3 ms·

Large cities provide so much more opportunity to people than towns and smaller cities, that I can't see the ethical case for limiting densification, even if max

Large cities provide so much more opportunity to people than towns and smaller cities, that I can't see the ethical case for limiting densification, even if maximizing densification moderately compromises the character of the neighbourhoods that current residents live in.

ggm 5y ago
If we were a completely utilitarian society pursuing some kind of minimax I could agree with this. But, we aren't. Cities have form which reflects lots of social pressures and my memory of standing on the empire state looking down is that different quadrants of new York and new jersey reflect different views of density and land use from green spaces to the projects. My area (west end, that's the name of a specific suburb in Brisbane) is a working class high density single storey suburb, now overtaken by extensive modern builds of three, four and five storey small development (we call them six-packs from the typical number of flats you can fit on a block), Brisbane's first highrise (torbrek, a 1960s tower. Interesting building) and subsequent 9 to 15 storey developments. It's gone from under 5,000 residents in early 2000s to over 10,000. (Last census 2016 was 9,000. It's probably 14,000 or so now) It's had fights over parkland, schools, bus services. Huge social change, housing cooperative groups sent to the suburbs to free up valuable land for the state housing commission to reduce public sector debt, factories which still occupy an inner city residential landscape, some on prime river real estate. In 12 years time we will host the Olympics and some of this will be used for showcase development. It's not just about more people. It's about what kind of life you want people to live. South East Queensland is the same area as LA and will be 5m people in the next 15 years. It's not one thing, it's many things. There's room for a mixture of high rise and medium and low density urban living in Australia.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  Life expectancy tends to go up as population densities increase. On top of that, people's environmental footprints shrink. We can talk about all the specific cases where people lost something as the older character of the city made way for the new, but on the balance, there must be more cases of lives improving, than degrading, when we see not only gains in average income and life expectancy, but more people able to live in the cities that provide these superior conditions. Consider that Hong Kong now has the highest life expectancy in the world: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/health/hong-kong-world-longest-life-expectancy-longevity-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/health/hong-kong-world-longes...
  - ggm 5y ago
    Interesting take on things. It's unclear to me that this isn't about diet and genes. But, if it is density we also have to accept it's heading to an asymptote, and so eg building everything the height of Burj Khalifa won't make us live to 250.

ggm 5y ago

If we were a completely utilitarian society pursuing some kind of minimax I could agree with this. But, we aren't. Cities have form which reflects lots of social pressures and my memory of standing on the empire state looking down is that different quadrants of new York and new jersey reflect different views of density and land use from green spaces to the projects. My area (west end, that's the name of a specific suburb in Brisbane) is a working class high density single storey suburb, now overtaken by extensive modern builds of three, four and five storey small development (we call them six-packs from the typical number of flats you can fit on a block), Brisbane's first highrise (torbrek, a 1960s tower. Interesting building) and subsequent 9 to 15 storey developments. It's gone from under 5,000 residents in early 2000s to over 10,000. (Last census 2016 was 9,000. It's probably 14,000 or so now) It's had fights over parkland, schools, bus services. Huge social change, housing cooperative groups sent to the suburbs to free up valuable land for the state housing commission to reduce public sector debt, factories which still occupy an inner city residential landscape, some on prime river real estate. In 12 years time we will host the Olympics and some of this will be used for showcase development. It's not just about more people. It's about what kind of life you want people to live. South East Queensland is the same area as LA and will be 5m people in the next 15 years. It's not one thing, it's many things. There's room for a mixture of high rise and medium and low density urban living in Australia.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
Life expectancy tends to go up as population densities increase. On top of that, people's environmental footprints shrink. We can talk about all the specific cases where people lost something as the older character of the city made way for the new, but on the balance, there must be more cases of lives improving, than degrading, when we see not only gains in average income and life expectancy, but more people able to live in the cities that provide these superior conditions. Consider that Hong Kong now has the highest life expectancy in the world: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/health/hong-kong-world-longest-life-expectancy-longevity-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/health/hong-kong-world-longes...
- ggm 5y ago
  Interesting take on things. It's unclear to me that this isn't about diet and genes. But, if it is density we also have to accept it's heading to an asymptote, and so eg building everything the height of Burj Khalifa won't make us live to 250.