrong end. Renewable energy is the answer to our electricity problems, not switching the lights off in all the rooms you aren't currently in.
Likewise, the solution to our water problem is either desalination or cleaning the water and recirculating it. These options will be much more effective than letting the lawn die, it just requires some infrastructure and electricity (witch there is too much of in some countries anyway due to renewable energy being too effective)
Yes and no. Our economy and technology does support an enormous amount of clean water, but droughts still affect us, and growing populations may still tax the system. Clean water may actually be a problem moving forward.
I think that many portions of Africa do actually have a lot of potential - there are a lot of natural resources locked up in that continent, especially the southern half. Unfortunately, the current political and economic systems used in many African countries stifle it and prevent it from reaching its full potential.
+Kaleb Bruwer No, neither approach is wrong. The only intelligent approach is to do both. Electricity isn't going to be clean no matter how renewable it is. There's always costs and waste attached. Making the supply cleaner is all well and good, but it isn't an excuse not to optimise use.
Desalination will become more necessary over time, but it's fundamentally far more costly than a supply of fresh water. Also, lawn maintenance is next to pointless, especially when we're dumping enormous amounts of water, fertilizer, energy, and time into perpetuating something that does nothing of value outside of our opinion that it's pretty.
And no, renewable energy isn't "too effective." In fact, it's too shitty, screwing with the electric supply and causing massive problems.
I think we can look at Israel to find a system of somewhat sustainable water use. They have an extensive desalination system, that provides half(I think) of the potable water. Then they have a second water system in which they use treated wastewater for irrigation and other non potable needs.
Amazing video, I enjoyed the length. Don't be nervous, you're doing a great job man.
Thanks for all your videos. Watching this one it featured out how much common skyscrapers ressemble over the world. A lot of the buildings in the background of the featured one or buildings in large sceneries exists in la Defense or other places in Paris Area in a identical form (same shape, same facade, same color, same alternance of pattern from bottom to top).
This is why I believe most Australian cities are stagnating. Adelaide is spread so thin it's shocking.
Well Melbourne consistently wins the best city to live in in the world, they have to be doing something right. That was another city I wanted to talk about in detail, but the video was getting too long.
Real Engineering
I hear also about Adelaide being voted one of the best cities in the world but trust me it's not at all. Maybe in the very centre it's nice but going anywhere further than 3.5km from the centre will bring you to absolute mediocre, one story building, sprawling bore land with unemployment, angry citizens, bare minimal education facilities and almost no factory workplaces.
yeah please do make a video about why melbourne consistently wins this award, i would really appreaciate your view as you are a non resident who can be objective. every year it seems, i hear on the news that i live in the best city in the world and i don't know what to make of it.
Gotta have dem backyards. Also, if Adelaide is so great, why don't you go drink from your tap, and let us know how it goes :3
soloxcan
What? Also, what's wrong with our water? Everyone says everone elses' water tastes weird.
I'm so early. Legend says Real Engineering replies..
Which legend would that be?
Real Engineering The legend of a CZcamsr who makes amazing informative content.
I believe he goes by the username Real Engineering.
Aw I was hoping it would be something where I become Neo and can dodge bullets n shit.
Every CZcamsr that responds to this obnoxious shit is just contributing to the spam problem.
I long for the days when spam comments were a minority.
It's just a bit of fooling around. I like interacting with the people that watch my videos.
I live in Dallas, TX, I’d love to see it finished one day lol Saying it is continuously under construction does not put in perspective how constant it truly is
I just wanted to say that I love this video and it helped me come up with an amazing idea for designing the city of the future. The final for one of my classes required us to create a solution for the Anthropocene, Love the channel!
Love the longer video. Keep up the good work!
I love the longer videos. They encourage sitting back and really enjoying/focusing on the video. All of those 3-5 minute videos on CZcams are just click-in/click-out. With this quality and length, you could really go far!
Keep it up!
"Cities like Hong Kong do not have any super tall buildings"
*Cut to shot of Hong Kong with 5 of the tallest 50 buildings in the world, including #10*
he means it doesnt have buildings that look out of place because of their height
He meant that their Buildings aren't all extremely tall, but instead have a higher "Average Height" in the city landscape.
Smushy I don’t think that’s what he meant. Out of place because of its height? Huh? To you perhaps.
It looks like you didn't listen to the full sentence.
@@raymonlandry228 who?
First time here. Loved it! Subbed, and will watch more!
Amazing video, everyone should watch. Make more long videos
How about preserving the architecture of Paris while allowing to build higher buildings? I think that because Paris is a city with its history tied to its architecture so much that no one wants to tear anything down. After all, all the tourists want in Paris is art.
Matthew Tolentino, can't build too high in Paris because the ground underneath won't support them
Maybe it's time to look at Le Corbusier's plans again :p
Nah. Le Corbusier's plans are too thick. Where's the light? haha
Why not just connect 30 story towers with footbridges? That way you can have density and space too. You can even have backyards if you group them together at the ground with. Urban population density? Check. Dirty urban alleys and busy streets? Uncheck. Suburban floor plans and backyards? Check. Boring suburban commute? Uncheck. Rural countryside and cottages a few minutes walk away? Check. Rural lack of jobs and opportunity? Uncheck. Why not, Smallocracy?
sho.wiki/now/Frontier_Fork#Smallocracy
@Jayden Pearse, um, why is that..? I mean why will the ground not support high rise buildings?
Most of the ground in Paris is too soft. If you build a higher building like normal it will start to sink into the ground. You can build higher buildings but you need to make sure you get the foundations right.
Great video, really enjoy your works!! 👍
The longer the better as long as; as you have been doing, you aren't repeating yourself, we viewers don't get lost and the added time is justified by the additional information.
I like both your shorter and longer videos! This was great because you were able to cover so much!
Hello,
I am from Toronto, Canada. Firstly, I really like the longer video format, I get to learn more and savor the experience. Secondly, Toronto. A big change I would like to see in Toronto is more transit, and transit oriented development. Older Toronto has a lot of parks as well as nice Victorian architecture, however, "Metropolitan" Toronto, the newer areas from the 20th century, are absolute sprawl. Endless streets of post world war two housing, rundown strip-malls, and wide thoroughfares with no side walks or trees go on and on till you reach dirty, lifeless industrial sprawl near the airport in Malton. It would nice if the city slowly leveled the sprawl, and used the land as park space, but with more vertical buildings instead to house the local population. Im from a suburb of Toronto called Oakville. Oakville has lots of forests and trails and lakefront. I feel Toronto can benefit from the same thing.
Sincerely, Rae
Rejean Rivard communist
Excellent. Normally I shun longer videos, but this was a quality presentation - the time flew by.
I love the longer format, you should do more of them.
This is one of my favorite channels, you rock.
Fantastic video!
However, something also to be noted- most "modern" skyscrapers tend to be extremely visually unappealing and destroys some old world charm, one major reason against building upwards. Growing up seeing many urban cities, this is a very valid point as I began to appreciate the beauty of past architecture. Ugliness is a plague that infects the modern urban city. If we can reach a balance point of making skyscrapers high and beautiful (like the 1920's art deco style) as well as making them incredibly efficient, more will no doubt be on board.
Then build highrises like they do in East Asia.
There are already old world cities, time to move towards the future.
@@rollog1248 It's not about settling new old world cities though
Well, I was not sure if I would finish it, but after a break I came back and I finished the video, and I thought it was very good. This is the only video I have seen on your channel so far. Yes, I do think about half this length is probably the best, but maybe this video is a good exception, I am not sure.
Love the longer videos, new to your channel but binging fast!
First time in your channel.
Dude, you actually made me feel interested by arquitecture and civil engineering. Thank you so much!
Last time I was this early, Harambe was still with us.
RIP Harambe
zeacho ur not early vid is 20 min Old. practically a dinosaur
Dinosaurs were here pretty early, I'd say.
jajajajaja
I'm afraid I disagree with you. You showed the example of New York as the "building in heigh archetype", where high rise buildings allow higher density of population, while the low rise Paris buildings force low density and people moving to the outskirts... But if you have gone deeper, you would have discovered that population density in Paris is more than the double than New York's. In fact, the density of the whole Paris is quite similar to just Manhattan.
Comparing Europe and USA, you will see this very often: USA cities, with much higher buildings, but much lower general densities. That's because high rise buildings are just in a relatively small area of the city.
You also considered "la défense" district as the example of integration of high rise buildings in a historical background... But that's not a part of historical Paris. It's quite far, outside even of the limits of the Haussmann Plan. Building high rise buildings in a really historical background would totally destroy it, just imagine Notre Dame surrounded by skyscrapers. Not mentioning that this would require destroying lots of historical buildings.
And the last point, the necessity of our cities to suffer a renovation similar to Haussmann Plan... Haussmann Plan was very good, actually. But was also really destructive. It include destroying vasts parts of the historical Paris, being some sector totally demolished, as well as expropriating lots of houses. That could be possible in the France of Napoleon III, where people rights didn't matter, and historical buildings weren't really appreciated, but nowadays, in a democratic country, a plan which would require demolishing half of the city and moving thousands of people is not possible.
In 1910 Manhattan had a population density of 39,222 people/km^2, way more than Paris has ever had.
In 1910, with much lower buildings... Today's population is much lower, around 27,330 people/km^2, similar to the whole city of Paris... The problems are not city centers with 10 floors, the problems are the huge suburbs with single family houses.
Wyldin Nidlyw Manhattain is still 32% more densely populated than Paris propper. However, building taller greatly increases the population density, see Kowloon. Hong Kong.
Yes, it is... But the whole city of New York is much less dense than Paris, around half of it (even with manhattan)... In my opinion, is more important avoiding losing enourmous amounts of land in single family houses, than destroying the historical essence of an old city by building 30 story buildings
my reply on Wendovers video. TLDR: No. Paris is not really more densely populated than NYC. There's about a 5% difference.
There's a flaw in your numbers: You're comparing the density of the Paris-propper to New York City. Well this might look good on paper - I mean you're comparing two cities no? It isn't. The extends of Paris don't reach further then the last city-walls build in the late medieval period - so pretty much only the historic city center. France never really made an effort to centralise and union different municipalities into larger units. New York City has. It includes 5 boroughs: Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. A fairer comparison would be to only compare Manhattan, which is kind of the historical city center of NYC with Paris (it's 109 to 105 km2 so very comparable in area as well!) and then you get a population density of 72 thousand vs 55 thousand ppl/sqm, so Manhattan def wins from the historical city center of Paris. Another way to approach it is to take the Metropolitan areas. The statistics on the New York City metropolitan area are 23,723,696 inhabitants on a 13,318 sqm area with a resulting 1,781 ppl/sqm. The Metropolitan area of Paris clocks at 12,405,426 inhabitants on a 6631.1 sqm area which computes to a population density of 1871 ppl/sqm. So yes, the population density is a bit higher in the Parisian metro compared to the New Yorkers, but a 5% difference is not something I'd call significant.
Also there IS a lot of suburbanisation in Europe but it just didn't happen in a similar way as it did in the US. Here in Europe, those small rural villages and towns you talked about were the roots from which the European suburban sprawl grew. A lot of those small towns are completely unrecognisable, with all the farmland being build upon and the city square converted in either an expressway or a parking lot, or both. The only thing left that reminds you of the original village that it used to be is the local church. It's not everywhere like this though for example in the Netherlands they had very strict zoning rules and were able to contain suburban sprawl in a relatively orderly fashion but if you go to google maps and zoom in on to areas like north of Milan, Munich area, the outskirts of London, Copenhagen, Stockholm, ... you can see that there is a lot - and I mean A LOT - of Suburban sprawl in Europe as well (the entirety of Belgium is one sprawl in between relatively small Medieval towns). Who lives here? Mostly middle class people who were able to leave the city and start commuting (mostly by car). What's the biggest issue in the West-European capital cities? The "Natives" who can afford it leave the city center. There spots get filled by immigrants (often 2nd and third generation nowadays) who make up larger and large parts of the population (upto 40% in Amsterdam). On average they are much less likely to get a higher degree and so there's a lot of unemployment and poverty in there midst. Also illegal immigrants will mostly settle in the biggest urban areas. So although there's maybe less crime, there're probably as many socio-economical issues in European cities as in American.
You're not wrong though on the historical very high densities. But the thing is: that IS really a thing of the past. European city centers used to be as densely packed as modern day asian counterparts but with the increase in life standards, so did the amount of space people required to live in. So people started leaving the city. Most old city centers (and with that I mean the areas that where the most lively in Medieval times) know very low population densities nowadays compared to a few centuries ago (think about the City of London with it's 8000 inhabitants or here are some statistics on the Parisian arrondissements and when they had there highest population density en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrondissements_of_Paris). It's only until very recently (late 90's) that most cities started seeing positive growth numbers again - often related to traffic reduction measurements being taken and very heavy investment in public spaces.
Great video mate. Love the time, effort and depth of this video.
it blows my mind the time and effort this guy puts into these videos. amazing work dude. these words behind the screen don't mean enough man.
you handled the longer format very well
Great video, really interesting and respectful of history. I''m keen to watch more of these longer vids if you make them.
Its good to see someone finally know that its the SEARS TOWER. Regular newscasters outside of Chicago can't seem to figure that one out.
Dude, you're awesome. Watching your videos every night after work has become my new hobby. Wish you the best in life! Thanks very much.
I like the longer video
Great video. Rivals anything on similar subjects on Discovery Channel in my opinion. (also, strengthens my opinion that being awarded World Heritage Site status is one of the worst things that could've happened to Amsterdam. It basically guarantees the problems you talk about)
I loved this video. I see gentrification where I live, here in Denver Colorado and I'm constantly am thinking about how to improve it and you give a fantastic perspective on it
This length of these clips is better, than the previous shorter ones, keep it up boss!
Will you make an updated 'How SpaceX will get us to Mars' video?
Great video btw.
Also, i don't mind your videos being long.
that would be amazing if he did that because so much has changed.
Yes i know he already made one, but since the video was released SpaceX has published their actual plans to get thousands of people to Mars. His old video does not contain this new and vital information. Hence 'updated' :D
I think singapore's suburban neighbourhoods are a good example of highly dense housing. High rise flats are spaced out sufficiently for adjudicate sunlight while recreational space is spread out to feel less claustrophobic. Transportation is planned ahead of time with the neighbourhoods well interconnected in centralised transportation hubs which lead to the city. Nevertheless this is almost impossible in developed cities as their pre-existing architecture restricts modern urban planning and singapore's neighbourhoods was build in the late 80s with empty space for engineers to work around.
I must admit, I find your narrative to be both engaging and educational.
The increased length of this video is very conducive to the absorption of its content in my opinion.
Keep up the solid work my friend.
Mate, this video is incredibly well done. Educational, informative and filled with eye candy. You sir, have just earned yourself a subscriber.
Thumbs up @3:20 in the Audi :P
Fecking loved this! Great job :)
Just love your in-depth approach and easy way of explaining. Why did I not find your channel earlier?
Great video and a great argument. One point to add to Haussmann's plan was the need for wider boulevards to move troops during times of civil unrest or another revolution. As much as this revitalization was necessary for the health of the city, the needs of governmental control (as you mentioned) were also just as important.
I live in the Washington, DC area. We desperately need higher density, which mostly is happening in Arlington, Vitginia, posts of Alexandria, Virginia, and in pieces of Montgomery County, Maryland.
dcseain D.C is also limited by a ban that keeps building heights below that of the Washington monument.
The city is a gimmick plagued by regression. High density isn't something they'll do
Thanks. This guy makes the world a better place.
no he didnt
I really like long form videos! 20 - 30 minutes is great for me. This was super interesting.
this is the video i have been trying to find for long time
Great Video
System is the problem 🏡 Our Life should be around these Great Qualities
1, Show all living creatures; all the love and kindness as much as you can.
2, Only try to be honest with yourself. If you try to be honest with others, you will get into big trouble soon or later.
3, Aim only one target at a time; otherwise you are chasing two rabbits and you will miss both. So, the reason behind it. Have one powerful reason and never ever give up the one you want the most.
4, Don't try to be good person only but be the powerful person. We will grow to be the one or we will die. There is no other choice.
5, Always learn and look for to improve something your life.
6, You are not alone. Love and faith the high power reduces unnecessary stress in life. But never completely rely on it.
7, Success and happiness are the byproducts of our usefulness. So, always increase the possibility of success.
8, Life is not going to be easy. Because of our unnecessary things. Eliminate all the unnecessary things as much as you can by organising yourself well with the environments.
9, Never believe anything without the proper evidences.
10, Always try to give more than you take.
Because it is dignity/ character of the divinity within you.
🌎 As long as people continue to see themselves as separate from everything else, they lend themselves to being completely enslaved. Success depends on how well we relate to everything around us. Joy comes from that bliss of connectedness. I believe that unarmed truth and love will have the final word in reality. To love; you should have good heart. I am a good person until I see a person better than my standard of goodness. Being good is the progress towards a worthy cause. Love is God. Whoever lives in love, lives forever. How selfish it is to try to keep something forever? Love is all about nourishing, nurturing, sharing and expanding the love within you for all. The principle to which we adhere to is that we have kindness of love at heart for the whole of mankind. As long as there is the unnecessary differences within us; we can not live peacefully so we have to eliminate all the unnecessary differences among us so we can love all. People abilities may vary but not there true love. If we love a person/ God for a reason then we love the reason but not the person. No reason is the reason to love the person because true love never fails. So do not compare or measure the true love as first or the last but love all truly. If you love people truly then you can understand people. If you don't love then you don't understand people at all.
People are controlled by system why?
The Cyclical Consumption is the current economy all over the World. It is making the scarcity problems of the earth finite resources to deteriorate day by day. Current Monetary System is legalised theft. Real money is Gold and Silver. Scarcity gives the money more value. Real money won't lose it's value. When Governments stay away from Gold & Silver then very easy to transfer the wealth / resources to upper class the Rich (Corporatocracy) Elite. When the Governments are printing out more new fiat currency with reserve banks, our old currency is losing its purchasing power everyday. They are printing millions of currency everyday. All governments and laws are existing right now to transfer wealth to upper class the rich elite. The USA Government & other Governments are in many countries, bailed the investment banks & financial institutions in 2008 against the majority of the people. There is no democracy in any countries. Because of the Money System based on profits motive only above all else even humans lives and well-being. So, we do not have freedom to protect our values with the money so on. The violence, bankruptcy & all the negativities are build into the Monetary System of our society. All are owned (including ourselves) by Reserve Bank. Which is private cartel the corporation. So, in legal system, we are legally considered as chattel the properties. They make money in the capital markets with our birth certificates. They do not consider us as Humans. That's the truth. We are at the invisible war with the Elites (Corporatocracies). We have to fight for our Freedom. Resource Based Economy is the Solution. We have to declare the earth resources as the heritage of all the people of this world. So everyone has access to it. Please have your research about zeitgeist movement then you know the truth more.
Truth About Health/Drugs Industry Because Of It Your Life At High Risk The drug industry is a 1/2 trillion dollars a year worldwide conglomerate. Almost 300 billions dollars just in North America. That is really big business. What would happen if everyone were well? There is no money in health. You see, good health makes a lot of sense but it doesn't make a lot of dollars. Because everything they do is toxic. Every drug they use, prescription drugs, all drugs are liver toxic, bar none. If you've had amalgam fillings put in your mouth by dentists. It is highly toxic. There's cancer because most of the chemos are themselves carcinogens. To view the tumor as the cancer and we know the tumor is not the cancer. The cancer industry is 200 billions dollars a year. The more work they get, the more profit there is. You have to dismantle; If the truth ever came out about what we would need to do. 30% of people of females in America are at risk of getting, will get cancer of the breast. The ones that are already dead have been grossly mistreated by the medical profession and by the government that supposedly is supposed to encourage free research and development of all possibilities. Why would medical doctors who studied medicine and practice medicine and are heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies why would they go and look into vitamins? That they never had the answer orthomolecular. And as more and more of our population start taking their health into their own hands, there's going to be even more and more of changes. It can't go on the way it is. The system is failing apart. We must make nutrition the primary prevention strategy for the population. You are what you eat. You are everything that you have ever done to yourself. The choices you make directly affect the outcome of your life. - (Food Matters Documentary in Netflix)
😊 Well, I truly love God. I am not religious but very spiritual person. So, I believe 1) Religion is the beliefs in someone experiences But spirituality is having my own experiences. The mainstream religions people promote religious ideology by giving guidelines and guide but In my spiritual life; I do not want anyone or anything between God and me to restrict my freedom to worship God. 2) We do not need any authorities to do good work. The god work is the good work always. In contrast; organised mainstream religions are claiming that they have the authorities to do God works as leaders so on. 3) God is not capable of doing wrong thing, change the past for us and create anything out of nothing for us. Nothing means not anything. So, even God is limited. The mainstream religious people believe that God is unlimited. 4) God wants us to take responsibilities for our righteousness life but not for all the consequences of our actions because they are continued to exist among us. So, How can god punish us for all our consequences? The mainstream religious people believe we are full of sins because of all our actions. 5) Freewill is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure. So, we do not have choices all the time. In contrast teachings of the mainstream religions are promoting people to do god's will always because we all have choices of freewill always. 6) We can not separate everything into groups. So, everything for good and evil and there's no success and failure for everything. If everything is real then real things can not be threatened. Once you come to understand that God/The Holy Spirit is in each of us, You will no longer need a Book to tell you how to live. Then why we need religious scriptures? The Virtue is the expression of the basic goodness in our actions. The Basic goodness is the fundamental worthiness of every individuals. We are worthy to God always in everything. 7) Beliefs in a cruel God makes a cruel man. No matter what; every living creatures has the right to live and What makes their life cheap? Everything depends on everything. Nothing too big or too small in value. We can not love and hate at the same time; Being a vegetarian means love without cruelty happily. The mainstream religious people are killing people and sacrificing animals in the name of God. They promote God's cruel punishments. The Punishment is endless for Sinners/Devil according to religious scriptures. But God is love always. Overcome hate with love. If all religions for peace, unity? No way. Because they are not for peace. 8) Well, The God gave us everything to go from moment to moment in our lives as we do our part and pray only to thank god then the Love is in progress. The Love is always for everyone. We are always worthy of the God's love. Our greatest fear is; not to be loved by anyone but we are all loved by someone. When we eliminate all our unnecessary differences among us then true peaceful life is possible with the true love. If we can't find the peace within ourselves then we will never find it anywhere else. 9) This is the Fight for independence and freedom of humanity to worship God freely without religious guide and guidelines to restrict us. Unnecessarily, We do not want third party controls over us in anything ; especially in spirituality. 10) Revive Survive Thrive. Sincerely, The Real Peacemaker against religious oppression.
czcams.com/video/HbvCxMfcKv4/video.html
czcams.com/video/pIJHJzDQcRM/video.html
czcams.com/video/MyxbdmAnIcI/video.html
czcams.com/video/wLzeakKC6fE/video.html
czcams.com/video/P8vHa8zD7jY/video.html
Excellent video. I really like watching these longer videos so please do more if you can :D
Really love these urban/architectural/civil engineering videos
EXTREMELY interesting channel. Im really interested in engineering as a teen and these vids are simple but informational and interesting. 10/10 will recommend!
Hey real enginering you seem to know alot about wingshape efficiency, could you make a video on the F4U corsair and its unique inverted gull wing and explain how it is one of, if not the best fighter of ww2 that most have ever heard of.
Definitely on the list. Love that plane
The gull wing had nothing to do with aerodynamics. It ensured you could have suitably short (for carriers) landing gear while keeping the fuselage high enough off the ground to make room for the massive propeller. Clever engineering, but not directly about its flying qualities.
Yes! Longer vids please!
Dunno how I found this channel but I'm glad I did! Really interesting videos man, keep em coming!
Could not agree with your premise more. Great video. Thanks for making
Washington, DCs character is based upon its low skyline...
It's character is about making political monuments dominant on the skyline. That's stupid.
Real Engineering I live in DC, born and raised. There is a lot a gentrification. As far as space. DC still has a lot of that. In neighborhoods that were used as car dealerships, low income housing, and vacant lots in the past have been transformed into 12-13 story office building and condos. Traffic is horrible but the city has a huge underground metro that's supposed to be expanding and biking in the city is encouraged. DC is known for its government buildings and landmarks, I think it should stay that way because it is what makes us unique. Our architecture old and new is unique and different from the rest of the country.
On the other side of the river is the city of Alexandria located in Virginia, they have very tall buildings and the skyline is really beautiful. I think it would be best to have DC stay the same and have Alexandria expand in height.
***** I agree with you. DC has a long way to go before the city runs out of space for building. Most of the people who commute in DC are coming from out of state, for example DC and Maryland. That's where the traffic is coming from. Most of the people who live in DC, such as myself, commute by train and bus and that's because it's convenient.
So in my opinion it wouldn't be stupid at all for DC to keep its height regulations.
They are already fixing and adjusting some of the highways and major streets in DC to allow more traffic in the city. It'll only get better with time.
***** yes, I agree. Majority of the people are moving out of DC anyway because metro has extended to Maryland and Virginia. The population will increase regardless but like I stated in the other comments, DC still has a lot of space to work with and building at levels of 12-13 stories is suitable. DC was originally not supposed to be a place to live when it was first established as a city, it was meant for government workers. But that was way back in the 1800's. But back to the point, having those 12-13 story sized buildings being built in places where only 5 small houses set makes a hell of a difference. Over 500 people can live in that building vs. 30 people living right there in those small houses.
***** with these new buildings, low income, middle class, and high class people can live in the same building, there was a plan with a few of these building to allow that. The basement floors and first 3 floors would be for low income and as you go up, the rent increases.
While this may be true in principle, things start getting a little schetchy when we're treating people like machines with no individuality. Myself personally, living near a major US city, to live there with all the crowds, crime, rudeness would be totally unacceptable. I work with people who live 'in the country' and do travel up to 2 hrs daily, but have no complaints- it's all worth it. In todays political/world controlling enviornment, this approach would suit the "controllers" having people in a more centralized location. Not for me! Technology can fix those problems you mentioned, water, traffic ect. It's clear gov't is hesitant improving infrastructor and the human condition. Thanks for you channel, Good Stuff.
please do more longer videos. i love that kind of content and youtube has seen a lack of that long informative content for quite some time now. people tend to rush their information within 5-8 mins and i believe it cheapens the video and the sincerity of the CZcamsr to his/her audience
just came across your video do to the guy you mentioned and hope yall produce great thought provoking videos such as this and give educate us on how things are and how the work.
I'm seeing this video about 20 months after you made it. It's a great video, I don't know how I missed it before. I don't like high-rise buildings, but you opened my mind about some places that succeed with tall buildings, cities I have never visited. I have been to NYC, yes, but not some of the other success stories, Paris, yes, I've been there, too, but not the La Defense part of Paris. One thing I Love about London, despite the lack of as many tall buildings as NYC, I love London for the number of parks and open spaces and the forward-looking public transport systems, something Los Angeles seems to have failed to consider before it was too late. Just my two cents on the issue.
Sprawl probably does decrease the net quality of life for most people. But, one might spend some time thinking about the tradeoffs that people are willing to have if it means living way TF out in the burbs. It's not just that land is cheaper by dint of greater quantity supplied. Often the land is so much cheaper because it isn't as heavily taxed, or there are fewer regulations. The schools may be better. The crime is almost certainly lower. Sometimes, it's necessary because the workplace can't be in the middle of the city (industrial chemicals, etc.,)
In other words, before sniping at people for fleeing the cities, one should first recognize that nobody likes to commute, then, look at the things that are driving them away, and the policies and policy-makers thereof.
Grayson Hill another point to mention is that people, when possible, usually want there own house and maybe even a garden. The idea of high rise apartments is usually unappealing unless you can afford a well off penthouse or sweet.
You’ll say you moved to the woods because you don’t like democrats but in reality it’s because of smaller public schools, no city taxes, lower crime.
@@IcelanderUSer Are you sure there isn't a correlation, at least to a certain type?
Grayson Hill Perhaps you should google which states have the lowest crime rates. States with no sales tax are blue too. Not to mention lowest rates of obesity, most happy, most people working and not living off of a minuscule check from the government are blue too. So no I don’t see a correlation although Republicans would like to you to think otherwise.
@@IcelanderUSer Not sure sprawl is an issue best thought of at the state level. Outside of a few rare examples of people wanting to move to a state for the lifestyle (Colorado, Hawaii), people choose the city in which they live based on factors relative to nearby options (assuming one is choosing to mive at all). Bringing state level data in to the picture only introduces unnecessary complexity to the question, such as whether given populations within a state move, or where, precisely the obese in a state are, to use one of your criteria. For example, we have one of the lowest overall rates of obesity in Colorado, but that is heavily skewed by the ski towns, Bolder, Denver, Fort Collins. Not all mountain towns are thin. Not all neighborhoods are, either, with obesity highest in Black and Latino urban populations and rural Whites in certain areas. None of which explain why people decide to up and choose Township Sprawl just outside of Dense City (which is a nice pun). As for the politics of it, one might ask why well-paid Democrats who work in Washington, DC commute from the suburbs of Baltimore, but not Baltimore itself. Look at the incentives, not the identities.
Make a video about Pittsburgh, PA and how because of its geographical location improving existing roads and building new roads is almost impossible.
Sometimes i watch your vids, not because I'm particularly interested in them, but i like the soothing tones of your Irish accent