[gt1370a]

I'd love to hear what Kunstler has to say about this. Talk about your misallocation of resources.

Boston wants new skyscraper
BOSTON, Feb. 18 (UPI) -- Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino is calling for a 70- to 80-story skyscraper that would be about 1,000 feet high and the tallest building in the city.

Officials are inviting proposals for the site at the Winthrop Square parking garage in the financial district -- to demonstrate Boston's confidence in its future, the mayor said at a speech Friday to business leaders at the Seaport Hotel.

While the 1,000-foot tall tower would be the tallest building in Boston, it would be far shorter than the 1,250-foot-high Empire State Building in New York City and the 1,450-foot Sears Tower in Chicago, the Boston Globe reported Saturday.

"We'll be looking for proposals that symbolize the full scope of this city's greatness," Menino said. "We will insist on bold vision and world-class architecture."

[Peepers]

How is this a misallocation of resources? Increasing the density of our urban areas is a great way to reduce vehicle-miles traveled, increase walking and transit ridership, and thus reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Manhattan has some of the lowest energy use per capita in the nation. Perhaps Boston (and other major cities) should strive to redesign their land use policies to foster higher density cities (with rooftop gardens, community gardens and the requisite greenspaces mixed in, of course!).

[Novus]

Unless it is a mixed use building skyscrapers encourage sprall. People have to travel far to get to work. To kunstler ideally building should be shorter then ten floors like the layouts of old Paris, Rome, and London.

[jaws]

Skyscrapers just scream "Pay attention to us!!!" Look at the monstrosity the Louisville politicos are proposing to save their godawful city: http://gutter.curbed.com/archives/2006/ ... ntucky.php

[Leanan]

On the bright side, if Dr. Hansen is correct and the sea level rises 80 ft. due to global warming, at least the upper floors will be dry.

[KingM]

Surely not every building needs to have a greenhouse on top, and surely not every city needs to look like old Paris.

[aahala]

<hijack>

Much of the credit or the blame for the building of skyscrapers goes to
our old friend Otis.

No, not Otis the friendly drunk on the Andy Griffth TV series. The
elevator company.

Without the elevator invention, many of these buildings would not have been built.

</hijack>

[TorrKing]

<hijack>

Much of the credit or the blame for the building of skyscrapers goes to
our old friend Otis.

No, not Otis the friendly drunk on the Andy Griffth TV series. The
elevator company.

Without the elevator invention, many of these buildings would not have been built.

</hijack>

And without the man who invented agriculture, overpopulation wouldn't be an issue either.

Torjus Gaaren

[Peepers]

Unless it is a mixed use building skyscrapers encourage sprall. People have to travel far to get to work.

Why would they have to travel far to get to work? This is Boston, where core-city living options within walking distance are extensive and for those who want to live farther away, Boston has an excellent and extensive public transit system.

Can you imagine the footprint of this building if its square footage was kept within a much lower height restriction? It would eat up a tremendous amount of land. Now that's wasteful, anti-pedestrian and simply uneconomical in a major downtown area. I'm surprised you're having such a hard time with this concept.

If you want to look at the causes of sprawl, look to low-density development, segregated districts of land use, auto dependency, free parking and so on. None of those conditions exist in Boston's core city. If we want to rein in our profligate energy use in this country, we should be arguing for more cities to be redesigned in the model of Boston.

And I wasn't proposing a rooftop garden atop this skyscraper. Read my message again. But I will clarify for you... In my neighborhood of Cleveland, many of my neighbors keep some decent-sized backyard gardens, even though the population density of my neighborhood is more than 10,000 people per square mile (translation: there isn't a lot of open space in the area). Up the street there is a very large community garden, and several more nearby. We also use to have a massive amount of greenhouses surrounding the metro area that grew tomatoes and other veggies, but we'd rather import those from overseas nowadays.

I'm moving on to other subjects....

[backstop]

Peepers wrote:

"Im moving on to other subjects"


Peepers, I think you're probably right to do so,

as in spring and autumn, when gardens particularly need the sunshine,

I reckon the shadow of this thing would often stretch right across a mile of neighbourhood,

not to mention the relatively massive extra climate-pollution from the extra steel and concrete needed for a 1,000ft structure.

As Melanie sang : "If it's longer than its wide . . . ."

With any luck it will be stopped by Bostonians' common sense or lack of investment confidence.

Regards,

Backstop

[Peepers]

Maybe you should stop commenting on this subject as well. I'm concerned that your fears are starting to overwhelm your educational mastery and career experiences in urban land use planning you've acquired over the years.

I realize things are going to be rough when the SHTF, but sometimes you guys take this gloom and doom thing much too far. Have a glass of wine, beer, water or whatever floats your straw, and sit back to enjoy how mankind adjusts to yet another challenge.

[Leanan]

I think Kunstler's probably right on this. Density is one thing, a building that's unlivable without electricity is something else entirely.

I've lived in highrises, and they really are unpleasant if the power goes out. The elevator doesn't work. Climbing 10, maybe 20 stories is possible, but any higher than that is a real pain. There's no water, because electrical pumps are needed to pump the water up. In such large buildings, most rooms don't have windows, or have them only one side. So opening the windows does not cool the rooms as they would in a smaller building. In addition, if you're higher than 30 stories or so, you're often above the breezes those lower down enjoy. It's sweltering without air conditioning.

Cuba suffered widespread blackouts a couple of years ago, and people ended up sleeping in the streets, rather than climb the stairs to get to apartments that were unbearably hot and waterless.

[DigitalCubano]

My wife and I got into an accident last month that has left us car-free while the car undergos extensive repairs. While I had weaned myself off of the car earlier last year, it was simply the most convenient mode for my wife (work, medical appts., etc.). After some deadbeat stole my bike last Fall, I followed the path of least resistance and just got back to using the car. Of course, it didn't help that we lived in just the right location that driving, biking and mass commuting all took roughly the same amount of time: 45 minutes. In short, even with the higher fuel prices, driving was the easiest choice.

Lo and behold, after the initial shock of being without the car, I would say that we lost only about 10% utility, mostly related to recreation. In fact, I find myself a lot less stressed. The experience motivated me to put a price on the potential cost savings of going car-free in Boston while maintaining a comparable level of utility and convenience. Here are the results:

Monthly Car Expenses:
Auto Loan (2003 Honda Civic): $257.83
Insurance (Estimate...may be as high as $200 post-accident): $170
Fuel (12 gallons @ $2.75 gallon, 5 fillups per month): $165
Total: $592.83

Monthly Car-Free Expenses:
2 Combo passes (Bus+Subway, 1 full price, 1 subsidized via MIT): $106.50
4 Peapod Delivery Fees + Tip (1 major grocery delivery per week): $52
Discretionary Zip Car Use (avg. 5 hrs/month): $45
Total: $203.50

Net Savings: $389.33

Note: Auto expenses are a lower bound. Maintenance, Parking and Taxes were not included. I assumed the frequency we would want to rent a car to get away would be approximately equal to this amount.

I'm lobbying my wife to get rid of the car. She's on the fence and thinks I'm overreacting. She's the real bread-winner in this reverse-nuclear household and I don't think she's fazed by the cost savings.

Anyhow, I figured the anecdote was worth relaying.

[Cynus]

Boston is great for going car free as they have a nice public transportation system of bus, subway, and commuter rail. Plus there's ZipCar where you can rent a car for an hour or 2 at a time if you need one. Finally, the neighborhoods pretty much have whatever you need within walking distance anyway.

[SoothSayer]

Does car insurance cost $170 a MONTH in the US ???

I pay about $600 a YEAR here in the UK.

[DigitalCubano]

As I understand it, the commonwealth of Massachusetts has some of the worst car insurance rates due to state-imposed over-regulation. In short, shopping around for insurance is a fruitless task since every provider is required to charge the same amount. It's a sore point.

FWIW, we were paying $113 per month before the accident.

[dub_scratch]

Hey DC, haven't heard from you in a while. It's great that you would share your car free experience

As I understand it, the commonwealth of Massachusetts has some of the worst car insurance rates due to state-imposed over-regulation. In short, shopping around for insurance is a fruitless task since every provider is required to charge the same amount. It's a sore point.

Tell me about it. Last year I drove about 500 miles and I payed $400 for liability insurance. That's about 80 cents per mile. With gasoline at $3, my fuel cost is about 10 cents per mile. And the worst part is the fact that if I would have driven 50k miles I still would have payed $400. Being a minimal distance driver does not save you much on these expenses which is a way of subsidizing the kind of activity that clogs the freeways. We could not have gotten the system more wrong.

Here's a great economist research think tank that exposes all the trappings for a car addicted society: [url=vtpi.org]Link[/url]. They make a lot of market based arguments as to why the automobile system is socialist and unfair.

[NeoPeasant]

Last year I drove about 500 miles and I payed $400 for liability insurance. That's about 80 cents per mile. With gasoline at $3, my fuel cost is about 10 cents per mile. And the worst part is the fact that if I would have driven 50k miles I still would have payed $400. Being a minimal distance driver does not save you much on these expenses which is a way of subsidizing the kind of activity that clogs the freeways. We could not have gotten the system more wrong.

Here's a great economist research think tank that exposes all the trappings for a car addicted society: [url=vtpi.org]Link[/url]. They make a lot of market based arguments as to why the automobile system is socialist and unfair.

Even worse, if you get rid of your car and stop carrying insurance, you will will be charged more for new insurance later for having allowed yourself to become uninsured. EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T OWN A CAR.

[frankthetank]

OMG ... That is right out of nazi Germany.

Here in WI you are legally able to go without auto insurance(given you don't have an auto loan). Although then you run into problems (like i did) when someone backs into your car and your left with the bill (unless you fight it out in court).

Liability for a little 4cyl car for 6 months is right around $135 (discount because of house insurance too).

I've been VERY tempted to drop the car. I think i'll wait though, because no loan, decent gas mileage.