(03-08-2022, 12:29 AM)CP42 Wrote: One speaker stating that the increase traffic will increase illegal parking (on her driveway) and exhaust emissions in the neighbourhood.
Next speaker stating that high rises are creating isolation and they are bad for mental and physical health because people don’t exercise because it takes more effort to go outside? She has stated “the research is clear.” She is now stating tall buildings are associated with increased crime rates… here we go. Also has “research” stating tall buildings put more stress on people. Is now claiming that high rises are 2x as more harmful to the environment.
And the cherry on top: “tall buildings = profits for developers” and “low rise = connection, safety, health and environmental benefits”
FWIW there have been studies linking life in high rises to poor mental health and increased laziness. As for higher crime rates, that's a load of nonsense (at least in this case. As you can see below, there were higher crime rates found in high rises, but that research was on New York City social housing projects in the latter part of the 20th century when the city was seeing extremely high rates of crime). That said, we do need some buildings to be high because there are a lot of people and limited space. However she is no doubt just using these arguments in bad faith to oppose a high rise development, rather than having true concern over health, environment and crime.
Quote:There is every reason to believe that high-rise apartment dwelling has adverse effects on mental and social health. And there is sufficient clinical, anecdotal and intuitive observations to back this up. Herewith, in no particular order ranking, a host of factors:
In my experience as Mental Health Director in a child guidance clinic in York Township, Toronto, for 5 years, I saw numerous children who had been kinetically deprived . . . and kinetic deprivation is the worst of the perceptual, exploratory kinds, for a young child, leaving legacies of lethargy, or restlessness, antisocial acting out or withdrawal, depersonalization or psychopathy.
Young children in a high-rise are much more socially deprived of neighborhood peers and activities than their S.F.D. (Single Family Dwelling) counterparts, hence they are poorly socialized and at too close quarters to adults, who are tense and irritable as a consequence.
Adolescents in a high-rise suffer more from the "nothing-to-do" ennui than those of a S.F.D., with enhanced social needs for "drop in centres" and a greater tendency to escapism....
Mothers are more anxious about their very young ones, when they can't see them in the street below, from a convenient kitchen window
There is higher passivity in the high-rise because of the barriers to active outlets on the ground; such barriers as elevators, corridors; and generally there is a time lapse and an effort in negotiating the vertical journey. TV watching is extended in the high-rise. This affects probably most adversely the old who need kinesia and activity, in proportion, as much as the very young do. Though immobility saves them from accidents, it also shortens their life in a high-rise....
A Danish study by Jeanne Morville adds more evidence (Borns Brug af Friarsaler, Disponering Af Friarsaler, Etageboligomrader Med Saerlig Henblik Pa Borns Legsmuligheder, S.B.I., Denmark, 1969)
Children from the high blocks start playing out of doors on their own at a later age than children from the low blocks: Only 2% of the children aged two to three years in the high point blocks play on their own out of doors, while 27% of the children in the low blocks do this.
Among the children aged five years in the high point blocks 29% do not as yet play on their own out of doors, while in the low blocks all the children aged five do so.... The percentage of young children playing out of doors on their own decreases with the height of their homes; 90% of all the children from the three lower floors in the high point blocks play on their own out of doors, while only 59% of the children from the three upper floors do so....
Young children in the high blocks have fewer contacts with playmates than those in the low blocks: Among children aged one, two and three years, 86% from the low blocks have daily contact with playmates; this applies to only 29% from the high blocks.
More recently, there is the evidence brought forward by Oscar Newman in Defensible Space. Newman compared two adjacent housing proj ects in New York - one high-rise, the other a collection of relatively small three-story walk-up buildings. The two projects have the same overall density, and their inhabitants have roughly the same income. But Newman found that the crime rate in the high-rise was roughly twice that in the walk-ups.
At what height do the effects described by Fanning, Cappon, Morville, and Newman begin to take hold? It is our experience that in both housing and office buildings, the problems begin when buildings are more than four stories high.
At three or four stories, one can still walk comfortably down to the street, and from a window you can still feel part of the street scene: you can see details in the street - the people, their faces, foliage, shops. From three stories you can yell out, and catch the attention of someone below. Above four stories these connections break down. The visual detail is lost; people speak of the scene below as if it were a game, from which they are completely detached. The connection to the ground and to the fabric of the town becomes tenuous; the building becomes a world of its own: with its own elevators and cafeterias.
We believe, therefore, that the "four-story limit" is an appropriate way to express the proper connection between building height and the health of a people. Of course, it is the spirit of the pattern which is most essential. Certainly, a building five stories high, perhaps even six, might work if it were carefully handled. But it is difficult. On the whole, we advocate a four-story limit, with only occasional departures, throughout the town.
http://iwritewordsgood.com/apl/patterns/apl021.htm
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41986998
The above quote comes from a great work of architectural theory called A Pattern Language, spearheaded by the architect Christopher Alexander. I believe I've mentioned him on this forum before. It's a great book on how to design homes/buildings, neighbourhoods and cities. Here's an online version, though you'll have to forgive the archaic website design: https://iwritewordsgood.com/apl/set.htm