<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: LOW-TECH SELF-SUFFICIENT CITY/ 集いながらの暮らし方一例</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kuuworld.com/2010/01/low-tech-self-sufficient-city/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kuuworld.com/2010/01/low-tech-self-sufficient-city/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:47:06 +0900</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: km</title>
		<link>http://www.kuuworld.com/2010/01/low-tech-self-sufficient-city/comment-page-1/#comment-154</link>
		<dc:creator>km</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:10:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kuuworld.com/?p=2475#comment-154</guid>
		<description>why do we, or rather city-planners in liaison with private developers, keep wanting to opt for highrise housing solutions? for the city-planners, it&#039;s a silly old-fashioned image thing: more highrises = more &quot;modern&quot;. for developers it&#039;s &quot;efficiency&quot; - ratio of saleable area over non-saleable public access areas. what may be needed, to effect real change, is a new legislation to make it compulsory for private developers to provide a certain percentage of total build-up floor area (say, 10%-15%) to be used as communal/social space. For the sake of making communities, why not?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>why do we, or rather city-planners in liaison with private developers, keep wanting to opt for highrise housing solutions? for the city-planners, it&#8217;s a silly old-fashioned image thing: more highrises = more &#8220;modern&#8221;. for developers it&#8217;s &#8220;efficiency&#8221; &#8211; ratio of saleable area over non-saleable public access areas. what may be needed, to effect real change, is a new legislation to make it compulsory for private developers to provide a certain percentage of total build-up floor area (say, 10%-15%) to be used as communal/social space. For the sake of making communities, why not?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://www.kuuworld.com/2010/01/low-tech-self-sufficient-city/comment-page-1/#comment-153</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2010 04:34:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kuuworld.com/?p=2475#comment-153</guid>
		<description>I love it.   Something about big fat communal tables really makes me feel happy.

We&#039;ve been having a discussion in our office lately about that old chestnut; how towers and elevator buildings are urban isolators.   I realize that its only one day in 7 that I actually see anyone from my floor at the elevator.  My old Shanghai apartment connected everyone together effortlessly (maybe even lazily) .   I wish the powers that decide weren&#039;t so enamored with towers (or so un-imaginative as to think there&#039;s no other solution).

It&#039;s been 40 years since...was it Candilis?... produced that simple series of towers proving that low-rise and super high-rise can house people at equal density, and 20 years since Stewart Brand outlined the superiority of social performance in low-cheap buildings.   We&#039;re still wedded to our towers, however.  Sometimes I think only the wrong lessons are being shared between cultures.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love it.   Something about big fat communal tables really makes me feel happy.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve been having a discussion in our office lately about that old chestnut; how towers and elevator buildings are urban isolators.   I realize that its only one day in 7 that I actually see anyone from my floor at the elevator.  My old Shanghai apartment connected everyone together effortlessly (maybe even lazily) .   I wish the powers that decide weren&#8217;t so enamored with towers (or so un-imaginative as to think there&#8217;s no other solution).</p>
<p>It&#8217;s been 40 years since&#8230;was it Candilis?&#8230; produced that simple series of towers proving that low-rise and super high-rise can house people at equal density, and 20 years since Stewart Brand outlined the superiority of social performance in low-cheap buildings.   We&#8217;re still wedded to our towers, however.  Sometimes I think only the wrong lessons are being shared between cultures.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hounaine</title>
		<link>http://www.kuuworld.com/2010/01/low-tech-self-sufficient-city/comment-page-1/#comment-152</link>
		<dc:creator>Hounaine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:20:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kuuworld.com/?p=2475#comment-152</guid>
		<description>Very creative concept ! l do appreciate this work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very creative concept ! l do appreciate this work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

