Re: [carfree_cities] Re: Elevators
- According to mauk_mcamuk,
> Mark me down as "pro-elevator". :) I happen to think more density is
> better, so anything that ups the FAR without eating into greenspace
> is a good thing. If that means more average floors leading to
> elevators, then I'm good with that.
> Or perhaps, as a compromise, we could agree to use escalators
> extensively? They allow people on the 4th and higher floors to not
> feel like second class citizens but don't have the enclosed nature of
> elevators, with the enforced sloth, claustrophobia, and crime
> implications of same. Plus, if you're determined to get some exercise
> going up and down floors, just race up and down the escalators.
Uh, escalators use energy continuously.
Plus they don't work well for cargo, bikes,
Put me down for ramps. And glass-front elevators for the
And upper-floor connections between buildings. And not
narrow hallway things... big open things with plants and
seating areas and restaurants.
In a city, a car-free person should be able to live their
life without ever having to visit the motorist levels.
- Winding up the elevator discussion, Will Stewart said:
>I assume you are talking about flats as the context for the following,Well, no, TWO flats per floor, so they have through ventilation
> where an elevator would service 3 floors above the ground floor, and
>perhaps 4 units per floor at each elevator stop.
and some light from both ends.
>Plus, the human factor of modest scale and a courtyard are also veryoh, yes
------ ### -----
J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities