3 ms·
You can spring up a new, distant, car-based suburb on a pristine land. The deer and the groundhog who used to live there, don't get a vote. But usually, people
by sampo 8y ago
You can spring up a new, distant, car-based suburb on a pristine land. The deer and the groundhog who used to live there, don't get a vote.
But usually, people who already live in a city of, say, density X, are pretty strongly opposed to building more and increasing the density to 1.2 X. Also, those 0.2 X new residents naturally are only moving in in the future, so they don't get to vote, either.
Somehow, the attitude of the people who get to enjoy the dense, walkable neighborhoods, would need to change so that they'd be more open to sharing their lifestyle with more new people.
- KozmoNau7 8y agoIncreasing density in cities is not the only way to get people out of their cars. It is very possible to expand cities outwards, while still maintaining walkability and bikeability. Expanding public transit alongside the city is one of the best ways.
- sampo 8y agoThis inevitably means increasing density in those suburbs the city is extending to. Very uncommon to have unbuild land right next to a dense city.
- KozmoNau7 8y agoYou're only increasing density to be similar to the city proper. The "preferred density" zone doesn't disappear, it simply moves outwards a bit.
- adrianN 8y agoLow density settlements have real trouble financing all the infrastructure they need from the taxes they get. I agree that a lot can be done with proper zoning to reduce the need for a car, but good public transit needs a certain density.