4 ms·

> Urban areas have high maintenance costs as well, precisely because of the higher density. Urban areas cost more in total, but less per capita. If you don't t

> Urban areas have high maintenance costs as well, precisely because of the higher density. Urban areas cost more in total, but less per capita. If you don't take that per capita measurement into account, it's pointless to claim things like this. Here's a good infographic on this: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-public-more-than-twice-as-much-as-compact-development https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-publ... See specifically the massive (4-10x) increase in costs for things like roads, sidewalks, water, sewers, transportation, etc. when we talk about suburban environments. > Cities destroy the environment just by existing, and they hardly have enough green areas to sustain wild life. Do you have a source for this? Living closer to the things you need in life such as energy, food, water, friends, family obviously leads to less waste of energy in getting to those things or having them come to you. Around wildlife, guess where they could and used to live before suburban sprawl? Right where the suburbs popped up. Your solution to increasing wildlife is continuing suburban sprawl? I highly recommend you research and provide sources before making claims like that.

imiric 3y ago
Thanks for the link. I stand corrected regarding the cost difference. Though I still think the urban lifestyle comes at the expense of quality of life. It's wrong to optimize for lower cost, which often means that other factors important for wellbeing are neglected. Being surrounded by concrete instead of nature has a detrimental effect to our psychological and physical health, with urban runoff being one problem[1]. The amount of air and noise pollution is usually higher in cities than in rural areas[2]. All urban conveniences aren't enough to make this worthwhile, though this is a personal stance, and others may disagree. And, yes, the suburban sprawl is also damaging to the environment. But we know much more today about sustainable infrastructure than we did in the 1950s. The same is true for cities, but it's a much larger effort to bring cities in balance with nature than rural areas. It's not just a matter of planting trees, and electrifying transportation. These are decade-long projects with enormous cost[3], and governments tend to drag their feet. In contrast, the environmental impact of suburbs can be lowered by relatively minor personal changes[4], which is much more manageable. I'm not claiming to be an expert in any of this, and ultimately my position is driven by a dislike of cities in general. But thanks for clarifying some of my misconceptions. This research was eye opening. [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00853-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00853-4 [2]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ss6613a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ss6613a1.htm [3]: https://unhabitat.org/news/27-apr-2020/the-cost-of-making-a-city-sustainable-measuring-the-financial-cost-of-meeting-sdg https://unhabitat.org/news/27-apr-2020/the-cost-of-making-a-... [4]: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/04/how-to-be-more-sustainable-in-suburbia/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/04/how-to-be-more-sustai...

imiric 3y ago

Thanks for the link. I stand corrected regarding the cost difference. Though I still think the urban lifestyle comes at the expense of quality of life. It's wrong to optimize for lower cost, which often means that other factors important for wellbeing are neglected. Being surrounded by concrete instead of nature has a detrimental effect to our psychological and physical health, with urban runoff being one problem[1]. The amount of air and noise pollution is usually higher in cities than in rural areas[2]. All urban conveniences aren't enough to make this worthwhile, though this is a personal stance, and others may disagree. And, yes, the suburban sprawl is also damaging to the environment. But we know much more today about sustainable infrastructure than we did in the 1950s. The same is true for cities, but it's a much larger effort to bring cities in balance with nature than rural areas. It's not just a matter of planting trees, and electrifying transportation. These are decade-long projects with enormous cost[3], and governments tend to drag their feet. In contrast, the environmental impact of suburbs can be lowered by relatively minor personal changes[4], which is much more manageable. I'm not claiming to be an expert in any of this, and ultimately my position is driven by a dislike of cities in general. But thanks for clarifying some of my misconceptions. This research was eye opening. [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00853-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00853-4 [2]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ss6613a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ss6613a1.htm [3]: https://unhabitat.org/news/27-apr-2020/the-cost-of-making-a-city-sustainable-measuring-the-financial-cost-of-meeting-sdg https://unhabitat.org/news/27-apr-2020/the-cost-of-making-a-... [4]: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/04/how-to-be-more-sustainable-in-suburbia/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/04/how-to-be-more-sustai...