Twitter | Search | |
Andy Sheridan
The more laneways I walk down the more convinced I am that we don't need high-rise, we need density...
Reply Retweet Like More
Brian Grant ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฌ Nov 3
Genuine q, how do you have one without the other?
Reply Retweet Like
Paul M๐Ÿ˜‚l๐Ÿ˜‚ney Nov 3
Use unused land, empty houses and partially empty buildings (i.e above shops)
Reply Retweet Like
Andy Sheridan Nov 3
Exactly. There's a place for high-rise in selected locations, but there's so much under-utilised land out there behind existing terraces
Reply Retweet Like
p mannoch Nov 3
Density a hot issue with which many places grappling. Interesting convo re SF, CA.
Reply Retweet Like
Brian Grant ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฌ Nov 3
What is that land used for now?
Reply Retweet Like
Andy Sheridan Nov 3
Light industry, sheds / storage, massive back gardens...there unlocked, in established, serviced residential areas throughout the city
Reply Retweet Like
Thomas Scott Golden Nov 4
Certainly agree that, in the city centre high-rise is not appropriate. However, to reduce urban sprawl, it should be option on the periphery
Reply Retweet Like
Brian Byrne Nov 4
>10 to a room density?
Reply Retweet Like
Andy Sheridan Nov 4
Of course not. There's a middle ground where high density can be achieved w/o compromising living/open space design
Reply Retweet Like
Eoin O'Mahony Nov 4
Also, building density does not equal human density.
Reply Retweet Like
Rob Cross ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ช ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ Nov 4
Totally agree, we need to upcycle our existing stock just by using ones architectural innovation. i.e. Chimney Pot Park & Adams C Architects
Reply Retweet Like
Andy Sheridan Nov 4
Amen.
Reply Retweet Like