3 ms·

> I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete I actually never have understood this ... it is so obvious to m

by zmmmmm 5y ago

> I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete I actually never have understood this ... it is so obvious to me that natural space is more attractive, healthier and can be made in a very low maintenance (I suppose not zero maintenance) way. Why is it that cities, companies, organisations seem to take immense pride in concreting / paving over large spaces? We have whole areas of the city where I live that are nearly 100% concrete / bitumen with barely a tree left. I see whole suburbs that are leafy and green and over decades people move in and inexorably start removing all the vegetation until it looks as ugly as everywhere else. Nearly everyone seems to agree that natural space is nicer, but everyone also seems to agree that we should erase it all and replace it with concrete.

chii 5y ago
other than any city/state regulation on minimum parking spaces, i would guess that people remove greenery because it is unprofitable - not that it serves no function, but that you cannot extract private value from their function. A patch of greenery produces visual value for passer by, and by extension society. It looks nice. But the owner of the land is not receiving compensation for providing this "niceness" - it's not as if it's a gated park that charges for entrance. So at first opportunity, the owner would choose to use that greenery space for something more profitable - that is, privately profitable. Some city regulation require car parks - so paving over it and making it a parking space means they can extract some value out of that space, thus conserving more space for the building or some such that do provide private profit. So the bottom line, literally, is why greenery in cities gets filled up with concrete. The city/state could alleviate it by having a tax code which rewards greenery (or having requirements for greenery), but the cost of this greenery is going to be borne by society regardless (via higher tax spending to offset the tax breaks for the greenery, or having land/buildings become more expensive to offset the regulatory need for greenery etc).

by zmmmmm 5y ago

chii 5y ago

other than any city/state regulation on minimum parking spaces, i would guess that people remove greenery because it is unprofitable - not that it serves no function, but that you cannot extract private value from their function. A patch of greenery produces visual value for passer by, and by extension society. It looks nice. But the owner of the land is not receiving compensation for providing this "niceness" - it's not as if it's a gated park that charges for entrance. So at first opportunity, the owner would choose to use that greenery space for something more profitable - that is, privately profitable. Some city regulation require car parks - so paving over it and making it a parking space means they can extract some value out of that space, thus conserving more space for the building or some such that do provide private profit. So the bottom line, literally, is why greenery in cities gets filled up with concrete. The city/state could alleviate it by having a tax code which rewards greenery (or having requirements for greenery), but the cost of this greenery is going to be borne by society regardless (via higher tax spending to offset the tax breaks for the greenery, or having land/buildings become more expensive to offset the regulatory need for greenery etc).