4 ms·
> I can't even follow what your unsourced talk of sub-urbanization is trying to claim. I can't find the paper at the moment. I will try to get it posted here t
by TrispusAttucks 5y ago
> I can't even follow what your unsourced talk of sub-urbanization is trying to claim.
I can't find the paper at the moment. I will try to get it posted here tomorrow.
The gist is that suburban grow is an overflow of city growth onto the surrounding area. When a suburban areas GHG accounting is taken into consideration it further removes any "apparent" per capita efficiency of the city.
It is really all just another case of Goodharts Law [1] with the addition that the measure was never comprehensive in the first place.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- javagram 5y agoUrban and suburban are different lifestyles though. Suburban residents typically have a SFH and need multiple cars to do their errands and commute. Residents of an urban core would be more likely to live in multi family housing and use public transportation or walk/bike to their errands and job. Disputing a rural v urban GHG comparison by pointing to suburbs doesn’t make sense in that model - a suburban lifestyle is much closer to a rural one as both are car-dependent.
- lmm 5y ago> The gist is that suburban grow is an overflow of city growth onto the surrounding area. When a suburban areas GHG accounting is taken into consideration it further removes any "apparent" per capita efficiency of the city. I'm happy to believe that suburban lifestyles are inefficient, but I don't find that a good argument for discouraging urban lifestyles - wouldn't that increase rather than decreasing suburban sprawl? (E.g. if you limit development in city centres, that's going to push more of it to nearby suburbs).