3 ms·
This argument is commonly thrown around, but makes no sense in practice. The denser the place, the more efficient the infrastructure use. 50 families in a sing
by flaque 5y ago
This argument is commonly thrown around, but makes no sense in practice.
The denser the place, the more efficient the infrastructure use. 50 families in a single apartment building use massively fewer pipes & power lines than 50 families in single family homes. But the tax revenue for the city can still be the same. In a denser area, those families are less likely to own or need cars, and if they do, they drive less.
On the other hand, low-density suburban neighborhoods are often so inefficient that the maintenance cost of their infrastructure is more than the tax revenue the residents bring in. (Here's a good overview of that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0)
It's more true to say that "we don't have the infrastructure for single family homes" than it is to say that we don't have the infrastructure for apartment buildings.
- frosted-flakes 5y agoKey quote: "When you lose money on every development, you don't make it up in volume."
- andrewmcwatters 5y agoIndia must have the most efficient real estate in the world then. Let's take a nice hard look at their infrastructure. Do you own a home? Would you willingly let it be replaced alongside surrounding properties with an apartment complex? After all, it's more efficient. You shouldn't own a washing machine either, that's silly. A laundromat helps reduce the need to own the appliances and create a more social environment. And we haven't even begun talking about that car you own. Gross. Public transportation is so much more efficient. Oh you actually wanted to travel somewhere and not have to spend 4 hours of your day to go there, take care of your business, then come home? Weird.