Christopher Alexander's A Pattern Language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language) has a few words to say about skyscrapers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouverism - many advantages to tall dense development. Especially stupid are his comments about how suburbia is supposedly better for kids even though they have nothing to do and rely on their parents to be driven to every activity. All based entirely on his made up anecdote.
People are less lonely in dense cities than they are in suburbs.
That's a USofAian "suburb" .. not a well designed suburb.
There are many types of "dense", ranging from all skyscrapers, through (say) dense row housing with much open space, to big single house blocks everywhere (arguably the worst form).
Elsewhere in the world suburbs are surrounded by green belts and have embedded parks, footpaths and cycleways, shops, etc that are reachable without cars.
Better to just say 'American', FYI. It's much clearer and the ambiguity you are trying to avoid doesn't exist.
It's generally white people thinking they are solving a problem, honestly. Even if some people don't like that 'America' tends to refer to the US rather than something general to the continent or one or both of the continents, it doesn't really matter - there is never any ambiguity. The contexts talking about something the US is doing vs the continents are pretty much always crystal clear.
Oh but you can basically guarantee there's an inner eye roll everytime you call yourself Americano. Estadounidense works, as Estados Unidos Mexicanos is largely not in use, and Mexicano(a) is the prefered term.
It's not a different mental model, it's just a mis translation. In Spanish saying "soy Americano" translates to 'I am from the Americas'. That's why the preference is to just use Estadounidense. It effectively means that US people are wrong if they say 'soy Americano' in Spanish, and Latin Americans are wrong for saying 'I am American' is wrong in english.
I'm even entirely open to gentle, friendly correction. I've gotten this in France; it was said with a smile, not a snarl, so I appreciated it.
Like I said, nobody got in my face about it.
If you don’t want to say “American”, you could use Usonian, a term coined by Lloyd Wright himself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usonia
I'm happy with US citizen, USian, USofAian, etc, I've used all of them since pre WWW Usenet days.
It's interesting how some like to regulate the language of others.
No one is trying to regulate anything lol, you're as free to use whatever non-standard terms or words you like, you can even use irregardless if it's your hearts desire to do so.
You just have to keep in mind that people using a silly term to make a silly point ultimately just end up making themselves look silly. Using a term like 'USofAian' is certainly a silly term since it tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and actually creates instances of the problem trying to be avoided.
USofAian is almost unreadable and unrecognizable in text to the general public when compared with American.
“USian” could apply to Mexico as they’re the United States, too, and since they’re in America they could also be “USofAians”.
That's a stretch, the country they live in is United Mexican States which doesn't abbreviate to USofA.
Mexico in short doesn't have the ambiguity of America.
And no, in answer to your deleted replies, I'm not American, just someone that doesn't like seeing ambiguity created unnecessarily or misinformation spread, but I see now you were doing it more for stylistic reasons.
Obviously.
> I guess it was just a way to stand out?
No.
> Express some personality with a bit of semantic flair?
Again, no.
> I get that.
Do you have examples of semantic flair that you use to stand out?
> just someone that doesn't like seeing ambiguity created unnecessarily
What ambiguity? Which other citizens of which other country did you honestly think I was referring to?
> or misinformation spread,
What misinfomation? I honestly and in good faith have no idea what "misinformation" you are referring to.
> but I see now you were doing it more for stylistic reasons.
For the third time. No.
Stop trying to make your contextual PoV a thing Gretchen.
This is literally no more than a useful contraction of "United States of America citizen"
Yup. Should be obvious most people would share my stance also.
> Again, no.
Hmm. So why, then?
> Do you have examples of semantic flair that you use to stand out?
I don't try to stand out by being contrarian or via other semantic scheming.
> What ambiguity?
> What misinfomation?
It's confusing to at the least ESL speakers who may think it is a reasonable way to refer to people from the US and it is misinformation to suggest it is.
> For the third time. No.
Hmm.
> Stop trying to make your contextual PoV a thing Gretchen.
Not sure what Gretchen refers to, but I was just trying to assume good faith and that was the only reason I could muster. I look forward to your clarification.
> This is literally no more than a useful contraction of "United States of America citizen"
It's not useful, though - it's harmful. It creates ambiguity where this is none, and tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Yes. Most people like you share your point of view. Odd that.
> So why, then?
Check your hoistory, that appears to be the first time you haven't weighed in with nothing but your PoV, preconception, and desire to impose your conclusions as the motivations of others.
Congratulations. You're evolving.
> I don't try to stand out by being contrarian or via other semantic scheming.
But you assume others do? And that makes sense to you. Okay ...
> It's confusing to at the least ESL speakers ...
Is it? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42969214 suggest that not all ESL folk think that way.
> but I was just trying to assume good faith
There's been no sign of good faith and assuming the best from your comments since the first one (that appears edited) that patronisingly informed me that I should conform to your way of writing English.
> It's not useful, though - it's harmful.
Who is bleeding?
> It creates ambiguity
Again, what ambiguity? What country did you think that I was referring to?
You seem to have modified my statement and then taken something other than intended. Allow me to clarify. I was referring to most people as in the vast majority of the English speaking population. Not simply people like me.
> Check your hoistory, that appears to be the first time you haven't weighed in with nothing but your PoV, preconception, and desire to impose your conclusions as the motivations of others.
> Congratulations. You're evolving.
This was the answer you gave in response to my asking why you chose to use an obscure less common less well known term to refer to people of the US. All you could do is insult me in response. This leads me to believe I was correct in my previous good faith assumption.
Also, having to check post history so you can attempt to discredit me instead of just answering a simple question says a lot.
> But you assume others do? And that makes sense to you. Okay ...
As I said, it was the only good faith assumption I could come up with as to why someone would chose to use an obscure less common less well known term to refer to people from the US.
> Is it?
Without a doubt, due to being significantly less used and recognized.
> There's been no sign of good faith and assuming the best from your comments since the first one (that appears edited) that patronisingly informed me that I should conform to your way of writing English.
It wasn't patronizing, it was informing you that that term is less common and tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist. My reply was a lost gamble taking the chance you were someone that ran into someone like spreading nonsense and having picked up a bad term/habit as a result, as opposed to being someone that just likes being contrarian and causes people to pick up said bad terms/habits.
> Who is bleeding?
Is drawing blood really what you limit your concept of harm to?
> Again, what ambiguity?
This was clarified in my previous reply, as were other answers to questions you repeated, but I'll repeat myself again here while continuing to assume good faith.
The ambiguity is in giving the impression that it's a valid term to refer to people from the US, when really it's not so it just creates undue confusion and ambiguity.
You can archive considerable density without skyscrapers. In fact we've been building vibrant, walkable cities without skyscrapers for most of history.
> And finally, don't take the four-story limit too literally. Occasional exceptions from the general rule are very important - High Places (62)
Alexander isn’t making arguments about economic efficiency, but about what’s good for the human animal. I’d be curious what data you have to disprove this.
Now, if you’re talking about his specific claims like “the higher you are in a building the crazier you get,” yeah, I don’t think much of that supposed data is useful.