4 ms·

Density is far more efficient on a per-person basis though, in terms of energy and land usage.

by D13Fd 2y ago

kkfx 2y ago
Try to elaborate: land use, as long as the soil is not sealed (so humus remain alive) it's not a "cost" nor an issue except for some hyper-dense countries. The Nederland and Belgium are very dense as a nation, yet most live in single-family homes, Spain or Italy are LESS dense and most live in condos, France and Ireland are far less dense and most live in single family homes so well, there is room for homes in most of the countries. In efficiency terms I was living in a big dense city, now I'm living on mountains, you can state "hey just to buy bread you grab the car and made a ~10km trip instead of going by feet for 1km round trip", true. But the 1km round trip was a daily one, the ~10km one is a weekly one because hey, the freezer works beautifully well for bread. Similarly I buy in much bigger quantity now, so with much less packaging and stock at home. I spend less, eat better (much less ready-made and ultra-processed foods/carbonated beverage) and produce less waste. Oh, and the trips are in a BEV recharged mostly from my p.v. thanks to remote works. I simply discovered I need to move FAR LESS here than in a big city, yes individual trips are much longer, but the overall distance is not much bigger. Also modern life works better, online retail having room for delivery van works better here than in a big city downtown. They run more, but with much less stop and go and parking issues not counting the fact that a new fully electric home is easy (technically) to be made while converting an old building is next to impossible or at least cost MUCH more for much less results. Try to compute the TCO not of a new city entirely designed today vs a new spread area entirely designed today but over 50 and 100 years with all the evolution we have. If you just look at the past, yes in the past being spread means wasting much oil to move, we need the office for anything, so we have to move, homes was far simpler so a condo was cheap than a set of single family homes, but things changes. We do not need the office anymore, we can centrally schedule a vast efficient spread logistic and so on. Now being spread meaning consuming far less, while in cities we still consume much more. We can't evolve cities without rebuilding them and that's why they keep consuming more and wasting immense amount of resources trying to evolve just a bit.
- mcmcmc 2y ago
  Sorry you’re saying land use is not a cost? It absolutely has an opportunity cost and is the primary constraint for your vision. There straight up is not enough land for everyone to have their own little rural estate while also leaving enough agricultural land for everyone to eat. Additionally, most of the available land that isn’t already taken is either undesirable due to climate, remoteness, etc or is protected for some other reason. Without significant wealth, for most people the dream of living in a mountain getaway off the grid is beyond reach.
analognoise 2y ago
People in highly dense places don’t have as many children either. I don’t think we should optimize for density and efficiency above all else.

Density is far more efficient on a per-person basis though, in terms of energy and land usage.

by D13Fd 2y ago

Density is far more efficient on a per-person basis though, in terms of energy and land usage.

kkfx 2y ago

Try to elaborate: land use, as long as the soil is not sealed (so humus remain alive) it's not a "cost" nor an issue except for some hyper-dense countries. The Nederland and Belgium are very dense as a nation, yet most live in single-family homes, Spain or Italy are LESS dense and most live in condos, France and Ireland are far less dense and most live in single family homes so well, there is room for homes in most of the countries. In efficiency terms I was living in a big dense city, now I'm living on mountains, you can state "hey just to buy bread you grab the car and made a ~10km trip instead of going by feet for 1km round trip", true. But the 1km round trip was a daily one, the ~10km one is a weekly one because hey, the freezer works beautifully well for bread. Similarly I buy in much bigger quantity now, so with much less packaging and stock at home. I spend less, eat better (much less ready-made and ultra-processed foods/carbonated beverage) and produce less waste. Oh, and the trips are in a BEV recharged mostly from my p.v. thanks to remote works. I simply discovered I need to move FAR LESS here than in a big city, yes individual trips are much longer, but the overall distance is not much bigger. Also modern life works better, online retail having room for delivery van works better here than in a big city downtown. They run more, but with much less stop and go and parking issues not counting the fact that a new fully electric home is easy (technically) to be made while converting an old building is next to impossible or at least cost MUCH more for much less results. Try to compute the TCO not of a new city entirely designed today vs a new spread area entirely designed today but over 50 and 100 years with all the evolution we have. If you just look at the past, yes in the past being spread means wasting much oil to move, we need the office for anything, so we have to move, homes was far simpler so a condo was cheap than a set of single family homes, but things changes. We do not need the office anymore, we can centrally schedule a vast efficient spread logistic and so on. Now being spread meaning consuming far less, while in cities we still consume much more. We can't evolve cities without rebuilding them and that's why they keep consuming more and wasting immense amount of resources trying to evolve just a bit.

mcmcmc 2y ago
Sorry you’re saying land use is not a cost? It absolutely has an opportunity cost and is the primary constraint for your vision. There straight up is not enough land for everyone to have their own little rural estate while also leaving enough agricultural land for everyone to eat. Additionally, most of the available land that isn’t already taken is either undesirable due to climate, remoteness, etc or is protected for some other reason. Without significant wealth, for most people the dream of living in a mountain getaway off the grid is beyond reach.

analognoise 2y ago

People in highly dense places don’t have as many children either. I don’t think we should optimize for density and efficiency above all else.