7 ms·

Says zero-carbon, proceeds to show single-family detached homes in a suburban setting, mostly accessible by car only. P.S. The concrete foundations look far fr

by kgran 4y ago

Says zero-carbon, proceeds to show single-family detached homes in a suburban setting, mostly accessible by car only. P.S. The concrete foundations look far from zero-carbon.

MontyCarloHall 4y ago
Put solar panels on the roof and an electric car in the driveway. The main strike against suburban lifestyles today is that they’re energy intensive and thus carbon-heavy. There is nothing wrong with a energy intensive suburban life if that energy is carbon neutral. (And yes, as other posters point out, there are some additional environmental externalities associated with suburban versus urban lifestyles. It’s not clear to me how severe these externalities are, and thus whether they are worth the tradeoff of increased quality of life for the many people who love living in the suburbs. As an extreme example, living a pre-industrial lifestyle would be much more environmentally friendly, but it isn’t remotely worth the quality of life tradeoff.)
- kgran 4y ago
  Electric cars are as zero-carbon as the cost-equivalent space of a freshly paved asphalt concrete highway or parking space. If not more than that due to the more special materials required to make them. Also note that, due to much heavier weight of electric cars, asphalt concrete surfaces will be damaged a lot faster. The relationship between vehicle weight and its damage to the road surface is exponential, not linear.
- oblio 4y ago
  You still need to drive places, which is the least efficient method of mass transportation. An entire infrastructure needs to be built and maintained for cars, which is super wasteful and in almost every country is pushing everyone into debt that is just punted into the future. Sure, convenient for individuals but absolutely not sustainable for society, nor the planet. Even with electric cars and green energy. The insane cost of cars: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ztHZj6QNlkM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ztHZj6QNlkM The hard truth is that if we don't want to abandon our comfortable modern lifestyles, 80-90% of us will have to live in dense cities and use mass transportation 95% of the time.
  - starkd 4y ago
    He just proposed a housing solution. Now you are complaining because he hasn't produced a transportation solution as well?
    - oblio 4y ago
      Those are tied. It's impossible to service low density housing efficiently.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      That's not the point. Proposing a housing solution that encourage unsustainable transportation is not sustainable.
  - nlittlepoole 4y ago
    I agree with you but I think one thing that might help people fear this change less is reiterating that the density necessary isn't Manhattan or Downtown Chicago. There are a lot of ways to make an efficient urban area without being a massive megalopolis. Neighborhoods like Park Slope in Brooklyn or Sunset in SF are good examples. Multifamily housing doesn't have to mean high rises. People also don't have to live in what we think of as cities at all. Rural living is fine if people live closer together in those areas. Such that they live in walkable towns that don't require driving and can be easily connected to other towns and cities via a bus or train. Europe is much better at this but you see vestiges in New England. It's just nobody should really be living beyond walking or biking distance of core services (transport, shopping, etc). The benefit for those who love nature is more untampered natural beauty in the surrounding areas. If anyone has ever been to a place like Banff it's lovely when fine right.
    - oblio 4y ago
      Someone posted here that the maximum density with this type of housing is 3 stories, 75 dwellings per hectare, so about 7500 dwellings per square kilometer. At 3 stories, that has to be at least 6 people per dwelling, so about 45k people per square kilometer. Let's cut that to 5k people per square kilometer to account for infrastructure, shops, schools, etc, it still seems reasonable. We don't even need more than that on average, we don't need Hong Kongs everywhere. "Brownstones" will do :-)
- tremon 4y ago
  The main strike against suburban lifestyles is that the maintenance cost per square meter (water, sewage, electrics, roads, communications) is much higher than the area generates in taxes.
  - starkd 4y ago
    A lot of people don't like to live in cities.
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      You have to remember a lot of people on this site are young people without families that prioritize social lives. They haven't related yet that people with kids and careers, etc. are simply not interested in what cities have to offer and that the quality of life in a city is terrible if you have a family compared to what you can get outside of a city in a nice town. Unless you're really rich and can get a huge apartment or condo and can afford to pay for parking or have a driver, etc. Just look at NYC to find the typical pattern: Young person lives with multiple people in an area like the Lower East Side or Williamsburg (yay social life!), then begins to settle down in a place like Park Slope (just married!) and has a kid (dedicated to urban living) and then another kid comes along and/or the reality of urban living (the schools are awful, it's cramped and expensive, the city offers you nearly nothing since you don't go out like you used to) and the brownstone is sold for a tidy profit and they're off to the NYC suburbs to get more space and a better quality of life to raise a family in. The city is a short commute away still.
  - criddell 4y ago
    I've heard that before and believe it to be true, but then it makes me wonder why cities are often so eager to annex suburban developments? If a suburb isn't paying it's fair share, why don't cities raise taxes or un-annex them? (is there a word for un-annex?)
    - adrianN 4y ago
      https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ Cities need to grow new developments to pay for the existing developments.
- adrianN 4y ago
  Suburbia also encroaches on wildlife habitat, reduces ground water replenishment, requires expensive infrastructure, and is material (not just energy) intensive.
- mrcartmeneses 4y ago
  Other than the air pollution from your tyres, the pollution and murder from getting the materials for your car batteries and the taxes that poorer residents in the inner cities have to pay to subsidise the high cost of services and low tax intake from the suburbs
leecarraher 4y ago
my guess is they will buy carbon offsets to cover manufacturing energy and transportation costs, a system which has its own shortcomings and critiques.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by kgran 4y ago

Says zero-carbon, proceeds to show single-family detached homes in a suburban setting, mostly accessible by car only. P.S. The concrete foundations look far from zero-carbon.

MontyCarloHall 4y ago

Put solar panels on the roof and an electric car in the driveway. The main strike against suburban lifestyles today is that they’re energy intensive and thus carbon-heavy. There is nothing wrong with a energy intensive suburban life if that energy is carbon neutral. (And yes, as other posters point out, there are some additional environmental externalities associated with suburban versus urban lifestyles. It’s not clear to me how severe these externalities are, and thus whether they are worth the tradeoff of increased quality of life for the many people who love living in the suburbs. As an extreme example, living a pre-industrial lifestyle would be much more environmentally friendly, but it isn’t remotely worth the quality of life tradeoff.)

kgran 4y ago
Electric cars are as zero-carbon as the cost-equivalent space of a freshly paved asphalt concrete highway or parking space. If not more than that due to the more special materials required to make them. Also note that, due to much heavier weight of electric cars, asphalt concrete surfaces will be damaged a lot faster. The relationship between vehicle weight and its damage to the road surface is exponential, not linear.
oblio 4y ago
You still need to drive places, which is the least efficient method of mass transportation. An entire infrastructure needs to be built and maintained for cars, which is super wasteful and in almost every country is pushing everyone into debt that is just punted into the future. Sure, convenient for individuals but absolutely not sustainable for society, nor the planet. Even with electric cars and green energy. The insane cost of cars: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ztHZj6QNlkM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ztHZj6QNlkM The hard truth is that if we don't want to abandon our comfortable modern lifestyles, 80-90% of us will have to live in dense cities and use mass transportation 95% of the time.
- starkd 4y ago
  He just proposed a housing solution. Now you are complaining because he hasn't produced a transportation solution as well?
  - oblio 4y ago
    Those are tied. It's impossible to service low density housing efficiently.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    That's not the point. Proposing a housing solution that encourage unsustainable transportation is not sustainable.
- nlittlepoole 4y ago
  I agree with you but I think one thing that might help people fear this change less is reiterating that the density necessary isn't Manhattan or Downtown Chicago. There are a lot of ways to make an efficient urban area without being a massive megalopolis. Neighborhoods like Park Slope in Brooklyn or Sunset in SF are good examples. Multifamily housing doesn't have to mean high rises. People also don't have to live in what we think of as cities at all. Rural living is fine if people live closer together in those areas. Such that they live in walkable towns that don't require driving and can be easily connected to other towns and cities via a bus or train. Europe is much better at this but you see vestiges in New England. It's just nobody should really be living beyond walking or biking distance of core services (transport, shopping, etc). The benefit for those who love nature is more untampered natural beauty in the surrounding areas. If anyone has ever been to a place like Banff it's lovely when fine right.
  - oblio 4y ago
    Someone posted here that the maximum density with this type of housing is 3 stories, 75 dwellings per hectare, so about 7500 dwellings per square kilometer. At 3 stories, that has to be at least 6 people per dwelling, so about 45k people per square kilometer. Let's cut that to 5k people per square kilometer to account for infrastructure, shops, schools, etc, it still seems reasonable. We don't even need more than that on average, we don't need Hong Kongs everywhere. "Brownstones" will do :-)
tremon 4y ago
The main strike against suburban lifestyles is that the maintenance cost per square meter (water, sewage, electrics, roads, communications) is much higher than the area generates in taxes.
- starkd 4y ago
  A lot of people don't like to live in cities.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    You have to remember a lot of people on this site are young people without families that prioritize social lives. They haven't related yet that people with kids and careers, etc. are simply not interested in what cities have to offer and that the quality of life in a city is terrible if you have a family compared to what you can get outside of a city in a nice town. Unless you're really rich and can get a huge apartment or condo and can afford to pay for parking or have a driver, etc. Just look at NYC to find the typical pattern: Young person lives with multiple people in an area like the Lower East Side or Williamsburg (yay social life!), then begins to settle down in a place like Park Slope (just married!) and has a kid (dedicated to urban living) and then another kid comes along and/or the reality of urban living (the schools are awful, it's cramped and expensive, the city offers you nearly nothing since you don't go out like you used to) and the brownstone is sold for a tidy profit and they're off to the NYC suburbs to get more space and a better quality of life to raise a family in. The city is a short commute away still.
- criddell 4y ago
  I've heard that before and believe it to be true, but then it makes me wonder why cities are often so eager to annex suburban developments? If a suburb isn't paying it's fair share, why don't cities raise taxes or un-annex them? (is there a word for un-annex?)
  - adrianN 4y ago
    https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ Cities need to grow new developments to pay for the existing developments.
adrianN 4y ago
Suburbia also encroaches on wildlife habitat, reduces ground water replenishment, requires expensive infrastructure, and is material (not just energy) intensive.
mrcartmeneses 4y ago
Other than the air pollution from your tyres, the pollution and murder from getting the materials for your car batteries and the taxes that poorer residents in the inner cities have to pay to subsidise the high cost of services and low tax intake from the suburbs

leecarraher 4y ago

my guess is they will buy carbon offsets to cover manufacturing energy and transportation costs, a system which has its own shortcomings and critiques.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]