3 ms·

Solarpunk environmentalism is very appealing to me but most environmentalists detest the tall buildings it has because environmentalism to them is about communi

Solarpunk environmentalism is very appealing to me but most environmentalists detest the tall buildings it has because environmentalism to them is about community character: which is an American term for single family sprawl. So we have to break the back of environmentalism to save the planet. And we shall. Once we have destroyed American environmentalism we can get to saving the planet.

autoexec 2y ago
> most environmentalists detest the tall buildings I've seen it both ways. Some environmentalists hate single family homes and see suburban sprawl as the enemy. They'd rather have everyone packed into dense urban environments where anything a person will ever need in life is just a 15 minute walk/bike ride away from where they live eliminating the need for cars and leaving more land untainted by human interference. They'd be happy to do away with the inefficiencies of getting products, utilities, healthcare, and other resources to rural homes and communities spread out all over the place as well.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  Those environmentalists have no power in the environmentalism movement. If you check every large enviro-corp they're all of the "preserving community" approach. Most of them oppose nuclear. And a near majority wind and solar. Some even geothermal. Usually they fight for golf courses and so on alongside socialists. That is what environmentalism means in the US. It is like the words Democratic People's Republic. They're words. But they mean a different thing.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  Houten, in the Netherlands, combines both pretty well
kuschku 2y ago
You can't have solarpunk without urbanism. Any "environmentalists" that pretend otherwise are lying. Neither skyscrapers nor mass single family housing are sustainable. There's a reason the past 2000 years of urban development have been in rowhouses and smaller multi-story buildings.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  The most powerful environmentalists are anti-urbanism. Every major environmental movement supports only single family homes. Environmentalism has as much to do with helping the environment as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic republic of the people.
ltsorry 2y ago
I am doing my PhD in sustainable housing. I also help out with quite a few naturalist and political organizations within my community: an unfortunately low-density suburb in a very large city currently suffering from a lack of housing. All this to say that I consider myself reasonably well versed on both "academic" notions of environmentalism, and on what my left-leaning, SFH-dwelling neighbours consider environmentalism. That "most environmentalists detest tall buildings" seems untrue, in my anecdotal experience. My environmentalist neighbours are some of the most vocal YIMBYs in the city, and also some of the people that stand to lose the most from changing "community character". YIMBYism is widely associated with both social and environmental sustainability, at least in the North American country I live in.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  I'm sure people can find pockets of believers but name a mainstream environmentalist organization and it's pure NIMBY. Canada and the US certainly, so you must be describing Mexico which I'm not acquainted with. They'll always say they just want things to be built "in a sustainable manner" "with renewable materials and local labour" "and be affordable". But the code words are obvious to anyone who tries. Things are just not renewable materials. If steel, because of mining. If wood, because of tree loss. If concrete, because of emissions. Likewise, each of the other things. The bad faith they act in has characterized them. Everyone knows they're against "evil developers trying to ruin the community character for massive profits" while they have COEXIST stickers on their SUVs and "In this house we believe" on their lawns.
  - ltsorry 2y ago
    I don't know what you consider a "mainstream environmentalist organization". Do you mean companies like Greenpeace or WWF? If so, here is one mainstream, generic, environmentalist organization with a density-focused housing platform: https://www.sierraclub.org/california/housing-land-use https://www.sierraclub.org/california/housing-land-use. It's probably more worthwhile to look at what the actual people building housing, planning cities, and advocating for sustainable housing are saying. You would be extremely hard-pressed to find a reputable group in this space that doesn't support infill, missing middle, taller, and higher-density developments. There are countless organizations within my (Canadian) city advocating for this. I am surrounded by people considered "environmentalists" all day. My wife also works in the field. I just got out of a meeting consisting of planning organizations, construction companies, academics, and sustainable-housing organizations that was literally about adding density and sustainably building taller buildings. I can tell you that every single "environmentalist" who's opinion I know - from my extended research group, to my neighbours, and even to the SFH developers - view densification (within reason) as a more sustainable style of housing development. I keep track of major developments in my area. There are several condo towers going up in my previously low-density neighbourhood, and the response from the majority of the community has been: "that's good to see, we need more housing". Of course at CoA meetings and community consultations there will always be some loud NIMBYs, but this has always been the nature of change in general, nothing to do with tall buildings in particular. It has honestly been empowering to see the amount of support these developments are getting in my community. What sort of additional evidence can I provide that would convince you that your statement "most environmentalists detest the tall buildings" is simply not true? --- Wood, when sustainably harvested, is the definition of a renewable material.

autoexec 2y ago

> most environmentalists detest the tall buildings I've seen it both ways. Some environmentalists hate single family homes and see suburban sprawl as the enemy. They'd rather have everyone packed into dense urban environments where anything a person will ever need in life is just a 15 minute walk/bike ride away from where they live eliminating the need for cars and leaving more land untainted by human interference. They'd be happy to do away with the inefficiencies of getting products, utilities, healthcare, and other resources to rural homes and communities spread out all over the place as well.

renewiltord 2y ago
Those environmentalists have no power in the environmentalism movement. If you check every large enviro-corp they're all of the "preserving community" approach. Most of them oppose nuclear. And a near majority wind and solar. Some even geothermal. Usually they fight for golf courses and so on alongside socialists. That is what environmentalism means in the US. It is like the words Democratic People's Republic. They're words. But they mean a different thing.
CalRobert 2y ago
Houten, in the Netherlands, combines both pretty well

kuschku 2y ago

You can't have solarpunk without urbanism. Any "environmentalists" that pretend otherwise are lying. Neither skyscrapers nor mass single family housing are sustainable. There's a reason the past 2000 years of urban development have been in rowhouses and smaller multi-story buildings.

renewiltord 2y ago
The most powerful environmentalists are anti-urbanism. Every major environmental movement supports only single family homes. Environmentalism has as much to do with helping the environment as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic republic of the people.

ltsorry 2y ago

I am doing my PhD in sustainable housing. I also help out with quite a few naturalist and political organizations within my community: an unfortunately low-density suburb in a very large city currently suffering from a lack of housing. All this to say that I consider myself reasonably well versed on both "academic" notions of environmentalism, and on what my left-leaning, SFH-dwelling neighbours consider environmentalism. That "most environmentalists detest tall buildings" seems untrue, in my anecdotal experience. My environmentalist neighbours are some of the most vocal YIMBYs in the city, and also some of the people that stand to lose the most from changing "community character". YIMBYism is widely associated with both social and environmental sustainability, at least in the North American country I live in.

renewiltord 2y ago
I'm sure people can find pockets of believers but name a mainstream environmentalist organization and it's pure NIMBY. Canada and the US certainly, so you must be describing Mexico which I'm not acquainted with. They'll always say they just want things to be built "in a sustainable manner" "with renewable materials and local labour" "and be affordable". But the code words are obvious to anyone who tries. Things are just not renewable materials. If steel, because of mining. If wood, because of tree loss. If concrete, because of emissions. Likewise, each of the other things. The bad faith they act in has characterized them. Everyone knows they're against "evil developers trying to ruin the community character for massive profits" while they have COEXIST stickers on their SUVs and "In this house we believe" on their lawns.
- ltsorry 2y ago
  I don't know what you consider a "mainstream environmentalist organization". Do you mean companies like Greenpeace or WWF? If so, here is one mainstream, generic, environmentalist organization with a density-focused housing platform: https://www.sierraclub.org/california/housing-land-use https://www.sierraclub.org/california/housing-land-use. It's probably more worthwhile to look at what the actual people building housing, planning cities, and advocating for sustainable housing are saying. You would be extremely hard-pressed to find a reputable group in this space that doesn't support infill, missing middle, taller, and higher-density developments. There are countless organizations within my (Canadian) city advocating for this. I am surrounded by people considered "environmentalists" all day. My wife also works in the field. I just got out of a meeting consisting of planning organizations, construction companies, academics, and sustainable-housing organizations that was literally about adding density and sustainably building taller buildings. I can tell you that every single "environmentalist" who's opinion I know - from my extended research group, to my neighbours, and even to the SFH developers - view densification (within reason) as a more sustainable style of housing development. I keep track of major developments in my area. There are several condo towers going up in my previously low-density neighbourhood, and the response from the majority of the community has been: "that's good to see, we need more housing". Of course at CoA meetings and community consultations there will always be some loud NIMBYs, but this has always been the nature of change in general, nothing to do with tall buildings in particular. It has honestly been empowering to see the amount of support these developments are getting in my community. What sort of additional evidence can I provide that would convince you that your statement "most environmentalists detest the tall buildings" is simply not true? --- Wood, when sustainably harvested, is the definition of a renewable material.