3 ms·
It's perhaps a little ambiguous, but I understood the comment as arguing the exact opposite. I interpreted "overdevelopment" to basically mean the kind of spraw
by branweb 7y ago
It's perhaps a little ambiguous, but I understood the comment as arguing the exact opposite. I interpreted "overdevelopment" to basically mean the kind of sprawl explainted here: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... ...where cities expand horizontally for short-term tax revenue gains/federal grants while accruing long-term infrastructure costs that their tax bases can't pay.
- melling 7y ago“ In an overpopulated world, we don't need more growth but de-growth, at the city,...” Perhaps it is a little ambiguous. However, the story is about New York City. There’s not much room to grow outwards. More mass transit in and around the city would reduce the need to own a car.