Man this is an amazing production quality for a small channel like yours's.
@byltcorp3 жыл бұрын
Glad you enjoy it! Thank you for the support :)
@fredwu60002 жыл бұрын
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.
@moontahir1324 Жыл бұрын
hi bro
@jusjetz Жыл бұрын
What about Sky Bridges that connect one building to another elevated above a normal street and pedestrian cross walks?
@NeroDefogger9 ай бұрын
you might like to read the comment I wrote
@jonaskautz2 жыл бұрын
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
@juhilla7495 ай бұрын
I don't get the feeling claustrophobic part... A vertical city would be a gigantic monster, with wide pedestrian paths, stairs, parks and not just elevators. There can be several kilometers between the two ends of the building complex. In addition, it is worth building something like this if 80% self-sufficiency can be solved, so you need a complex that provides these and also provides jobs.Preference is given to those who are not dependent on objects and are demanding about their food and their environment, minimalists and vegetarians already live this way.
@NeroDefogger9 ай бұрын
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.
@SorchaSublime3 жыл бұрын
the world isnt overpopulated, it's just drastically inefficient.