4 ms·
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 (
by 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 agoRight. 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 agoBecause 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.