> * Most 'traditional cities' couldn't be built for anywhere near the same cost as a modern development.
Why is this? E.g. The author points out that narrow streets should be cheaper to build and maintain.
I grew up in suburbia, lived in a typical American city, and now live in a traditional city abroad. My best guesses as to why building a traditional city is more expensive are 1) construction might be more expensive because of the constrained space; 2) lots of roads are cobble stone rather than pavement; 3) maybe infrastructure (e.g. fire hydrants etc)
Are there other more important reasons? I really can't figure it out.
Yes. Its not insurmountable like some of the other points (assuming you throw money at it), but its definitely there. A few examples:
* Most of the examples are hand built of stone. Which is beautiful and lasts forever (by contrast most suburban homes have a ~40 year lifecycle) but costs a fortune nowadays because of the scarcity of material, labour and transportation costs. This goes for the streets as well as the buildings.
* Complex topography is hated by builders. Much cheaper and easier if its dead flat. Also difficult angles. Much easier if everything is square. This is a big one.
* Topography and small streets cause problems for access. Once the street is there, no chance you can get a bulldozer in. Or a cement truck of a large size. You might get a small crane but it will be very difficult. Getting your bathtub delivered or even getting your plumber in and out (when most of his tools and pipes are in the van, which is parked where?). This is a big problem for ongoing maintenance/repairs as well as initial construction (particularly if you aren't building out of stone to last forever).
So if you imagine the same places built square, flat and with cheaper materials you might come close to a more typical construction cost. But its not going to be anywhere near as attractive.
> by contrast most suburban homes have a ~40 year lifecycle
Does that mean each generation has to practically rebuild the houses of its parents?
It might seem wasteful, but it's not so bad when you have plenty of space and the preferred living locations change over time. There are many houses in Detroit that were in a sense "overbuilt". Actually 40 years is pretty pessimistic even for crappy American stud-and-drywall construction. Recently I saw the home where my mother grew up. It's ready for tear-down, but it's over 100 years old. (Technically it's lathe and mud rather than stud and drywall, but they amount to the same thing.) I'm not convinced that it should be rebuilt any stronger than before, or indeed whether it should be rebuilt. (It's in a really sketchy section of Toledo OH.)
> Does that mean each generation has to practically rebuild the houses of its parents?
Yes. In part its disposable consumerism but also its likely that something built in a period of rapid change (as suburbanism often builds houses on fields) may also be required to change itself after some time. In my area its common to see inter-war single-storey cottages rebuilt anew (knocked down completely with a new structure built from scratch), subdivided into two lots or amalgamated with others to build a block of apartments.
> Don't several story buildings pay for themselves
I mean dead-flat as in no steps in the ground floor within your building. Not as in 'single storey'.
Its a rough figure I've been told - it probably depends on where you are living and the standard of construction. Every component will of course wear at a different speed and some (kitchens and bathrooms especially) sooner. Often roofs need a lot of work after 40 years or so and sometimes cheap walls too. Theres books dedicated to this kind of stuff. See the following link for some examples: http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/m/article/0,,216991-2,00.htm...
I hear twenty years as the standard figure for an asphalt-shingle roof. But I live on a street with houses that are in some cases 80 years old and more. And the Washington suburbs are full of bungalows built in haste 60 years ago and still functioning--with a new roof, maybe, and with additions, but with an original core.
Bathrooms and kitchens don't so much wear out as go out of style. The grout gets crummy in the bathroom, the porcelain wears, and then a generation that watches cooking shows doesn't want the galley kitchen and electric stove of 1950.
I think streets are the cheap part anywhere. I would imagine buildings are more expensive to construct with the limited access. If for some reason you were tasked with building a 40' skyscraper in the middle of a farm field, it would be massively less expensive than putting it up in the middle of Manhattan. The logistics complicate everything.
My brother is currently managing the construction of a 60 story tower in NYC, and they have a staging area that is able to fit the base of the crane and a single truck at a time. You often see them unloading pallets of supplies into freight elevators by hand. It's unbelievably complicated to do the simplest maneuvers due to the limited space.
Why is this? E.g. The author points out that narrow streets should be cheaper to build and maintain.
I grew up in suburbia, lived in a typical American city, and now live in a traditional city abroad. My best guesses as to why building a traditional city is more expensive are 1) construction might be more expensive because of the constrained space; 2) lots of roads are cobble stone rather than pavement; 3) maybe infrastructure (e.g. fire hydrants etc)
Are there other more important reasons? I really can't figure it out.