3 ms·
All good points, but none of us are arguing for doing things they way they’re done now. My question is what we should be aiming for. Is it greener to build max
by abalone 8y ago
All good points, but none of us are arguing for doing things they way they’re done now. My question is what we should be aiming for. Is it greener to build max density, given the strength required for those buildings (as well as the transport of food, water and resources into cities)? Or is it greener to build moderate density towns that can be constructed from greener materials and co-located with food and water sources? (Not necessarily single family homes and suburban sprawl.)
- grogenaut 8y agoI would think the goal is to provide the most efficient building in the places people are providing needed social and economic value. Not to force people into the most efficient space possible. So you're going to have different answers where different climates, industries, and needs are present. Hyper density isn't going to work in rural/farm/resource areas where people essentially need to spread out. Nor does super low density work where everyone essentially comes together to do things. In the end I think you need to assume that all of the arrangements exist for a point on the multi-variate optimization curve, and just figure out commonalities that make them all more efficient overall, instead of re-aligning all living on a current single local optima.