3 ms·
That's a false dichotomy. There are ways to create suburban areas with forests and local gardens that are much higher density than our current suburban outlay w
by nowarninglabel 13y ago
That's a false dichotomy. There are ways to create suburban areas with forests and local gardens that are much higher density than our current suburban outlay while still being enjoyable to live in. However, it requires giving up the McMansion style of building. The only way for this to happen though, in my opinion, is to incentivize developers into planning these types of neighborhoods vs. McMansion lands (and I say this from an experienced standpoint with a family of real-estate developers).
- jimmaswell 13y agoYou misunderstood. I meant literally around me. House surrounded by at least a mile or a few miles of woods. If the houses were lined up in front of the forest you could increase the density, though. But the way I posed it originally, not so much. What's your threshold for where a house becomes a "McMansion?" What would you think of ~1200sqft, two stories with a basement, with a good yard?
- baq 13y agoi think it's the quantity. it's not one house, it's that there's a neighborhood with a thousand of very similar houses.
- lttlrck 13y agoHow is that alone a density issue?
- Retric 13y agoThe lower the neighborhood density the less incentive there is for local retail. Without local retail everyone is forced to drive and in some cases drive fairly long distances when the area is full of low density houses. Still, the internet can significantly reduce peoples need to drive because package delivery can be much more efficient than driving to a shopping mall.
- malandrew 13y agoWhat we need are projects like this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/12588351@N02/sets/72157623192662899/show https://www.flickr.com/photos/12588351@N02/sets/721576231926... If half the land set aside for cars were instead converted into public parks, you could have the benefits of nature in the city.