Are Vertical Cities A Realistic Future?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 06. 2024
- Are Vertical Cities A Realistic Future?
Depending on who you ask, the world is either overpopulated or on it's way to overpopulation. And in the next 10 years, the world would see an increase in environmental problems such as rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, global warming, and pollution. Why? Because these problems are aggravated by population expansion. Add that to the inevitable destruction of forests and other habitats, it becomes pretty obvious that there are trying times ahead.
Follow our Instagram: / byltmedia
Thanks for watching!
Man this is an amazing production quality for a small channel like yours's.
Glad you enjoy it! Thank you for the support :)
I am for vertical city. The pros are real and present, while the cons are really non-issues and can easily be overcome. For example community centers can be established within walking distance in shopping malls etc., in fact allowing people to meet more often without having to drive for miles as in present days.
hi bro
What about Sky Bridges that connect one building to another elevated above a normal street and pedestrian cross walks?
you might like to read the comment I wrote
explanation of why each "problem" is not a real problem:
1. "lack of sunlight" lack of sunlight is indeed 100% important, people would need to go outside the city often to get fresh air and sunlight, but that is literally a feature of the city and a requirement for health, so it would be dumb for people not to do it, is like "punching yourself is bad" alright... then don't do it, you are your only cause for that.
2. "lack of resources/money/technology" just... just not true, we do have everything we need, also building a town of 10 literal houses is easy, building a literal copy of new york might be a bit harder, at least my city design is stupidly modular, like crazy crazy modular, just keep on building at whatever speed you need, it is useful at any size, it can keep growing and eventually become big, there in no need to build the entire thing either, but like of course you can't build something like new york in a day so I don't know what is the point.
3. "risks" skyscrapers are already like that, and therefore already risky, we already do it, we seem to do fine, and as we kinda said in the previous point this could take even longer giving the architects even more time to carefully plan each part, and also the other parts of the city can be used why the expansion is worked on, there is literally no rush and no reason to make things poorly, just keep on doing like we do with skyscrapers (heck... there are some ret-rds that insist on building space elevators... those ARE risky and dumb).
4. "claustrophobia" funny enough even tho it looks like such a dumb argument, it is actually one of strongest ones if not the strongest one, it is actually one of my main concerns, the city is just different and the feeling is just different, and if people just aren't comfortable... then they just aren't, indeed a lot of people seem to be claustrophobic, and this could probably be not cool for them, tho claustrophobic people are just some people, not everyone.
5. "disrupting the skyline" not to worry about that (at least in my design) because the absolute max max height would be 2 to 3 km and airplanes go at least at 8 km, they would also be few and it would be unlikely for planes to go just above, the thing is it is literally not a problem at all.
extra: there are some other quick random things mentioned but they don't even sound serious, I don't think they are worth talking about.
Hey, I know this is one of your older videos but could you share the sources of the information in that video? I'm writing an essay about that topic and am in desperate need for some more sources. If you could arrange that it would mean a lot. Thanks in advance :) @Bylt
the world isnt overpopulated, it's just drastically inefficient.
exactly