4 ms·

Tragedy of the commons.

int_19h 10y ago
This would imply that there isn't enough space for everyone. Is that true, though? It feels like most dense concentrations of people are created artificially - either directly through borders (e.g. Haiti vs Dominican Republic), or indirectly through economic limitations (have to live close to where jobs are and commute is too expensive etc). If so, then this is a solvable problem. One other point I wanted to address. One negative side of sprawl is how it affects natural environments - but, again, does it really have to, or do we do it just because it's the easiest and cheapest way to implement it? It feels like living less densely could actually be beneficial for the environment if done right, compared to the cities. Consider: a metropolis will always carve a chunk out of nature and replace it with a dense grid of roads around high rises, completely ruining the ecological system in the affected area - heck, our cities even have their own microclimates now, because of how much heat we pump out at once in a single place. On the other hand, a single residence does not have a significant impact; and if you space them out sufficiently, you can preserve the original environment in that space between. Infrastructure is trickier and more invasive, but we've seen some trends towards more localization recently (e.g. with residential solar, composting etc). Who knows, perhaps we can actually make this description from "The Diamond Age" a reality? "The prevailing architecture here, among those who had not adopted neo-Victorian precepts, was distinctly subterranean; as if these people were somehow ashamed of their own humanity and could not bear to fell even a handful of the immense Douglas firs that marched monotonously up the tumbling slopes toward the frozen, sodden ridge of the Cascades. Even when it was half buried, a house wasn't even a proper house; it was an association of modules, scattered about here and there and connected by breezeways or tunnels."
- jacalata 10y ago
  No, that's not the implication. The implication is that each person wants space around their house, but would ideally be close to all the amenities they visit (like restaurants, doctors, groceries) in order to avoid wasteful transport - think a manor house with a village around it. But instead everybody builds space around their house and now they all live a long way away from everything they need to get to.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    Right. So people are willing to live further away from amenities for the sake of having more space. Seems like the desire for more room is pretty strong. Why, then, is dense urban living preferable? Why shouldn't we be trying to start with the premise that less dense is better, and design from there?
    - jacalata 10y ago
      Because travel is polluting for a start. When we get cold fusion teleportation with no environmental externalities then everyone can live 100 miles from work if they want. When we don't have to carpet the world in roads and internet cables and have people drive past their house to deliver mail every day they can live as far away as they want. When they aren't burning fossil fuels to heat 40000 square feet of living room then they can live in the biggest house they can build and I won't care. Until all those things are true, I'm going to argue that dense urban living is better and we should be encouraging it or at the very least zoning for it and allowing it.

This would imply that there isn't enough space for everyone. Is that true, though? It feels like most dense concentrations of people are created artificially - either directly through borders (e.g. Haiti vs Dominican Republic), or indirectly through economic limitations (have to live close to where jobs are and commute is too expensive etc). If so, then this is a solvable problem. One other point I wanted to address. One negative side of sprawl is how it affects natural environments - but, again, does it really have to, or do we do it just because it's the easiest and cheapest way to implement it? It feels like living less densely could actually be beneficial for the environment if done right, compared to the cities. Consider: a metropolis will always carve a chunk out of nature and replace it with a dense grid of roads around high rises, completely ruining the ecological system in the affected area - heck, our cities even have their own microclimates now, because of how much heat we pump out at once in a single place. On the other hand, a single residence does not have a significant impact; and if you space them out sufficiently, you can preserve the original environment in that space between. Infrastructure is trickier and more invasive, but we've seen some trends towards more localization recently (e.g. with residential solar, composting etc). Who knows, perhaps we can actually make this description from "The Diamond Age" a reality? "The prevailing architecture here, among those who had not adopted neo-Victorian precepts, was distinctly subterranean; as if these people were somehow ashamed of their own humanity and could not bear to fell even a handful of the immense Douglas firs that marched monotonously up the tumbling slopes toward the frozen, sodden ridge of the Cascades. Even when it was half buried, a house wasn't even a proper house; it was an association of modules, scattered about here and there and connected by breezeways or tunnels."

jacalata 10y ago
No, that's not the implication. The implication is that each person wants space around their house, but would ideally be close to all the amenities they visit (like restaurants, doctors, groceries) in order to avoid wasteful transport - think a manor house with a village around it. But instead everybody builds space around their house and now they all live a long way away from everything they need to get to.
- int_19h 10y ago
  Right. So people are willing to live further away from amenities for the sake of having more space. Seems like the desire for more room is pretty strong. Why, then, is dense urban living preferable? Why shouldn't we be trying to start with the premise that less dense is better, and design from there?
  - jacalata 10y ago
    Because travel is polluting for a start. When we get cold fusion teleportation with no environmental externalities then everyone can live 100 miles from work if they want. When we don't have to carpet the world in roads and internet cables and have people drive past their house to deliver mail every day they can live as far away as they want. When they aren't burning fossil fuels to heat 40000 square feet of living room then they can live in the biggest house they can build and I won't care. Until all those things are true, I'm going to argue that dense urban living is better and we should be encouraging it or at the very least zoning for it and allowing it.