4 ms·
Transportation costs are incredibly cheap. For example, the "eat locally" folks are anti-scientific, and don't acknowledge/realize that you can move a cargo co
by tjic 18y ago
Transportation costs are incredibly cheap.
For example, the "eat locally" folks are anti-scientific, and don't acknowledge/realize that you can move a cargo container full of food across an ocean of 1% of the cost of raising the food.
Moving sewage is even cheaper, by several orders of magnitude. Shit rolls downhill.
These two things being the case, why would we POSSIBLY want to put housing, waste processing, and agricultural land all in the same place?
The New Urbanists tell us that density is the key to interesting places, and they get all upset about folks in the suburbs daring to want and have large yards and swing sets, when they could live more densely and share parks.
So, if YARDS are a waste of precious urban land, suddenly we're supposed to import FARMS into our residential areas?
This is a crack addled idea from start to finish.
- DannoHung 18y agoYards are vacant space consuming resources and producing nothing. We can all acknowledge that importing water from Fiji is silly though, right?
- kiddo 18y agoTransportation costs my be cheap now, but consider what would happen if fuel prices rose or the cost of containing the pollution produced through the transportation increased. New Urbanists aren't saying yards are a waste of precious urban land. They don't really even say urban land is "precious". They mostly just think living in closer proximity to others is good for the economy, the environment and people's social lives.