5 ms·

We need multifamily dwellings with the feature of no utilities bill because of local renewable energy on site. This would be awesome. The current vision of th

We need multifamily dwellings with the feature of no utilities bill because of local renewable energy on site. This would be awesome. The current vision of the future being sold to us seems to be single family homes with electric cars in the garage and solar cells on the roof. A horrible use of land and not really scalable to global population levels given the rise of cities.

have_faith 8y ago
How do you convince the middle class to accept this? It will be very difficult.
- epistasis 8y ago
  I think that much of the next generation middle class would gladly accept multi family dwellings if it means less driving, more walkable amenities, etc. The problem is that there's not enough of that type of development out there, and land ib those types of settings is therefore very expensive.
EADGBE 8y ago
> A horrible use of land and not really scalable to global population levels given the rise of cities. Think outside the bubble, though. There's unused land everywhere I look. Why are we dissing zero-emission cars and self-production of home energy?
- dashundchen 8y ago
  > Think outside the bubble, though. A single family homes and car mindset is the bubble, though. The US and much of the developed world has a problem of over-consumption, and shuffling to more power, some green, does not solve it. We need green energy, but if we want to reduce emissions we need to cut usage as well. The amount of energy needed to cart single occupancy cars, on hour long commutes through sprawling suburbs of energy guzzling single family homes is horribly inefficient, no matter how it's powered. Nearly a third of the energy consumed in the US goes to transportation. It makes no sense for multi-ton hunks of steel, plastic and lithium using tens of kW in energy to transport a 150 lbs person to work. Denser cities and towns organized around public transit, cycling, and walking knocks out a multitude of problems. 1. Reduced distances between home, work, and shopping and allow for healthier, emission-free walking and cycling 2. Increased density reduces per capita cost on infrastructure and services and makes fast, frequent transit a realistic alternative 3. Denser multifamily development offers efficiencies in shared heating and cooling systems, a major consumer of energy 4. Cutting back on sprawl reduces the amount of land developed and contaminated by development, and frequently preserves productive agricultural land from being permanently developed These aren't radical ideas. We have models throughout the world of greener, denser and healthier cities, mostly built before the auto.
- jonbarker 8y ago
  Zero emission cars are great; how about an apartment building with an attached parking structure with free power coming straight from the roof?

have_faith 8y ago

How do you convince the middle class to accept this? It will be very difficult.

epistasis 8y ago
I think that much of the next generation middle class would gladly accept multi family dwellings if it means less driving, more walkable amenities, etc. The problem is that there's not enough of that type of development out there, and land ib those types of settings is therefore very expensive.

EADGBE 8y ago

> A horrible use of land and not really scalable to global population levels given the rise of cities. Think outside the bubble, though. There's unused land everywhere I look. Why are we dissing zero-emission cars and self-production of home energy?

dashundchen 8y ago
> Think outside the bubble, though. A single family homes and car mindset is the bubble, though. The US and much of the developed world has a problem of over-consumption, and shuffling to more power, some green, does not solve it. We need green energy, but if we want to reduce emissions we need to cut usage as well. The amount of energy needed to cart single occupancy cars, on hour long commutes through sprawling suburbs of energy guzzling single family homes is horribly inefficient, no matter how it's powered. Nearly a third of the energy consumed in the US goes to transportation. It makes no sense for multi-ton hunks of steel, plastic and lithium using tens of kW in energy to transport a 150 lbs person to work. Denser cities and towns organized around public transit, cycling, and walking knocks out a multitude of problems. 1. Reduced distances between home, work, and shopping and allow for healthier, emission-free walking and cycling 2. Increased density reduces per capita cost on infrastructure and services and makes fast, frequent transit a realistic alternative 3. Denser multifamily development offers efficiencies in shared heating and cooling systems, a major consumer of energy 4. Cutting back on sprawl reduces the amount of land developed and contaminated by development, and frequently preserves productive agricultural land from being permanently developed These aren't radical ideas. We have models throughout the world of greener, denser and healthier cities, mostly built before the auto.
jonbarker 8y ago
Zero emission cars are great; how about an apartment building with an attached parking structure with free power coming straight from the roof?