4 ms·

> They aren't making it anymore. But aren't populations of most wealthy countries dropping already? EU population is already declining. We also aren't making

> They aren't making it anymore. But aren't populations of most wealthy countries dropping already? EU population is already declining. We also aren't making efficient use of the land. We could have many more sky scrapers than we do (see Dubai for instance). Biggest obstacles are regulations and zoning laws - not lack of land. Good public transportation is also an issue, there's plenty of cheap land if only we could get to it.

not_the_fda 4y ago
Yes population is declining, but everyone wants to live in the same small area. Take Japan for example, a declining population, with areas that have ghost towns of houses with no people. Everybody wants to live in the high density areas.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- II2II 4y ago
  > Yes population is declining, but everyone wants to live in the same small area. Is it a case of everyone wanting to live in the same small area, or people wanting to live near the amenities? The former implies a small number of places supporting very high densities of people. The latter can be achieved with moderate densities. People like to claim that property values are high because we aren't making land anymore. Even though this is true in the literal sense, there is an incredible amount of land that can be recovered. As an example, my city is tearing down an interchange to recover several acres of land for residential and commercial use and to allow for non-car dependent modes of transportation for local residents. Reducing that car dependence is important not just because of space allocated to roads, but to reduce parking needs. More land freed up and development costs are decreased. Imagine that you built up more moderate density communities where the vast majority of a person's life can be lived in a 30 minute walking radius. Sure, some people will still drive, but it would be over shorter distances and for fewer trips. Would they choose really choose the very high densities and very high cost of a small number of neighbourhoods in a small number of cities over moderate density regions where they may actually have an opportunity to own their own home, even if the house is a bit smaller and the yard is a bit smaller?
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  > Yes population is declining, but everyone wants to live in the same small area. This is oversimplified; WHY would they want to live in the same small area? I'm no social scientist or anything, but from my point of view, people want to live where the well-paying or high-standing jobs are (think FAANG companies in SF), while the jobs move to the cities where the high-performing, skilled and motivated employees are. That's a self-reinforcing problem. Another one is that a percentage of people want to live in cool places, restaurants, culture, nightlife, social life, etc. Personally I'd rather live in the suburbs (currently doing so) or out in the countryside, away from people. That's the long term goal, but I need to pay off this house and save up first.
kasey_junk 4y ago
The parent commenters point is none of that is solved by manufactured homes.
modo_mario 4y ago
>We could have many more sky scrapers than we do (see Dubai for instance) Past a certain height going higher doesn't really contribute to population density. You end up needing more room for certain utilities, more space for and around the buildings, etc New york as a result has a lower population density than Paris, Athens, Barcelona or the like.
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  Research suggests optimal building height is probably between four and ten stories.
- nostrademons 4y ago
  "New york as a result has a lower population density than Paris, Athens, Barcelona or the like." This is a little misleading. NYC also includes large regions of SFHs, including Staten Island (density 8K/mi^2) and Queens (22K/mi^2). If you include only Manhattan, its density (73K/mi^2) exceeds all of Paris (52K/mi^2), Athens (44K), and Barcelona (41K). The lesson is more that uniform 4-story buildings across a large area are more dense than an urban core of skyscrapers surrounded by suburbs of SFHs, but we knew that already. An urban core of skyscrapers surrounded by suburbs of 4-story apartment buildings would be even more dense (see Brooklyn, density 38K/mi^2, comparable to many of those European cities).

not_the_fda 4y ago

Yes population is declining, but everyone wants to live in the same small area. Take Japan for example, a declining population, with areas that have ghost towns of houses with no people. Everybody wants to live in the high density areas.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
II2II 4y ago
> Yes population is declining, but everyone wants to live in the same small area. Is it a case of everyone wanting to live in the same small area, or people wanting to live near the amenities? The former implies a small number of places supporting very high densities of people. The latter can be achieved with moderate densities. People like to claim that property values are high because we aren't making land anymore. Even though this is true in the literal sense, there is an incredible amount of land that can be recovered. As an example, my city is tearing down an interchange to recover several acres of land for residential and commercial use and to allow for non-car dependent modes of transportation for local residents. Reducing that car dependence is important not just because of space allocated to roads, but to reduce parking needs. More land freed up and development costs are decreased. Imagine that you built up more moderate density communities where the vast majority of a person's life can be lived in a 30 minute walking radius. Sure, some people will still drive, but it would be over shorter distances and for fewer trips. Would they choose really choose the very high densities and very high cost of a small number of neighbourhoods in a small number of cities over moderate density regions where they may actually have an opportunity to own their own home, even if the house is a bit smaller and the yard is a bit smaller?
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
> Yes population is declining, but everyone wants to live in the same small area. This is oversimplified; WHY would they want to live in the same small area? I'm no social scientist or anything, but from my point of view, people want to live where the well-paying or high-standing jobs are (think FAANG companies in SF), while the jobs move to the cities where the high-performing, skilled and motivated employees are. That's a self-reinforcing problem. Another one is that a percentage of people want to live in cool places, restaurants, culture, nightlife, social life, etc. Personally I'd rather live in the suburbs (currently doing so) or out in the countryside, away from people. That's the long term goal, but I need to pay off this house and save up first.

kasey_junk 4y ago

The parent commenters point is none of that is solved by manufactured homes.

modo_mario 4y ago

>We could have many more sky scrapers than we do (see Dubai for instance) Past a certain height going higher doesn't really contribute to population density. You end up needing more room for certain utilities, more space for and around the buildings, etc New york as a result has a lower population density than Paris, Athens, Barcelona or the like.

DoreenMichele 4y ago
Research suggests optimal building height is probably between four and ten stories.
nostrademons 4y ago
"New york as a result has a lower population density than Paris, Athens, Barcelona or the like." This is a little misleading. NYC also includes large regions of SFHs, including Staten Island (density 8K/mi^2) and Queens (22K/mi^2). If you include only Manhattan, its density (73K/mi^2) exceeds all of Paris (52K/mi^2), Athens (44K), and Barcelona (41K). The lesson is more that uniform 4-story buildings across a large area are more dense than an urban core of skyscrapers surrounded by suburbs of SFHs, but we knew that already. An urban core of skyscrapers surrounded by suburbs of 4-story apartment buildings would be even more dense (see Brooklyn, density 38K/mi^2, comparable to many of those European cities).