3 ms·

Why is increased density better? Maybe it would be better for things to be more spread out and for people to have EV cars charged from clean nuclear energy? De

Why is increased density better? Maybe it would be better for things to be more spread out and for people to have EV cars charged from clean nuclear energy? Dense cities are a different kind of time bomb. Replacing pipes and streets disrupts a lot more people and a lot of businesses for a shockingly long amount of time. Dense cities also happen to be significantly more expensive in practically every way. The cost of housing in particular. Feels like a corollary to induced demand on roads. Although it’s worth noting in both cases that induced demand means more people are receiving value and benefit! I dunno. I live in a city. It’s fine. But density doesn’t feel like a defacto good thing to me.

tggy2 3y ago
Spreading out is bad. It adds significant fiscal burden supporting essential services infrastructure such as water and sewerage, as you lose the economies of scale that more dense/compact cities have. Worse, spreading out only adds to induced demand when you have greater numbers of people commuting at the same time of day twice a day. Housing is a false equivalency in this equation, and there are other levers that need to be pulled to address construction costs, etc. Further, if you had better and reliable rapid transport links servicing spread out communities, it would negate the need to drive in many cases when commuting to economic hubs. But this requires a mindset shift. Overall, it's nuanced, and that complexity is why voters (and NIMBYs) are reticent to embrace how we need to be living for now, and not how we used to live.
- forrestthewoods 3y ago
  > It adds significant fiscal burden supporting essential services infrastructure such as water and sewerage, as you lose the economies of scale that more dense/compact cities have. I grew up in rural America. It is not at all obvious to me that cities are more economic. If anything it’s the opposite. Doing any kind of infrastructure work is expensive, slow, and disruptive. > Housing is a false equivalency in this equation, and there are other levers that need to be pulled to address construction costs, etc. Maybe. Cost of housing is arguably our biggest and most important problem – and it’s increasingly wide spread. But at no point in recent history have dense cities had cheaper housing. Building tall is expensive.
  - tggy2 3y ago
    Apologies — what I meant by economic hub was in the sense that a city is a central point for business, trade and finance. Not that cities are necessarily more economical. Though I would argue that while costs can be higher, the ROI is also realised faster, whereas the costs to service rural areas will take longer to achieve its benefit-cost ratio — and in fact it may never. And that's not to say rural areas aren't important. They are! But we need to think more cleverly and collectively for how we can service them better for the social and economic benefit of all within a given region. No one needs to lose out at the expense of someone else, I don't believe it's a zero sum game. And I hear you re cost of housing. The thing is at some stage there can be critical mass in that there's enough housing on the market that it negates huge inflation due to supply outpacing (not outstripping) demand. The thing is, this is one lever, and if we keep the emigration (domestic and foreign) faucet turned on and we don't mitigate it with other measures, housing costs go up. And we've got to ask, who is winning in that situation? It's not the people, but it is the speculators and investors...

tggy2 3y ago

Spreading out is bad. It adds significant fiscal burden supporting essential services infrastructure such as water and sewerage, as you lose the economies of scale that more dense/compact cities have. Worse, spreading out only adds to induced demand when you have greater numbers of people commuting at the same time of day twice a day. Housing is a false equivalency in this equation, and there are other levers that need to be pulled to address construction costs, etc. Further, if you had better and reliable rapid transport links servicing spread out communities, it would negate the need to drive in many cases when commuting to economic hubs. But this requires a mindset shift. Overall, it's nuanced, and that complexity is why voters (and NIMBYs) are reticent to embrace how we need to be living for now, and not how we used to live.

forrestthewoods 3y ago
> It adds significant fiscal burden supporting essential services infrastructure such as water and sewerage, as you lose the economies of scale that more dense/compact cities have. I grew up in rural America. It is not at all obvious to me that cities are more economic. If anything it’s the opposite. Doing any kind of infrastructure work is expensive, slow, and disruptive. > Housing is a false equivalency in this equation, and there are other levers that need to be pulled to address construction costs, etc. Maybe. Cost of housing is arguably our biggest and most important problem – and it’s increasingly wide spread. But at no point in recent history have dense cities had cheaper housing. Building tall is expensive.
- tggy2 3y ago
  Apologies — what I meant by economic hub was in the sense that a city is a central point for business, trade and finance. Not that cities are necessarily more economical. Though I would argue that while costs can be higher, the ROI is also realised faster, whereas the costs to service rural areas will take longer to achieve its benefit-cost ratio — and in fact it may never. And that's not to say rural areas aren't important. They are! But we need to think more cleverly and collectively for how we can service them better for the social and economic benefit of all within a given region. No one needs to lose out at the expense of someone else, I don't believe it's a zero sum game. And I hear you re cost of housing. The thing is at some stage there can be critical mass in that there's enough housing on the market that it negates huge inflation due to supply outpacing (not outstripping) demand. The thing is, this is one lever, and if we keep the emigration (domestic and foreign) faucet turned on and we don't mitigate it with other measures, housing costs go up. And we've got to ask, who is winning in that situation? It's not the people, but it is the speculators and investors...