2 ms·

Definitely, there should never be more than one house per acre really.

• lelandbatey 2y ago
  But why? Why should we never be able to build houses more densely than 1 house/acre? Aesthetics? And is that worth it given how insanely wasteful that'd be? To know just how wasteful that'd be, I measure where I live, Seattle. In the area I measured, there's approximately 783000 people in an area of ~77000 acres. By my math, we'd have to bulldoze the entire city and replace it with 77000 homes, 1 per acre, and then cram 11 people into each of those houses. If we don't cram folks into those houses and instead just convert more and more land to this regime and displace everyone further and further away, we'd soon have the vast majority of just the folks who used to live within 6 miles of the downtown instead living 25+ miles from downtown and commuting 40 minutes each way. That makes life for everyone slower, more expensive, more ecologically intensive, more isolating, and less social. I would not want to do that even if it did mean I had a bigger yard. I think many folks feel the same.
  • marky1991 2y ago
    It was mostly a snarky response to an ill-justified argument, don't take it too seriously. Sorry about that. I would personally never want to live on less than an acre, but it's none of my business what other people choose of course. I do however get annoyed by the high-density fans who always present everything other than urban living as a scourge on the world that has to go.
    • davidw 2y ago
      Ideally, people would mostly be free to make their own choices as long as the externalities of those choices are priced in.