5 ms·

Sorry, but if we want to address climate change and protect the environment, then we need to do this without sprawling outwards.

throwaway894345 5y ago
Increasing housing stock doesn't imply sprawling outwards (e.g., replace a detached house with an apartment/condo complex), and anyway housing stock is probably a negligible contributor to climate change and habitat destruction (presumably forestry, agriculture, heavy industry, fossil fuel energy, etc are far larger culprits).
xedrac 5y ago
Supply and demand isn't going to change. You can build up instead of out, but I think the point was there's insufficient supply.
- Pet_Ant 5y ago
  Yes, I was suggesting infill over sprawl. Multi family dwellings do not displace more nature than a single family does
la6472 5y ago
Nothing is better than sprawling outwards. Most of the white collar jobs can be done remotely , so commute is not needed. Most of groceries and other stuff can be delivered. A truck doing 100 deliveries is surely less traffic than everyone going to the supermarkets. And most importantly with sprawling outwards citizens can enjoy the outdoors and take care of their health. And even more importantly high density of population leads to increased crime , encourage homelessness and provide all sorts of administrative nightmares.I would say we have reached a technological inflection point where we at at last free to spread out and yet stay connected. Let us embrace it. This is the future. This is the way.
- trylfthsk 5y ago
  Service availability decreases with population density, and relying on subsidized last mile delivery for the economic elite is not a sustainable model for an entire society. The road network alone is a funding quagmire, to say nothing of hiding the infrastructure burdens of servicing sprawl into the eldritch horror that is the municipal bond market.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Service availability decreases with population density, and relying on subsidized last mile delivery for the economic elite is not a sustainable model for an entire society. I don't think this is strictly true. I don't like the model, but big box stores seem pretty sustainable (everyone drives to a distribution center for their goods). An actual last mile distribution system (a la Amazon) also appears to work pretty well. Neither of these are exclusively available to the economic elite. > The road network alone is a funding quagmire, to say nothing of hiding the infrastructure burdens of servicing sprawl into the eldritch horror that is the municipal bond market. I don't doubt that infrastructure costs decrease with density, but density doesn't keep urban municipalities from building infrastructure that they can't afford to maintain any more than other places. Quality of governance and density are almost certainly independent variables.
  - la6472 5y ago
    Service availability decreasing with population density is still old school thought. Rapid advances in technology over the years enable stretching infrastructure outwards. Who knows someday we may be extending our infrastructures to cover the whole globe and even to outer space. It is not subsidized and it is certainly not for the elite only. It is more about human aspiration. As a species we can look towards piling on top of each other or we can choose to expand and live a quality life according to one’s own aspiration. Look at the big picture.
- MrMan 5y ago
  this is objectively wrong. it may be the future but its not the way

throwaway894345 5y ago

Increasing housing stock doesn't imply sprawling outwards (e.g., replace a detached house with an apartment/condo complex), and anyway housing stock is probably a negligible contributor to climate change and habitat destruction (presumably forestry, agriculture, heavy industry, fossil fuel energy, etc are far larger culprits).

xedrac 5y ago

Supply and demand isn't going to change. You can build up instead of out, but I think the point was there's insufficient supply.

Pet_Ant 5y ago
Yes, I was suggesting infill over sprawl. Multi family dwellings do not displace more nature than a single family does

la6472 5y ago

Nothing is better than sprawling outwards. Most of the white collar jobs can be done remotely , so commute is not needed. Most of groceries and other stuff can be delivered. A truck doing 100 deliveries is surely less traffic than everyone going to the supermarkets. And most importantly with sprawling outwards citizens can enjoy the outdoors and take care of their health. And even more importantly high density of population leads to increased crime , encourage homelessness and provide all sorts of administrative nightmares.I would say we have reached a technological inflection point where we at at last free to spread out and yet stay connected. Let us embrace it. This is the future. This is the way.

trylfthsk 5y ago
Service availability decreases with population density, and relying on subsidized last mile delivery for the economic elite is not a sustainable model for an entire society. The road network alone is a funding quagmire, to say nothing of hiding the infrastructure burdens of servicing sprawl into the eldritch horror that is the municipal bond market.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Service availability decreases with population density, and relying on subsidized last mile delivery for the economic elite is not a sustainable model for an entire society. I don't think this is strictly true. I don't like the model, but big box stores seem pretty sustainable (everyone drives to a distribution center for their goods). An actual last mile distribution system (a la Amazon) also appears to work pretty well. Neither of these are exclusively available to the economic elite. > The road network alone is a funding quagmire, to say nothing of hiding the infrastructure burdens of servicing sprawl into the eldritch horror that is the municipal bond market. I don't doubt that infrastructure costs decrease with density, but density doesn't keep urban municipalities from building infrastructure that they can't afford to maintain any more than other places. Quality of governance and density are almost certainly independent variables.
- la6472 5y ago
  Service availability decreasing with population density is still old school thought. Rapid advances in technology over the years enable stretching infrastructure outwards. Who knows someday we may be extending our infrastructures to cover the whole globe and even to outer space. It is not subsidized and it is certainly not for the elite only. It is more about human aspiration. As a species we can look towards piling on top of each other or we can choose to expand and live a quality life according to one’s own aspiration. Look at the big picture.
MrMan 5y ago
this is objectively wrong. it may be the future but its not the way