4 ms·

Nope. Because the real world is complex, it doesn't only matter how much surface you occupy but also how much prime matters and energy you need to build a thing

by xte 8y ago

Nope. Because the real world is complex, it doesn't only matter how much surface you occupy but also how much prime matters and energy you need to build a thing, tall buildings need far more powerful concrete foundation and steel than individual houses. Witch means more natural resource used to build them. Also steel and concrete are far less recyclable than wood. Also individual houses may occupy soil surface without destroying it too much, for instance, at least in most part of EU individual houses foundation are only underground horizontal beams with some poles that popup vertically (60-100cm high) from them leaving the rest of the soil natural ground. If tomorrow you destroy the house nature came back on the soil in an year. If you destroy a tall building nature came back (humus in soil) in more than ten year.

matt4077 8y ago
Your other inane comment argues single-family houses are so much more efficient because they regularly get torn down & replaced. Make up your disturbed mind!
- xte 8y ago
  My English is poor but I think I explain my point in a clear enough manner, in synthesis: - big buildings demand more resources to being built, in terms of concrete, steel etc and require deeper foundation that destroy ground humus far more than correspondent single houses; - big buildings are in medium older than single family houses simply because demolish and rebuild them cost big money and it's practically impossible for many reasons (reach agreements between all involved landlords, not enough space around for work, new norms hard to respect in the available space/site etc) so they consume in medium more energy than single houses; - cities was a need for various reasons in the past but they are not anymore and modernize them as much as we can with improved public transportation etc cost far more than private transportation in a distributed area. For all the above I consider a bad idea living in a city, I consider in more and more unsustainable. And recently many people around the world start to know that hard on their skin... If you do not want to understand I can't help, my mind works well and I was capable and lucky enough to switch from a big city to a wonderful mountain area without loosing anything I really consider valuable.
  - lolc 8y ago
    Since we must assume that built-over land will remain built-over, it's irreleveant to what depth it's constructed. Fact is that dense settlements use an order of magnitude less ground. You forgot to mention how much ground all those residential roads will destroy. Those don't help your argument.
    - xte 8y ago
      Population is not constant and specially is not constant in any land, people tend to move following work opportunity, quality of life, to escape crisis etc. So no, while these change are slow in general they are and it's always a mess to handle "abandoned" towns than abandoned single homes... About roads: try to think how much material you need and regularly consume in a town vs countryside roads, also imaging not today but in an imaginary tomorrow world how much roads we will need in a really low dense country vs in "megacities". Without counting what happen in case of floods or other problems in a town vs elsewhere and the relevant cost to repair. Only imaging september 11th in a country without dense urban agglomeration: how much victims, costs, effects it may have had in such scenario? What help my arguments are tons of small things grouped together, the sole things it doesn't help is hospital/emergency service proximity in case of need, but that's compensated by a properly organized sanitary system and a strong public investments in that sector (a thing we desperately need also for many other reasons). Another is the problem of few residual but important labor-intensive activities that require many, many people in a concentrated place, but again this is less and less important thanks to automation. A simple, yet stupid arguments, that my clearly demonstrate advantage of single can be: what if there was a strike, a big one, and you do not found anymore essence for your car? In a town substantially anything can't work anymore, electric public transportation may work but see Gilet Jaunes in France today and Paris status these days. In the countryside nearly anyone have a big tank (500/1000 liter) of reserve. There is place for that. There is place for keep large quantity of food (perhaps with dual-energy freezer electricity/butane gas with enough cylinders, around 20Kg/month to give a quantity) etc. Imaging only elevators out of services due to a short electricity outage.
      - lolc 8y ago

by xte 8y ago

matt4077 8y ago

Your other inane comment argues single-family houses are so much more efficient because they regularly get torn down & replaced. Make up your disturbed mind!

xte 8y ago
My English is poor but I think I explain my point in a clear enough manner, in synthesis: - big buildings demand more resources to being built, in terms of concrete, steel etc and require deeper foundation that destroy ground humus far more than correspondent single houses; - big buildings are in medium older than single family houses simply because demolish and rebuild them cost big money and it's practically impossible for many reasons (reach agreements between all involved landlords, not enough space around for work, new norms hard to respect in the available space/site etc) so they consume in medium more energy than single houses; - cities was a need for various reasons in the past but they are not anymore and modernize them as much as we can with improved public transportation etc cost far more than private transportation in a distributed area. For all the above I consider a bad idea living in a city, I consider in more and more unsustainable. And recently many people around the world start to know that hard on their skin... If you do not want to understand I can't help, my mind works well and I was capable and lucky enough to switch from a big city to a wonderful mountain area without loosing anything I really consider valuable.
- lolc 8y ago
  Since we must assume that built-over land will remain built-over, it's irreleveant to what depth it's constructed. Fact is that dense settlements use an order of magnitude less ground. You forgot to mention how much ground all those residential roads will destroy. Those don't help your argument.
  - xte 8y ago
    Population is not constant and specially is not constant in any land, people tend to move following work opportunity, quality of life, to escape crisis etc. So no, while these change are slow in general they are and it's always a mess to handle "abandoned" towns than abandoned single homes... About roads: try to think how much material you need and regularly consume in a town vs countryside roads, also imaging not today but in an imaginary tomorrow world how much roads we will need in a really low dense country vs in "megacities". Without counting what happen in case of floods or other problems in a town vs elsewhere and the relevant cost to repair. Only imaging september 11th in a country without dense urban agglomeration: how much victims, costs, effects it may have had in such scenario? What help my arguments are tons of small things grouped together, the sole things it doesn't help is hospital/emergency service proximity in case of need, but that's compensated by a properly organized sanitary system and a strong public investments in that sector (a thing we desperately need also for many other reasons). Another is the problem of few residual but important labor-intensive activities that require many, many people in a concentrated place, but again this is less and less important thanks to automation. A simple, yet stupid arguments, that my clearly demonstrate advantage of single can be: what if there was a strike, a big one, and you do not found anymore essence for your car? In a town substantially anything can't work anymore, electric public transportation may work but see Gilet Jaunes in France today and Paris status these days. In the countryside nearly anyone have a big tank (500/1000 liter) of reserve. There is place for that. There is place for keep large quantity of food (perhaps with dual-energy freezer electricity/butane gas with enough cylinders, around 20Kg/month to give a quantity) etc. Imaging only elevators out of services due to a short electricity outage.
    - lolc 8y ago