4 ms·

Improved density is worse for people and the environment. One should leave sufficient greens within a city for people and wildlife, and a row of trees or bushes

by c00lio 3y ago

Improved density is worse for people and the environment. One should leave sufficient greens within a city for people and wildlife, and a row of trees or bushes can also easily shield traffic noise. Traffic noise which transit also produces in copious amounts. Maybe increased density is relevant for some US cities, but European ones should definitely lower their density considerably. Most European cities are dead zones for anything but rats and pigeons, and people fare similarly badly.

throw0101b 3y ago
> Improved density is worse for people and the environment. The higher the density the less actual Nature needs to be bulldozed over for development. See: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6txCZpbsQ&t=9m28s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6txCZpbsQ&t=9m28s Fifteen minutes pedalling in one direction is downtown, fifteen minutes in the other is farm land. By have more people in a given land area, the remaining land area can be left alone.
- c00lio 3y ago
  Which might be ok for the surrounding land, but isn't fine for the inhabitants of the city.
  - AstralStorm 3y ago
    Depending on how the outskirts of the city are managed, it can be fine for inhabitants. Too small living quarters are the problem, not the density.
    - c00lio 3y ago
      Nonsense. The inner city being a concrete hellscape isn't being helped by nicer parts on the outskirts. How would you improve density if you aren't shrinking the space people live in?
      - throw0101b 3y ago
        > Nonsense. The inner city being a concrete hellscape isn't being helped by nicer parts on the outskirts. Why would the inner city need to be a "concrete hellscape"? You can have decent density without 'concrete hellscapes'. The Oh the Urbanity channel has a video on the (misguided/misinformed) idea that "urban living" = Manhattan / Hong Kong apartment blocks: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCmz-fgp24E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCmz-fgp24E Want a front yard, back yard, and garage (attached to a laneway)? Plenty of that was built pre-WW2: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0&t=1m8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0&t=1m8s Examples (Streetview): * https://www.google.com/maps/place/125+Hampton+Ave,+Toronto,+ON https://www.google.com/maps/place/125+Hampton+Ave,+Toronto,+... * https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+ON https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+O... * https://www.google.com/maps/place/70+Jackman+Ave+Toronto,+ON https://www.google.com/maps/place/70+Jackman+Ave+Toronto,+ON
        c00lio 3y ago
        The examples you've shown are north american. For almost all European cities to arrive at the density of those examples, you have do lower it. By a lot.
  - throw0101b 3y ago
    > Which might be ok for the surrounding land, but isn't fine for the inhabitants of the city. Even when the "surrounding land" is a 15-20 minute bicycle ride away, or a hoping on a train to smaller a little farther away (or perhaps have train stations at Nature preserves)? Or perhaps green spaces like New York's Central Park or Toronto's Leslie Street Spit: * https://tommythompsonpark.ca/about/ https://tommythompsonpark.ca/about/ * https://www.google.com/search?as_q=Leslie+Street+Spit&as_st=y&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?as_q=Leslie+Street+Spit&as_st=... regularly interspersed between housing. Toronto used to have a number of rivers/ravines that got filled in for housing: * https://www.blogto.com/city/2014/02/5_lost_rivers_that_run_under_toronto/ https://www.blogto.com/city/2014/02/5_lost_rivers_that_run_u... * https://www.lostrivers.ca https://www.lostrivers.ca
    - c00lio 3y ago
      Totally insufficient. People need a green outlook out of their windows, surrounding greenery is linked to various kinds of psychological goodness. Having to commute to an overcrowded, dirty, needle-ridden park or outskirt somewhere isn't an option. And for wildlife, continuous bands of greenery and routes of migration with only small interruptions (like street crossings) are necessary. Isolated islands are almost useless.

by c00lio 3y ago

throw0101b 3y ago

> Improved density is worse for people and the environment. The higher the density the less actual Nature needs to be bulldozed over for development. See: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6txCZpbsQ&t=9m28s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6txCZpbsQ&t=9m28s Fifteen minutes pedalling in one direction is downtown, fifteen minutes in the other is farm land. By have more people in a given land area, the remaining land area can be left alone.

c00lio 3y ago
Which might be ok for the surrounding land, but isn't fine for the inhabitants of the city.
- AstralStorm 3y ago
  Depending on how the outskirts of the city are managed, it can be fine for inhabitants. Too small living quarters are the problem, not the density.
  - c00lio 3y ago
    Nonsense. The inner city being a concrete hellscape isn't being helped by nicer parts on the outskirts. How would you improve density if you aren't shrinking the space people live in?
    - throw0101b 3y ago
      > Nonsense. The inner city being a concrete hellscape isn't being helped by nicer parts on the outskirts. Why would the inner city need to be a "concrete hellscape"? You can have decent density without 'concrete hellscapes'. The Oh the Urbanity channel has a video on the (misguided/misinformed) idea that "urban living" = Manhattan / Hong Kong apartment blocks: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCmz-fgp24E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCmz-fgp24E Want a front yard, back yard, and garage (attached to a laneway)? Plenty of that was built pre-WW2: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0&t=1m8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0&t=1m8s Examples (Streetview): * https://www.google.com/maps/place/125+Hampton+Ave,+Toronto,+ON https://www.google.com/maps/place/125+Hampton+Ave,+Toronto,+... * https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+ON https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+O... * https://www.google.com/maps/place/70+Jackman+Ave+Toronto,+ON https://www.google.com/maps/place/70+Jackman+Ave+Toronto,+ON
      - c00lio 3y ago
        The examples you've shown are north american. For almost all European cities to arrive at the density of those examples, you have do lower it. By a lot.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > Which might be ok for the surrounding land, but isn't fine for the inhabitants of the city. Even when the "surrounding land" is a 15-20 minute bicycle ride away, or a hoping on a train to smaller a little farther away (or perhaps have train stations at Nature preserves)? Or perhaps green spaces like New York's Central Park or Toronto's Leslie Street Spit: * https://tommythompsonpark.ca/about/ https://tommythompsonpark.ca/about/ * https://www.google.com/search?as_q=Leslie+Street+Spit&as_st=y&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?as_q=Leslie+Street+Spit&as_st=... regularly interspersed between housing. Toronto used to have a number of rivers/ravines that got filled in for housing: * https://www.blogto.com/city/2014/02/5_lost_rivers_that_run_under_toronto/ https://www.blogto.com/city/2014/02/5_lost_rivers_that_run_u... * https://www.lostrivers.ca https://www.lostrivers.ca
  - c00lio 3y ago
    Totally insufficient. People need a green outlook out of their windows, surrounding greenery is linked to various kinds of psychological goodness. Having to commute to an overcrowded, dirty, needle-ridden park or outskirt somewhere isn't an option. And for wildlife, continuous bands of greenery and routes of migration with only small interruptions (like street crossings) are necessary. Isolated islands are almost useless.