[kergonath]

> For some reason, people in Europe back in the 60s believed that creating dense housing only units with no sense of scale, long commutes and walks and 100% car dependence was the way forward.

To be fair, there were pressing issues with large slums all across Europe at that time, and they needed to build lots of homes very quickly. I am not sure there were many alternative to blocks of flats back in the day. The problem is also not really high densities, because it also means that there is a local market for shops, restaurants, etc, which can make the neighbourhoods very walkable and nice. Most large projects had plans for things like cinemas, swimming pools, gyms, shops, and stuff. Often these were not built and instead there were these rows after rows of blocks of concrete.

Transport is a real problem, because these places became less and less attractive as they aged and became more and more isolated.

But smaller population densities would not have helped one bit with that. It would just have encouraged urban sprawl which is even worse in terms of public transport and walkability.

[ethbr0]

What you said is underappreciated in options on architecture. I'm as much of a critic of some themes as anyone, but it's fundamentally about designing within constraints.

One can dislike the result, but proposing alternatives that ignore the design constraints is disingenuous.

If countries need massive amount of housing but don't have time or money to build it... you're going to get a certain type of solution.

And it can be the best solution given those constraints and still an objectively bad solution.