4 ms·
> ... IMHO we're going to look back historically at single-family-detached-suburban-sprawl as not just the fulcrum in destroying the environment As opposed to
by TacticalCoder 3y ago
> ... IMHO we're going to look back historically at single-family-detached-suburban-sprawl as not just the fulcrum in destroying the environment
As opposed to packing people like ants in high-rises in cities, which is the most environmentally friendly?
- cagenut 3y agoUnquestionably. The denser the housing the more environmentally friendly, they are nearly perfectly correlated. Shared walls share thermal mass, which helps on both the hot and cold end. Shared facilities reduce per-unit square footage, further saving on heating/cooling. Network-effects of density cause more things to be in walkable/bikeable distance. Substantial density is required to make public transit function. As an example, check out the map of the boston-washington/east-coast-corridor of the US here: https://coolclimate.org/maps https://coolclimate.org/maps