3 ms·
There's a density limit on carbon neutral housing, you can't scale vertically and lower carbon impact. IIRC it's something like after 3 stories you need to scal
by duped 4y ago
There's a density limit on carbon neutral housing, you can't scale vertically and lower carbon impact. IIRC it's something like after 3 stories you need to scale horizontally for solar power to offset the carbon impacts of powering the pumps for water/sewage, elevators, and additional concrete required for foundations.
So it's not necessarily dense that's the most environmentally friendly.
- AmpsterMan 4y agoThing is, North American cities are so spread out that even 3 stories would be close to an order of magnitude of improvement. Imagine if no zoning code could prevent a developer from creating up to 3 story, multi-unit buildings on standard quarter acre lots. Just that alone would more than double the density in the United States overtime and still give most people PLENTY of space before we even have to start making sacrifices
- ebiester 4y agoYou have to account for the cost of transportation as well, though. The more density you have, the more you will be able to walk to most destinations and the more cost-effective public transport gets.
- duped 4y agoSure, but what I'm saying is that it's not as simple as a function that moving people closer together is infinitely scalable to lessen our impact on the environment. There's no free lunch. That's why I think upzoning to medium density 15-minute cities is the best of both worlds. Not to mention that living in a dense urban environment has a worse quality of life for a lot of people - that's why people don't want to do it. They like the space.