6 ms·

This is, in reality, probably less 'green' than living in a city. Multi-family homes tend to require less energy to heat and cool, because you share walls. You

by davidw 5y ago

This is, in reality, probably less 'green' than living in a city. Multi-family homes tend to require less energy to heat and cool, because you share walls. You can also walk to many things, bike, or take transit. My bet is that most of the people living in these rural places aren't so into the 'rural lifestyle' that they don't own a couple of cars that they use for ... pretty much everything in life.

asdff 5y ago
One of the worst things we did in the past century is paint the idea of an apartment high rise full of decent sized family apartments overlooking a green shady courtyard as some communist evil, to be actively outlawed. We haven't gotten past that sentiment towards apartment living to this day. Even what we do build in terms of apartments is only really studios or 1 or 2 bedroom units. If you want to have a family, there's nothing like that on the market like there is in other countries with dense family housing.
- ramesh31 5y ago
  >One of the worst things we did in the past century is paint the idea of an apartment high rise full of decent sized family apartments overlooking a green shady courtyard as some communist evil, to be actively outlawed. How many large apartment blocs have you lived in? It's not a very enjoyable way to live, particularly with a family. People want houses, garages, yards, and cars. Don't try to paint the selfish reality of human nature as being corrupted by some propagandistic force against collectivism.
  - jchanimal 5y ago
    How many are constructed to be desirable? Would a nice apartment complex be legal in most jurisdictions? Luckily, the First Nations in Vancouver don't have to worry about NIMBYs, so they can show us a good example: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-senakw-in-vancouver-the-squamish-nation-shapes-a-sustainable-village/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-senakw-in-van...
    - ramesh31 5y ago
      20th century history is littered with these types of developments [0]. They all turn out the same way. Decrepit and abandoned within 20 years. No one wants to live like that. Living your life in a 30th story studio apartment is a dystopian nightmare. You are completely disconnected from your environment, and daily needs like grocery shopping, package deliveries, buying furniture, all become herculean tasks. It's why these places very quickly become slums. The only people willing to live like that are those with no other choice. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/pruitt-igoe-high-rise-urban-america-history-cities https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/pruitt-igoe-h...
      - javagram 5y ago
        Your link is to a public housing project. It discusses the reasons why it became a slum, such as white flight and desegregation. Not sure if you have ever lived in an apartment if you think grocery shopping is a “Herculean” task. You just take the elevator and walk a block or two to the grocery store. Furniture is actually easier than in a SFH because you don’t have to struggle to move it up stairs, you just pop it in an elevator. Package deliveries go to a concierge at the front desk rather than being stolen or getting wet on the porch if you’re not home, etc. In general looking at trends of the 1960s to predict behavior today won’t work - there’s been a trend toward reurbanization in the last 30 years and white flight has reversed and been replaced with gentrification. The “slums” are now being pushed into city outskirts and suburbs themselves.
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        Personally, I do see a relationship between crime and people fleeing the cities, for obvious reasons. What is concerning is the increase in homicide rates combined with an epidemic of DAs that refuse to prosecute crimes, all against a backdrop of remote work making outmigration much easier. That may well reverse the gentrification trend and we could see a repeat of the 1970s-1980s.
  - davidw 5y ago
    I would like a large house with a huge yard right in the middle of a lot of amenities. And a pony. The reality is that land in desirable areas is scarce, so people ought to be free to choose the tradeoffs they prefer. In Italy, my family and I actually did live in a home in a 6 unit building and it was just fine. 3 bedroom, 2 bath. Rather than the yard, the kids would go over to the local park, where they'd actually find other kids to play with, which is way more important to kids than the big yard in the house we rent here in the US.
  - LeifCarrotson 5y ago
    I've lived in three large apartment blocs. None were decent sized family apartments overlooking a green shady courtyard. They were all cramped 2-bedroom units overlooking shopping malls, designed for people who didn't want to buy a house in the suburban sprawl around my Midwestern city. The courtyards were decrepit and unmaintained, the only nice green spaces had 'keep off the grass' signs. Obviously no one wants that, it worked as a college student and a newlywed but when we started a family I did, indeed, buy a house. But not because I actually wanted a house, because I wanted something other than the crappy apartments that were in my local market. My parents recently bought a condo - it's in a green, forested neighborhood in some quiet residential streets, they have a two-car garage, they have four bedrooms - theirs, spare upstairs, office, one downstairs for visiting grandkids, storage space downstairs, upstairs they have a living room, dining room, and large kitchen. Theirs is a duplex, a few of the units in the neighborhood are larger quad-unit townhomes. As relatively wealthy seniors, they were able to buy that outright. But nothing like that (except regular homes) is available to rent within several hundred miles, as far as I know. Nice apartments are just not a thing that we build, in part because culturally, "nice apartments" is an oxymoron.
    - bserge 5y ago
      So it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Bad design, no maintenance, no park, no sidewalks - apartment building are shit.
  - asdff 5y ago
    I lived in one about three years ago and it was full of children and families. It was constructed in the 1960s so it still had a few larger units. The grounds were recently renovated, so the children had an astroturf half length soccer field, a new playground area, a basketball court, a tennis court, and two pools and jacuzzis on each end of the property. The kids ran around the grounds absolutely amok with their little kick scooters unsupervised since the entire property was gated and patrolled by a security guard. I always thought living like that all year jumping into the pool with your friends every day must be a wonderful childhood. Probably nice for the parents being able to kick back and let the kids run anywhere within the property knowing its pretty safe.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Lots of recent TV paints living in a large apartment building as a completely normal thing to do.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
    Living as a SINK/DINK? Yeah sure. Look at just about any show about raising children at or above the replacement rate and the vast majority are all in homes. Even the family in shameless had a home. The only counter example I can even think of is smilf.
    - jeffbee 5y ago
      Apartments are homes. You're right that families with children living in multifamily dwellings are under-represented on American TV, but that's not because they are rare in real American life. I can think of a few examples of course, like "The Jeffersons", the whole premise of which is how their success led to moving from a house in Queens to an apartment in Manhattan.
    - davidw 5y ago
      Your very language belies the ingrained attitudes we have. A single family unit is a "home". An apartment is ... something else. In reality, both are homes.
  - asdff 5y ago
    Everyone does it in their 20s. Everyone likes being walking distance from the bars at that age. Few last into their 30s or 40s with kids in tow unless they are very wealthy or too poor to afford the high upfront costs of moving to a cheaper area.
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      There is more to life than bars: More likely, where I am, you are walking distance from grocery stores as bars aren't peppered everywhere. (Going to bars is an expensive hobby in Norway, and pre/post drinking is quite normal). Also, you can't bring the kids to the bar in most places (It used to be legal in Tennessee to a point) So sure, they aren't going to bars. But they are going to work. They are living in areas where their 6-year-old child can walk to school. Where they can take public transportation to work. And so on.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Even what we do build in terms of apartments is only really studios or 1 or 2 bedroom units. In suburbia, sure. In urban areas, 3+ bedroom apartments are definitely a thing, as are relatively spacious apartments for their bedroom count, and overlooking luxurious courtyards. They are as expensive as you’d expect from places where studios are more expensive than suburban 3 bedroom single-family homes, though.
  - asdff 5y ago
    I live in a city of 4 million people and I can tell you that in these new construction builds that they legitimately do not build for families. You will rarely if ever see a new construction 3 or 4 bedroom, its typical for these builds to have some studios and 1 or 2s but hardly ever larger units. All that's available of that size is old housing stock from the 1970s or before.
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      That's just your area. I live in a city of around 200,000. They definitely build for families here. I can buy a new 2 or 3 bedroom apartment - a brand-new studio might be more difficult. You can find older ones, though. (Most families only need 2-3 bedrooms due to family sizes)
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
Although there is a lot of data to suggest that per capita green house gas (GHG) emissions from urban residents are less than rural counterparts this is not the entire story. Absolute GHG emissions and impact are higher for higher incomes. GHG emissions are a function of wealth not geography. Urban areas have much higher concentraions of wealth. They also outsource much of their GHG creation to rural areas but are still the cause/consumer of it (concrete, energy, minerals, construction materials). Also the perceived reduction in GHG emissions for urban areas is only true of late stage developed nations. Developing nations, those building out new cities, do not share the per capita efficiencies of full developed nations. The reason for this is that perceived per capita GHG reductions in developed nations were paid for by high GHG emissions of their past. New data on urban sprawl (sub-urbanization) sheds doubt on the idea that even developed nations cities per capita GHG emissions are lower than rural areas. Ultimately, urbanization is a bulk consumer of Earth's natural resources and not a producer of those inputs. Put simply: Cities are eating the Earth. EDIT: Added point about sub-urban development negating efficiencies.
- namlem 5y ago
  It's not clear that the relationship between urbanization and emissions in the third world is that strong when you exclude China. Also, suburban lifestyles are by far the most carbon intensive. Transportation by car and heating/cooling large houses uses a ton of energy.
- lmm 5y ago
  Sounds like you're throwing a bunch of arguments at the wall and hoping some of them stick rather than trying to figure out what's true. Wealth is presumably fixed at first-order, so comparing equally wealthy rural or urban residents seems fairest (unless you're trying to argue that cities are bad because they increase economic growth?); if the argument is something like "emissions are only higher in rural areas because rural residents are more likely to own cars because they're wealthier", that doesn't really refute the notion that rural is worse for the planet, it just means that poor people can't afford rural lives. I can't even follow what your unsourced talk of sub-urbanization is trying to claim. The post you were replying to gave an argument for why GHG emissions would be lower in urban areas that, while not necessarily proven, at least passes the sniff test.
sjwalter 5y ago
Making large life decisions based on your own personal GHG emissions is living as though you are already dead. I moved out to the country. Bought a big diesel. Started a farm. My GHGs went way up. And yet, my lifestyle change has zero impact on climate change. It's like voting--if you know game theory at all, you know it's a waste of time, just like it's a waste of a life to spend your time calculating and optimizing how "green" you're being. Zero real impact, beyond whatever it makes you feel. Hey, I enjoy dirt bikes and the shooting guns on my land. My kids do too. Maybe you enjoy riding the bus and being efficient. To each their own. But don't live a lesser life just to live up to some lifestyle meme--whether it's the homesteading trend or the green trend--just do what you like.
- yaitsyaboi 5y ago
  I can understand the argument that individual consumer changes are not enough to stem the tide of climate change. But I’m not sure that means individual choices have zero real impact. I think the voting analogy is good, but I take a different lesson from it. Not that voting is pointless. Individual actions matter a great deal in their cumulative effect.
  - verve_rat 5y ago
    Nope. Individual actions are pointless. The only thing that might impact climate change is large scale government regulation. The only action an individual can take to have an impact at all is to lobby their government.
- morsch 5y ago
  Your impact is not zero. Small numbers exist. Unfortunately physics doesn't round down before aggregating individual numbers. You and your kids not living "a lesser life" just means your grandkids will. Mine, too. It's that easy. Maybe people who don't think voting is a waste of time will generate an environment where these decisions are made on a societal level and individual responsibility is less important. Which presumably you'd welcome. It's unlikely.
- davidw 5y ago
theodric 5y ago
I've been saying since at least 2016 that I expect a moralizing campaign to guilt people into moving to the city "for the environment" as interests continue to pressure their pocket politicians to shift all responsibility for controlling climate change to individual consumers. "People who live outside the city use X times more fuel to heat and commute and contribute Y more to climate change! Do the right thing: move to the city." Devalue burb/rural housing with a glut of supply, indenture millions with enormous city mortgages or perpetual rent, profit, retire to island in South Pacific-- job done.

by davidw 5y ago

asdff 5y ago

One of the worst things we did in the past century is paint the idea of an apartment high rise full of decent sized family apartments overlooking a green shady courtyard as some communist evil, to be actively outlawed. We haven't gotten past that sentiment towards apartment living to this day. Even what we do build in terms of apartments is only really studios or 1 or 2 bedroom units. If you want to have a family, there's nothing like that on the market like there is in other countries with dense family housing.

ramesh31 5y ago
>One of the worst things we did in the past century is paint the idea of an apartment high rise full of decent sized family apartments overlooking a green shady courtyard as some communist evil, to be actively outlawed. How many large apartment blocs have you lived in? It's not a very enjoyable way to live, particularly with a family. People want houses, garages, yards, and cars. Don't try to paint the selfish reality of human nature as being corrupted by some propagandistic force against collectivism.
- jchanimal 5y ago
  How many are constructed to be desirable? Would a nice apartment complex be legal in most jurisdictions? Luckily, the First Nations in Vancouver don't have to worry about NIMBYs, so they can show us a good example: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-senakw-in-vancouver-the-squamish-nation-shapes-a-sustainable-village/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-senakw-in-van...
  - ramesh31 5y ago
    20th century history is littered with these types of developments [0]. They all turn out the same way. Decrepit and abandoned within 20 years. No one wants to live like that. Living your life in a 30th story studio apartment is a dystopian nightmare. You are completely disconnected from your environment, and daily needs like grocery shopping, package deliveries, buying furniture, all become herculean tasks. It's why these places very quickly become slums. The only people willing to live like that are those with no other choice. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/pruitt-igoe-high-rise-urban-america-history-cities https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/pruitt-igoe-h...
    - javagram 5y ago
      Your link is to a public housing project. It discusses the reasons why it became a slum, such as white flight and desegregation. Not sure if you have ever lived in an apartment if you think grocery shopping is a “Herculean” task. You just take the elevator and walk a block or two to the grocery store. Furniture is actually easier than in a SFH because you don’t have to struggle to move it up stairs, you just pop it in an elevator. Package deliveries go to a concierge at the front desk rather than being stolen or getting wet on the porch if you’re not home, etc. In general looking at trends of the 1960s to predict behavior today won’t work - there’s been a trend toward reurbanization in the last 30 years and white flight has reversed and been replaced with gentrification. The “slums” are now being pushed into city outskirts and suburbs themselves.
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        Personally, I do see a relationship between crime and people fleeing the cities, for obvious reasons. What is concerning is the increase in homicide rates combined with an epidemic of DAs that refuse to prosecute crimes, all against a backdrop of remote work making outmigration much easier. That may well reverse the gentrification trend and we could see a repeat of the 1970s-1980s.
- davidw 5y ago
  I would like a large house with a huge yard right in the middle of a lot of amenities. And a pony. The reality is that land in desirable areas is scarce, so people ought to be free to choose the tradeoffs they prefer. In Italy, my family and I actually did live in a home in a 6 unit building and it was just fine. 3 bedroom, 2 bath. Rather than the yard, the kids would go over to the local park, where they'd actually find other kids to play with, which is way more important to kids than the big yard in the house we rent here in the US.
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  I've lived in three large apartment blocs. None were decent sized family apartments overlooking a green shady courtyard. They were all cramped 2-bedroom units overlooking shopping malls, designed for people who didn't want to buy a house in the suburban sprawl around my Midwestern city. The courtyards were decrepit and unmaintained, the only nice green spaces had 'keep off the grass' signs. Obviously no one wants that, it worked as a college student and a newlywed but when we started a family I did, indeed, buy a house. But not because I actually wanted a house, because I wanted something other than the crappy apartments that were in my local market. My parents recently bought a condo - it's in a green, forested neighborhood in some quiet residential streets, they have a two-car garage, they have four bedrooms - theirs, spare upstairs, office, one downstairs for visiting grandkids, storage space downstairs, upstairs they have a living room, dining room, and large kitchen. Theirs is a duplex, a few of the units in the neighborhood are larger quad-unit townhomes. As relatively wealthy seniors, they were able to buy that outright. But nothing like that (except regular homes) is available to rent within several hundred miles, as far as I know. Nice apartments are just not a thing that we build, in part because culturally, "nice apartments" is an oxymoron.
  - bserge 5y ago
    So it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Bad design, no maintenance, no park, no sidewalks - apartment building are shit.
- asdff 5y ago
  I lived in one about three years ago and it was full of children and families. It was constructed in the 1960s so it still had a few larger units. The grounds were recently renovated, so the children had an astroturf half length soccer field, a new playground area, a basketball court, a tennis court, and two pools and jacuzzis on each end of the property. The kids ran around the grounds absolutely amok with their little kick scooters unsupervised since the entire property was gated and patrolled by a security guard. I always thought living like that all year jumping into the pool with your friends every day must be a wonderful childhood. Probably nice for the parents being able to kick back and let the kids run anywhere within the property knowing its pretty safe.
maxerickson 5y ago
Lots of recent TV paints living in a large apartment building as a completely normal thing to do.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
  Living as a SINK/DINK? Yeah sure. Look at just about any show about raising children at or above the replacement rate and the vast majority are all in homes. Even the family in shameless had a home. The only counter example I can even think of is smilf.
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    Apartments are homes. You're right that families with children living in multifamily dwellings are under-represented on American TV, but that's not because they are rare in real American life. I can think of a few examples of course, like "The Jeffersons", the whole premise of which is how their success led to moving from a house in Queens to an apartment in Manhattan.
  - davidw 5y ago
    Your very language belies the ingrained attitudes we have. A single family unit is a "home". An apartment is ... something else. In reality, both are homes.
- asdff 5y ago
  Everyone does it in their 20s. Everyone likes being walking distance from the bars at that age. Few last into their 30s or 40s with kids in tow unless they are very wealthy or too poor to afford the high upfront costs of moving to a cheaper area.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    There is more to life than bars: More likely, where I am, you are walking distance from grocery stores as bars aren't peppered everywhere. (Going to bars is an expensive hobby in Norway, and pre/post drinking is quite normal). Also, you can't bring the kids to the bar in most places (It used to be legal in Tennessee to a point) So sure, they aren't going to bars. But they are going to work. They are living in areas where their 6-year-old child can walk to school. Where they can take public transportation to work. And so on.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Even what we do build in terms of apartments is only really studios or 1 or 2 bedroom units. In suburbia, sure. In urban areas, 3+ bedroom apartments are definitely a thing, as are relatively spacious apartments for their bedroom count, and overlooking luxurious courtyards. They are as expensive as you’d expect from places where studios are more expensive than suburban 3 bedroom single-family homes, though.
- asdff 5y ago
  I live in a city of 4 million people and I can tell you that in these new construction builds that they legitimately do not build for families. You will rarely if ever see a new construction 3 or 4 bedroom, its typical for these builds to have some studios and 1 or 2s but hardly ever larger units. All that's available of that size is old housing stock from the 1970s or before.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    That's just your area. I live in a city of around 200,000. They definitely build for families here. I can buy a new 2 or 3 bedroom apartment - a brand-new studio might be more difficult. You can find older ones, though. (Most families only need 2-3 bedrooms due to family sizes)

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

Although there is a lot of data to suggest that per capita green house gas (GHG) emissions from urban residents are less than rural counterparts this is not the entire story. Absolute GHG emissions and impact are higher for higher incomes. GHG emissions are a function of wealth not geography. Urban areas have much higher concentraions of wealth. They also outsource much of their GHG creation to rural areas but are still the cause/consumer of it (concrete, energy, minerals, construction materials). Also the perceived reduction in GHG emissions for urban areas is only true of late stage developed nations. Developing nations, those building out new cities, do not share the per capita efficiencies of full developed nations. The reason for this is that perceived per capita GHG reductions in developed nations were paid for by high GHG emissions of their past. New data on urban sprawl (sub-urbanization) sheds doubt on the idea that even developed nations cities per capita GHG emissions are lower than rural areas. Ultimately, urbanization is a bulk consumer of Earth's natural resources and not a producer of those inputs. Put simply: Cities are eating the Earth. EDIT: Added point about sub-urban development negating efficiencies.

namlem 5y ago
It's not clear that the relationship between urbanization and emissions in the third world is that strong when you exclude China. Also, suburban lifestyles are by far the most carbon intensive. Transportation by car and heating/cooling large houses uses a ton of energy.
lmm 5y ago
Sounds like you're throwing a bunch of arguments at the wall and hoping some of them stick rather than trying to figure out what's true. Wealth is presumably fixed at first-order, so comparing equally wealthy rural or urban residents seems fairest (unless you're trying to argue that cities are bad because they increase economic growth?); if the argument is something like "emissions are only higher in rural areas because rural residents are more likely to own cars because they're wealthier", that doesn't really refute the notion that rural is worse for the planet, it just means that poor people can't afford rural lives. I can't even follow what your unsourced talk of sub-urbanization is trying to claim. The post you were replying to gave an argument for why GHG emissions would be lower in urban areas that, while not necessarily proven, at least passes the sniff test.

sjwalter 5y ago

Making large life decisions based on your own personal GHG emissions is living as though you are already dead. I moved out to the country. Bought a big diesel. Started a farm. My GHGs went way up. And yet, my lifestyle change has zero impact on climate change. It's like voting--if you know game theory at all, you know it's a waste of time, just like it's a waste of a life to spend your time calculating and optimizing how "green" you're being. Zero real impact, beyond whatever it makes you feel. Hey, I enjoy dirt bikes and the shooting guns on my land. My kids do too. Maybe you enjoy riding the bus and being efficient. To each their own. But don't live a lesser life just to live up to some lifestyle meme--whether it's the homesteading trend or the green trend--just do what you like.

yaitsyaboi 5y ago
I can understand the argument that individual consumer changes are not enough to stem the tide of climate change. But I’m not sure that means individual choices have zero real impact. I think the voting analogy is good, but I take a different lesson from it. Not that voting is pointless. Individual actions matter a great deal in their cumulative effect.
- verve_rat 5y ago
  Nope. Individual actions are pointless. The only thing that might impact climate change is large scale government regulation. The only action an individual can take to have an impact at all is to lobby their government.
morsch 5y ago
Your impact is not zero. Small numbers exist. Unfortunately physics doesn't round down before aggregating individual numbers. You and your kids not living "a lesser life" just means your grandkids will. Mine, too. It's that easy. Maybe people who don't think voting is a waste of time will generate an environment where these decisions are made on a societal level and individual responsibility is less important. Which presumably you'd welcome. It's unlikely.
davidw 5y ago

theodric 5y ago

I've been saying since at least 2016 that I expect a moralizing campaign to guilt people into moving to the city "for the environment" as interests continue to pressure their pocket politicians to shift all responsibility for controlling climate change to individual consumers. "People who live outside the city use X times more fuel to heat and commute and contribute Y more to climate change! Do the right thing: move to the city." Devalue burb/rural housing with a glut of supply, indenture millions with enormous city mortgages or perpetual rent, profit, retire to island in South Pacific-- job done.