4 ms·
I'm aware that dense cities are not automatically more sustainable. Seems like you're under-selling density here. A dense city may not be automatically sustai
by joe_the_user 6y ago
I'm aware that dense cities are not automatically more sustainable.
Seems like you're under-selling density here.
A dense city may not be automatically sustainable but it seems logical that denseness would be necessary to create a much more sustainable city than today.
Oppositely, there is degree of sprawl is almost automatically unsustainable, in ecological and economic terms.
- seiferteric 6y ago> Oppositely, there is degree of sprawl is almost automatically unsustainable, in ecological and economic terms. Is it? Or only if we want to keep living the way we do? I assume if we all became vegan polycultural subsistence farmers it would be more sustainable but we would be more spread out.
- everdumb 6y agoIt is? Or only if we want to ignore where OP said in economic terms? Your virtue signalling is quite insipid.
- seiferteric 6y agoIt was not virtue signaling, not even sure how it could be. It is a serious question. I am not convinced society as we know it is sustainable in the long term (environmentally or economically), but hope I am wrong.
- pas 6y agoWe can't all do that really. And those who don't need to commute, and then we are back to square one basically.
- simonebrunozzi 6y agoHigh density does not automatically imply skyscrapers. Paris, or Siena, or many other examples achieve very high density, with buildings that are 3-4 floors high.
- enraged_camel 6y agoThere is dense, and then there is dense. Paris may be the former, but it is no Manhattan or Chicago DT.
- thescriptkiddie 6y agoNew York is more than just Manhattan. The average density of the 20 arrondissements is higher than the 5 boroughs.
- Spooky23 6y agoBrooklyn has more people than Manhattan. The tenements are long gone, Manhattan is increasingly a museum of rich people these days.
- refurb 6y agothere is degree of sprawl is almost automatically unsustainable I'm not sure we'd ever reach that point in the developed world. Populations have already peaked (it's only going up because of immigration) and sprawl is self-limiting because who wants to do a 4 hour daily commute?
- Meandering 6y agoI think he is referring to collateral sprawl. Meaning, that density could be assumed to relatively increase property values and increase demand for support infrastructure. Businesses and people seek out low-priced space within the region. So, a high density area will spur unintended sprawl which might lead to other issues.
- refurb 6y agoBut businesses seeking out low cost areas is probably unavoidable. You could build a super dense city, but a limited population is going to want to live there - people with kids, etc. Unless you’re willing to force them to live in a city, some people are going to seek out low cost areas and be a source of employees for the companies doing the same.
- nmfisher 6y ago> sprawl is self-limiting because who wants to do a 4 hour daily commute? Ironically, an increase in remote work would probably exacerbate sprawl.
- joe_the_user 6y ago...sprawl is self-limiting because who wants to do a 4 hour daily commute? Not in the larger scheme of things. People move to suburb X before grid lock and have a one hour commute. Enough people move there that the commute is suddenly two and a half hours or more. But people keep moving to the area because the houses exist, the land is still relatively cheap and so-forth. The bottom may even fall out of the market but the place exists, someone will buy the houses. Exurbs can easily become suburban ghettos like Antioch or Modesto. But naturally, it's not just the commute part the closes in on exurbs. Cost of services is higher and once the places become less-than-upper-middle-class, they don't have a tax base to pay for expensive services, they become less desirable than urban ghettos.