Spain lives in flats: why we have built our cities vertically
Spain’s unusually high share of apartment living, visualized in an interactive data-driven feature, prompts broader comparisons between European density and car‑dependent, single‑family housing in the Anglosphere. Commenters weigh the trade‑offs of vertical cities versus suburbs—cost, land use, energy efficiency, walkability, and public services—alongside quality‑of‑life issues like noise, soundproofing, and cultural attitudes to urban living. Many argue that well-built medium‑rise density can ease housing crises and reduce car reliance, while others maintain a strong preference for detached homes despite their higher social and environmental costs.
Visualizations, UX, and Implementation
- Many praise the piece as museum-like, immersive storytelling that makes spatial data intuitive (3D maps, scroll-driven narrative).
- Others find it slow, motion-heavy, and inaccessible (vertigo, visual impairments, no respect for
prefers-reduced-motion, no light mode, high memory/CPU use, hard to judge article length). - Some want more photos to convey neighborhood feel; others prefer abstract shapes to avoid distraction.
- A few question data accuracy vs. the cadastre, noting known illegal or unregistered extra floors.
- Technically-minded readers note it’s built with D3, Scrollama, Mapbox, R/QGIS/Tippecanoe; performance varies widely by hardware.
Density vs. Suburbs vs. Rural
- Strong divide: some feel dense cities are claustrophobic and prize space, quiet, yards, and workshops; others feel car-only suburbs or rural isolation are more “claustrophobic” and imprisoning.
- Walkability is a major fault line: many insist most US suburbs are car-dependent and economically subsidized by cities; a minority argue their own suburbs are walkable and that claims of “you can’t walk anywhere” are exaggerated.
- Thread highlights zoning that allows only single-family homes in much of the US, contrasted with European comfort with mid-rise density; some note the UK and Netherlands as low-flat outliers despite high population density.
Transport: Bikes, Cars, and Climate
- Advocates argue density enables cycling and transit; ebikes and cargo bikes can replace many car trips if infrastructure exists.
- Skeptics cite weather (cold, snow, heat), distance, carrying capacity, and convenience; some view ebikes as “worse cars” with less health benefit.
- Others counter that culture and design matter more than climate, pointing to northern European cycling and poor US land-use patterns.
Noise, Construction Quality, and Health
- Repeated complaints about Spanish flats’ poor soundproofing and cultural loudness (neighbors, garbage trucks, nightlife); contrasted with quiet modern buildings in Scandinavia and some US/Canadian examples.
- Broader discussion of timber vs. concrete, 5-over-1 construction, insulation standards, and optional US acoustic codes; quality varies dramatically.
- Several link chronic noise to stress and health issues; some say it drives them toward detached homes.
Spain-Specific Context and Demographics
- Comments add nuance on Spain’s varied climate, courtyard/shade-oriented urbanism, late economic boom, car adoption, and Franco-era mass housing.
- Noted coexistence of high apartment share, housing crisis, and very low fertility; causes attributed to unemployment, youth precarity, high urban costs, and small, low-quality flats.
- Debate over whether low fertility is “grim,” how immigration and economic models intersect, and whether generational wealth via homeownership is tied to housing form.