5 ms·

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 con

by 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
    You're ignoring facts. Again. Building and maintaining roads and utilities into urban sprawl is very expensive. Public transport is less effective there. The bigger the area you need to protect against floods, the harder it becomes. Cities hardly ever move, they grow. And the horror scenarios? Please, people in the country will be hit just the same when they can't get gas anymore. Or when the food supply stops. What you're saying is: "Wouldn't it be nice if we all lived in the countryside?" That idea has crashed decades ago. It's unrealistic. Please stop.
    - xte 8y ago
      So unrealistic that it's become a common practice in most developed countries... Try asking a Swedish or a French (with exception of few Parisian) what they think about cities. BTW try to determine cost per capita of countryside living and city living, also notice that foods normally came from country and sea, not from cities, oil&gas tend to be the same (how many oil/gas extraction are done inside NY?)... This idea crashed only in few countries, mostly from the third world, in the developed world only USA, Russia and eastern Europe.
      - lolc 8y ago
        > try to determine cost per capita of countryside living and city living Only to have you telling me I'm doing it wrong based on personal anecdotes? No thanks. I have no trust it would lead to a useful discussion. > also notice that foods normally came from country and sea, not from cities, Food and gas don't come out of suburbia either. What's your point? > This idea crashed only in few countries, mostly from the third world, in the developed world only USA, Russia and eastern Europe. What third-world countries? It's not 1960 anymore. People all over the world are moving into large cities. They are not waiting for the cities to build the roads and pipes your idea requires.

by xte 8y ago

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
  You're ignoring facts. Again. Building and maintaining roads and utilities into urban sprawl is very expensive. Public transport is less effective there. The bigger the area you need to protect against floods, the harder it becomes. Cities hardly ever move, they grow. And the horror scenarios? Please, people in the country will be hit just the same when they can't get gas anymore. Or when the food supply stops. What you're saying is: "Wouldn't it be nice if we all lived in the countryside?" That idea has crashed decades ago. It's unrealistic. Please stop.
  - xte 8y ago
    So unrealistic that it's become a common practice in most developed countries... Try asking a Swedish or a French (with exception of few Parisian) what they think about cities. BTW try to determine cost per capita of countryside living and city living, also notice that foods normally came from country and sea, not from cities, oil&gas tend to be the same (how many oil/gas extraction are done inside NY?)... This idea crashed only in few countries, mostly from the third world, in the developed world only USA, Russia and eastern Europe.
    - lolc 8y ago
      > try to determine cost per capita of countryside living and city living Only to have you telling me I'm doing it wrong based on personal anecdotes? No thanks. I have no trust it would lead to a useful discussion. > also notice that foods normally came from country and sea, not from cities, Food and gas don't come out of suburbia either. What's your point? > This idea crashed only in few countries, mostly from the third world, in the developed world only USA, Russia and eastern Europe. What third-world countries? It's not 1960 anymore. People all over the world are moving into large cities. They are not waiting for the cities to build the roads and pipes your idea requires.