How would you rather see this land developed?
How would you rather see this land developed?
How would you rather see this land developed?
You can still have trees and plant life in low density housing. You don’t need green deserts everywhere.
Yeah fuck lawns too, they aren’t meant to exist
Why not prefer apartments in your own town?
Noise. Neighbours being closer.
That’s only true if the apartment is a shitty American 5 over 1 stick building. In a modern concrete apartment with concrete internal walls you wouldn’t hear the neighbors.
You don't even need concrete. I'm in a modern building made from mass timber construction, and it's dead quiet inside my apartment -- except for the hum of my AC and the sounds of my cat meowing whenever he wants attention.
Well, I live in a America and can't wait to get out of apartments. I've moved a lot in my life and have a lower middle class income. I've never found an apartment or condo where I didn't have to deal with hearing neighbors yelling, stomping, talking outside my front door in the hallway, opening sliding doors, listening to music, etc. Only twice, when I lived with a friend in their house, did I feel like I had any peace or privacy.
Sure, there would be lawns mowed and all that, but I'd take that over the things I've heard and worried about my neighbors having heard.
If I could have real privacy in an apartment I could afford I'd continue to rent, assuming I don't get priced out of the market completely at this rate.
Oh so you're also going to rebuild all apartment buildings in the US now? Lol
I wish you were right
We lived in a concrete apartment, couldn't hear the neighbors in their apartments but could in the hallways, and smell everything too, could hear the cars revving outside, and had to put up with the weekly (if not more often) fire alarm at 2am which meant evacuating the building. And no space for anything, no hobbies that might generate noise. Also have to deal with STRATA, hope you didnt want to put anything on your balcony cause they didn't want that, hope you can wait 12 months for the leaking ceiling to be fixed thats dripping and growing mould.
Also it cost a fortune to heat or cool the place, we're in a bigger place now that costs 1/2 as much to heat/cool
Ownership. You will not own your apartment, it will be owned by your landlord and you will pay him whatever he demands. You will not own the forest, either. The state will, or some private entity will. No trespassing.
You can still own and buy appartements in most places in the world. Then there are many forms of social housing.
Rent to own is also a possibility but not seen in most countries.
Seems your problem is not ownership but landlords.
Some countries in Europe have the right to roam on any land. State owned and private owned. (Maybe more countries somewhere else have it to but I don't know)
It does not need to be so terrible. In some places it just is because of profits
what no right to roam does to a mfer
Yeah that’s my main concern. Also less space to store things like my bike.
Then there’s the upstairs neighbors. Like I get that the kids are loud. But also could the kids stop throwing stuff at my bird feeder. And their upstairs neighbors flooded the dang place
Uh yes, the suburban tranquility of non-stop leaf blowing, lawn mowing, and pickup humming.
Musics to my ears.
Suburbs are the worst of both worlds. Gimme a cave on the top of the mountain miles from anywhere, thanks.
All the fun of overbearing neighbors telling you what you can or can't do with all the inability to take the train anywhere
It'd take it over the sound of the upstairs neighbor fucking his microwave while bowling at the same time
I can't hear shit when i clise my windows.
This isn't a particularly convincing analogy. Islands have limited space. The suburbs where I live border tons of open space and parks. Meanwhile, our school district is already overwhelmed with children, so converting commercial spaces into apartments will merely add to congestion and sprawl. NIMBY's make a convincing argument against denser residential construction.
A better focus would be the ability to simplify public transit and walkability. Town centers and public spaces could be more accessible with denser residential construction, and the additional green space can be closer to where you live without everyone needing their own half-acre yard to mow and water.
God I hate living in high density housing. Dogs yapping, bass and loud music booming, smelly, loud, animal poop and pee on every green/natural area, higher crime, more traffic, etc.
The issue is that all of those apartments are owned by one person getting filthy fucking rich from rent.
Then organise the renters, let them buy the house to transform it into syndicate or cooperative housing. Social apartment construction isn't impossible.
Not necessarily i don't know about the situation all arouns the world but in atleast the herman speaking countries we have the concept to buy flats like one would buy a house and own it. So not all of it is owned by the same person. You still have the house maintainer which looks after the infrastructure but afaik you don't pay them rent.
Yeah I'd say it's pretty normal all over Europe, it might just be a common case of Americans being weird.
The type of arrangement I'm used to, property of the building is shared among the owners of the flats, who vote on how to run it in an assembly. They also appoint (and pay for) the maintainer you spoke of, but their role is more centered on overseeing/administering the building, handling paperwork, hiring contractors and such. Also, even for very large flats you end up paying a couple hundred euros a year for their services, so it hardly compares to rent.
Maybe in the US. In Germany this defintly isn't the rule. Many people own their own flats and a lot of people own 2-4 flats to rent them out as an extra income.
No, maybe you are in a more wealthy environment. It is not possible that everyone has multiple flats to rent out. In fact, Germany has one of the lowest ownership rates.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate
I spent seven years living in an apartment. I so enjoyed hearing the neighbors having sex, the thumping music they played, the smell of their cigarette smoke inside my apartment with all my windows closed, the random intrusions by management to repair something unrelated to my apartment, the random rent increases. Add this to the fact that I had no space for a work shop to make anything, and paying the equivalent of a mortgage with no equivalent home equity. Some people love apartment life, but it definitely was not for me.
the problem seems to be when people take "apartment life isn't for me" and then go to the conclusion of "they shouldn't build apartments for anybody"
you don't have to live in one. just let people build them. only allowing single family homes doesn't make single family homes more accessible for anybody, it just makes land more scarce and housing less affordable all around.
This meme is advocating it as the only option
Of course. Everyone can live in an apartment if they wish. I will be the one with the house at a reasonable distance.
Condos don't have random rent increases, but if there is a capital repair to be done to the building, and the Condo Association doesn't have a sufficient reserve of condo owner dues to cover the cost, you better believe there's going to be a sizeable special assessment you'll have to pay as your share of the expense.
I so enjoyed hearing the neighbors having sex
best thing to ever happen when I was a horny preteen. Neighbors moved in and boned EVERY night and that girl was LOUD as fuck. And holy shit was she cumming apparently lol
My mom was soooo mad. And she couldn't do anything about it cause the neighbors refused to acknowledge her!
Some of the points are unrelated like yeah you got higher rent but that is if you rent, nothing to do with being apartment or not. The same with the mortgage comment, you can buy apartments you know.
Then clearly those apartments were shit, on mine I usually don't hear anything of the other neighbors except if I am next to the wall connecting to them and they really make super noise or in the bathroom due the vents. And the smoke thing yeah... That also points to shitty insulation and air can get in.
The workshops thing yeah I get it. Technically you could setup something, of course small, if you have a spare room but based on the noise things you said probably not a good idea you might have gotten noise complaints.
This would just become a 100 apartment buildings.
Sadly, that's more likely to happen. I like apartments more than houses, but it's not just about building apartments alone.
Exactly. People who advocate for densification are basically advocating for everywhere to be Amsterdam or NYC with continuous human habitation and maybe small concessions in the form of city parks (a joke compared to real natural areas, IMO).
I'm not sure if they're aware that this will be the logical conclusion of those policies.
Man so true. I live in Dallas Tx home of suburban sprawl. I just spent a month in North Carolina and I had no idea what I was missing. The unspoiled nature in the Appalachians just blew me away. Hard to come back to miles of concrete.
I agree that if we could build a few wall label buildings, and leave the rest untouched that would be the best way. But I’ve seen how hard it is to stop development once money starts being thrown around.
But what about THE LINE!
What is going on in this comments section? Building dense is massively better for the environment than SFH, both in the construction phase and for the life of the units as far more residents can be served with less infrastructure sprawl. It also doesn't mean that detached housing will suddenly stop existing if we let developers build densely packed housing. Doesn't even need to be high rises, it can be townhomes, duplexes, five-over-ones, etc. You'll still be able to get a white picket fence suburban home or a farmhouse on some acreage if you want. In fact, it will become cheaper because all the people who want to live in cities will actually be able to move there and not take up space in that low density area you want to live in.
An island of this size should probably have neither.
Judging from the top rated comments, this post is surprisingly controversial for fuckcars.
I would literally kill myself if I ever had to live in apartments again. I have severe social anxiety and agoraphobia and general anxiety. I started hallucinating when I lived in apartments (but never before or since). I became paranoid of people. There was never any solitude. Plus right now there's no way to get around apartments without landlords (though I understand ideally there might be ways around this, it's not likely to happen any time soon). When I lived in an apartment I considered just being homeless and hiding in the woods (and stupidly, isn't legal).
We sure could stand to make more stores and businesses into high rises though. I live near Detroit (but not IN Detroit) and going down our streets it's just a ridiculous waste of space. How many tire shops do we even need? Why does every business need its own lot with so much space around it? Everything being more "mall" style would waste less space.
There's a great point in here about 'business density'. Shops and restaurants would benefit from higher density in world less populated by cars.
Another important idea here is that higher population density requirements should build in protections for residents' mental well-being: Sound proofing, minimum square footage per person requirements, ceiling heights, green spaces, and convenient access to goods and services. People aren't meant to live in cages.
A good amount of them also seem to be unaware of middle housing (still have your own house, with much, much, much less sprawl)
Exactly! Townhouses/multi family homes are amazing. I can’t wait to own one when I’m older.
Lemmy is just too small so it doesn't attract the same hard core crowd that it did on reddit. Lemmy also promotes controversial comments by default.
So far I'm liking this, that in Reddit fuckcars and other subs would become full circle jerks, with any discussion squashed and "me too" comments ruling the day.
So far, I've enjoyed that me balanced conversations emerge in Lemmy communities.
Fuck cars have had a lot of good points, but buried in falling to understand other perspectives. Here folks can actually see perspectives that would block their goals, and maybe actually talk about some paths forward that might get both sides living with it.
I've noticed that once a post gets enough up votes (and presumably starts to appear in people's 'all' feeds), some different opinions start to appear.
Imo it's because most of the "fuckcars" types are not "pro density" or "pro transit" types. They literally only care about "fuck cars, bikes rule". Usually upper middle class WASPy types. High overlap with NIMBYs.
But instead of a population of 100 with small houses you will get a population of 1000 because they built 10 apartment complexes. I think I'd prefer the small houses didn't have lawns and left the nice trees and natural growth.
The point is for any given population size, a city is a better way to house them. Though IMO this drawing makes the difference too stark. Personally i think the optimal is a medium-highish density city of separated buildings with nature interspersed, rather than a single super high density mega block building.
Yeah, the image is really just for illustrative purposes. Imo, if we just abolish restrictive zoning codes and other land use restrictions that essentially mandate sprawl, then tax carbon appropriately and build good public transit, that would likely achieve the overall "optimal" outcome. No need for a mega-arcology, but no need for government-mandated car-dependent sprawl either.
So those 900 people live where? In the sea?
Name one good reason the average apartment experience could ever be better than living in a house.
People live in apartments to afford shelter, you'd be hard-pressed to find one that actually likes it better.
Sure you can make arguments about the concept of centralized feeling being better for nature, but no one actually wants to do it.
Change the apartment to a condo and the answer shifts quite a bit. Condos offer lots of amenities and more luxury. Many people choose condos over houses because they like the lifestyle of not maintaining property and living in a dense area with lots of things to do. Even people living in suburban houses like dense cities, they just spend an hour driving to the city for evening or weekend recreation activities that a condo resident can walk to.
One problem with the picture is that if you want to spend much time doing certain things in nature, such as camping or kayaking, you need storage space for equipment. Condos and apartments tend to lack storage space.
I think problem there is more that people think you need huge pipes of stuff just to go camping. I don't know of single person anymore who camps with a tent. They just can't handle being so close to nature, I guess, even though that's purportedly the reason they burned 100 litres of fuel hauling their mobile home 40 foot camper to the trailer park RV site.
you’d be hard-pressed to find one that actually likes it better.
It's definitely a cultural thing. Here in Korea, the vast majority prefer apartments. Lower maintenance. More security. Convenience. The social aspect.
As a student, I would rather rent in a modern apartment building than a house. No yard to take care of, closer to other stuff (grocery store is literally across the street), safer, no insects. I would 100% rather have a nice apartment over a meh house.
There are reasons I chose to live in my apartment.
You can achieve a very high quality of life if you are willing to waste resources. See private jets for an example.
If we want to preserve nature, we need to live denser than the large detached single family homes pictured.
However, row houses with a coop garden is probably a good compromise where people don't have upstairs neighbors, and can grow things for fun. But you aren't taking up a ton of space.
I don't disagree. That actually sounds good to me. I'm just saying on a mass scale, most people don't want to do the apartment thing.
I'd also rather not have to go up and down a million levels every time I leave home.
I've never lived in an apartment, so I don't personally know the struggle of upstairs or downstairs neighbors.
I've only ever lived in 2 different houses when growing up, and then me and a few friends rented out another friend's house when they moved out of town.
So that's a pretty awesome situation, plus being able to smoke weed inside just by going down to the laundry room and almost always having at least one person around to smoke with is great.
But I'm used to having houses close by, so moving to row houses with a garden sounds perfect, especially if we can grow our own weed in said garden 😂.
A truth most people don't want to hear is that densely populated cities are overall better for nature and resources. You need less roads and tracks, fewer concrete overall, compact cities are much easier to make walkable, etc.
Really the only argument against tight packed cities is "I don't like people". That shouldn't really be a priority.
For nature to recover we need to give back space. The worst you can do is build rural homes or spread out suburbs.
I live in an apartment. I want to live in a house.
Cunt upstairs neighbour smoking cancer sticks on the balcony, making my room smell like shit when he does it, dumbass neighbour to my right who phones some other dumbass at 6 in the morning, screaming into his phone, waking me up. No garden, can't have a cat or a dog.
I don't want to live in a suburb where I am forced to use a car, but you can live in a house and still be able to get anywhere you want without a car.
Yeah but then I gotta listen to my upstairs neighbor make tik toks.
In a well made apartment building you cant hear anything from your neighbors.
Better than listening to your upstairs neighbor beating his wife. I would call the cops, but they couldn't do anything unless she pressed charges, and she never would. We would get quiet for a couple of days though, but then he'd be doing it again.
the only time i hear any neighbours are when they're either outside, or the upstairs neighbours drop a fucking anvil on the floor, then i hear a slight "thunk".
Insulation
I know this is a joke but I wanna hijack this comment to say you could spread out the housing a little to not be apartments but still only take like 30%
But what if your neighbour shoots porn?
Density doesn't save nature. Habitat protection laws save nature. Make sure that's part of the plan.
Also, the picture shows the saved nature very accessible to the density. This is not usually what these zoning plans have in mind.
Many important species, especially insects and their predators, can absolutely make good use of patchy suburban habitat if it is properly managed, moreso if it is networked, and natural space nearer homes benefits residents and the environment.
We can't keep saving mountaintops and deserts, we need to rehabilitate more of these nice valleys and riversides we all like to build cities on.
A lot of people are pro-apartmemt before living in one, so here are some fun facts:
Living in a flat is a pile of little miseries grouped together.
It's simple: blocks are not built in cities to minimise the footprint like in your meme but to build cheaper and sell more and in the same time externalising the costs of infrastructure development.
A mid density block is something, a heavy packed "bedroom" neighborhood is another.
This is a pretty terrible way to make this point. The pic on the left is neater and the one on the right leaves almost no space for the people living there to do anything. You probably want a little bit of cleared land for literally anything to do on the island.
Then again, there isn't a dock. So I figure the island on the right has a better way of building boats to leave.
Ah yes, because that's how capitalism works. People would definitely stop developing the rest of the island because they don't need more housing.
Developers will stop building once there aren't any customers left, which absolutely does happen in countries that allow high density urban housing.
Your first statement is all well and good but your second statement is flat out wrong. That can only happen given a static population. But humans reproduce pretty rapidly. There will always be new customers until we hit a carrying capacity limit, but as technology improves the earths carrying capacity keeps going up, until of course we decimate resources and then it'll come crashing down.
If it's not housing, it's a golf course, or business district or something. The old "if you build it, they will come" plenty of people also don't spend their lives in the same place so moving to a newer, better facility is enticing to those that can afford it.
It's common for states to institute urban growth boundaries that protect forests / farms.
fuck ... houses?
Low-density sprawl essentially requires cars. Further, cars need a ton of space for roads and parking lots. Denser, more walkable communities don't need nearly as many cars and don't need nearly as much roads and parking lots.
Single family housing is a massive contributer to (sub)urban sprawl and car dependency. Increased residential density can reduce the need for cars by reducing the distance between people's homes and their workplace, shops, etc.
Zoning laws are a bigger contributor
Yes, let's pack people in a dense area where diseases and tempers can and will run rampant because THAT has never happened before.
Sorry, I refuse to live on top of other people. Housing is not the enemy of nature - housing that is not in tune with nature is. It is completely possible to build homes that blend in with nature without having to resort to ultra-dense, 5-story brick behemoths filled with people who loathe one another.
I see what you are trying to convey, and I agree with you to an extent, but density is not the answer to sustainable housing.
Housing is fine, several of my personal heros lived in rural commues far away from society, where they are mostly self-sustained. They dont live in apartments, but there is no doubt I have great respect for them and believe they live in a very responsible fashion.
The problem came when people want to live in the middle of nowhere, produces nothing for their own, pays low taxes; yet think society owes them giant road infrastructure and wasteful parking lots. So that they can terrorize the lives of pedestrians and cyclists, also our dying planet, just because only their oversized driveway princess and their ecological hellhole of a lawn can give them a little sense of achievement in their otherwise fruitless life.
Density reduces emissions. Low-density, car-dependent suburban sprawl is extremely unsustainable for the planet.
The fact that your immediate first association with dense housing is disease is rather telling
I'd prefer to live in a house over an apartment
So would I, but when you try to talk to ultra-urbanist zealots about that, they act like you're deranged for wanting your own land in a quiet place, using the devil's transportation to go places public transit could not reasonably service.
If you look at land use maps, you will see that the urban areas are so small compared to the agricultural and livestock area needed to support the population. This is the biggest cause of deforestation, and population density actually makes it much worse, because it centralizes consumption and requires more logistic costs to deliver the needed food, with much higher rates of wastes. If we lived in less dense areas, perhaps we could do with local, smaller-scale agriculture instead.
My concern with multi unit living is that your home is now dependent on the actions of others. You could lose everything because some dumbass next to you dropped cigarette burning on their floor, or overflowed their tub.
It also just gets messy having that many people try to manage a property together. I lived in a high rise for a year. There was constant bickering over who put the wrong thing down the trash chute or who was using the elevator to move furniture without checking it out first. Everyone had to all agree to building repairs, which was a nightmare, and getting them them done took forever. From my understanding our building was pretty well run, but it didn't feel like it. I loved the idea of high rise life when I moved in but by the time we got out house I was ready to be done with it.
I mean there are genuine reasons you might want a house over an apartment. If you have a big family or the fact that you own it and don't have a land lord that can just raise rent and force you out. You gotta have a mix of types of housing that actually matches what the needs of the people are, which is still the exact problem we have now.
You can also own an apartment and live in it. The problem in the US, as far as I know, is that many cities make it very hard to actually build apartments or rowhouses or really anything other than a single family house on a big lawn.
Spot on. In pink below is all the land where it's literally illegal to build anything but a detached, single-family house. And that's not even touching on all the other restrictive land use regulation, such as the insanity that is parking minimums. If we want to have a mix of housing types, it needs to actually be legal to build more than one type.
There are always going to be certain compromises when you share walls and/or floors and ceilings with neighbours. Even if everyone owns their own unit, there's a lot of shared infrastructure, and that means discussing, dealing and compromising on all kinds of things. If you own an entire building and the land surrounding it, you have a lot more autonomy.
I've had one friend vow never to buy a condo again after having to deal with his condo board for a few years, and he lived in a small 8ish unit building. Another friend served on her condo board for under a year and said it was one of the worst experiences she'd ever had to deal with.
From an environmental point of view, apartments and condos are great. They're great for public transit. They're much more efficient in how they use land. They are much better for heating and cooling. But, people being upright apes, a partially shared living arrangement like that can be truly awful.
Another part of it in the US is that the construction used in many apartments should be criminal. Every corner possible is cut. In every one of my apartments, save the one that was a converted 1920s hospital, I could gain access to neighbors' apartments through the ceiling, if I wanted, with no tools beyond a chair to stand on.
Every apartment that I've lived in also had electric baseboard heating placed before windows and poorly insulated, often mold-infested walls, the windows were usually modern and well-sealed (except for one that was not properly flashed, causing water to pour in during a storm), this means that the placement was about as energy inefficient as possible - without drafty windows, that placement just resulted in thermal loss through the shoddy insulation.
And that's before the landlords who cut every corner possible in maintenance, legal or not.
Quality construction would likely help with adoption of owner-occupied apartments but, that's something that we're unlikely to see without forcing it.
I mean is the building owned by its tenants or one entity/person who gets to own the building and a large amount of peoples homes thusly?
I work in municipal develpment.
The thing with developers is that they build that density, but over ALL of the land. Apartments kill more trees and create more impervious cover than any other type of housing.
Our city requires parkland dedication for development. Single-family developments build public parks and preserve trees wherever possible. Apartments just pay a fee in lieu for tree mitigation and parkland dedication and improvements because they absolutely will not have a millimeter of land not dedicated to housing.
If the people living in apartments had a say in how they were built... yeah
Nobody chooses to live in a fucking tin can hanging from suspension wires that is so poorly insulated you can hear every bird flying into the windows as though you're inside a bass drum.
The sounds of my neighbors at 3 am snoring are not a feature you can call part of the "shared experience."
The prospect of being trapped together because the elevator went out and there's a fire... oh so joyous. Not to mention all the people's pets that get left at home throughout the day and I can hear crying with desperation to be let out as though they're in the next room...
I'm quite happy not to live in a fucking modern apartment thank you very much.
If "modern" means "shoddy and cheaply built" sure, I agree, but it doesn't have to mean that.
I feel like the people promoting high density housing don't live in high density housing. It's probably promoted by rental developers 😅
I live in a 51 story condo tower and it's great. Thick concrete walls, can't hear a thing. High above the street, so not much street noise gets up to my unit. The hallways are pressured higher than the units, so smells don't get out.
It's great; I never want to live in a house, and deal with all the shit that comes with that.
This is such a dumb comment. Have you ever lived in good high density housing?
Wtf kind of apartments do you have ? XD
I swear to God if I do this again and you back out I'll be super angry
Maybe the problem isn't the houses. Maybe it's the grass lawns.
Both, the problem is both.
Nice to see you swedneck it's been a while. How you been?
Build a co-op garden around the apartment and you've got yourself a deal.
Everyone in the place gets X amount of space. More then 60% of people won't garden at all and their share can be maintained by the gardeners.
Fruit trees and berry bushes will be grown for all to use.
And a really cool waterslide
I love my own yard with privacy and a firepit where I can get drunk, loud and high as a kite without anyone bothering me.
Apartment living was hell, it's what convinced me to get a house.
Best decision ever
Might be a silly question, but would it be better if we somehow turned suburbs into being more akin to rural towns? Like the suburbs could maybe have nearby town centers that they could walk to in 10-15 minutes that would allow small businesses to operate in.
I don’t live on the mainland, so no idea how it actually works.
Absolutely. Back in the day before the car, even rural towns were built fairly densely, typically around a train station. They had to be, because you had to be able to walk everywhere in town, and the train was the main way to get in and out of town. Even to this day, many streetcar suburbs exist, where they had lain out a streetcar line radiating from the city center into the countryside and built mid-density along it. Many of these suburbs exist to this day, and they are often dense, walkable, transit-oriented, highly desirable, while not being anything so dense as Manhattan.
This style of development has been made literally illegal in most of North America through restrictive zoning codes, parking minimums, setback requirements, and other local regulations.
If we just made a return to traditional ways of building communities, our cities and towns and suburbs would all be vastly more human-centric than they are today.
I can't see the NYT article, it's behind a paywall, or maybe just an email wall, I dunno, but I find it hard to believe that "most" of America restricts density. I live in NJ and density is almost a must these days, we've essentially developed everywhere. Even the towns with multimillion dollar homes are being forced to accept density.
Personally, the solution needs to be tax land higher. You want your 2 acre property? You're gonna pay for it. And that money will be used to help keep housing affordable.
Yes, absolutely. You can also combine both proposals, and have apartment blocks near those neighborhood shopping centers. The people who want their yards and lawns can have them, there's room for more people who don't mind living in an apartment, and the businesses that open in those town/neighborhood centers have more customers living close by. I live in a city in the Netherlands that has put this concept into practice, and it's really great.
I mean, that's kind how it is where I live. I live in a 1400sf home on .23 acres of land. I'm five blocks from downtown, where there's businesses, a courthouse, a train station, thousands of apartments. All the schools are walkable. Parks are walkable, with amenities like pools/splash parks, playgrounds, a paved trail network. We fit about 6,000 people per square mile, which is pretty dense.
I don't think it exactly fits the 15m city concept, because I don't think there are enough jobs in town to support everyone, but it's a pretty good mix. A variety of housing types is important, simply because people want what they want, and I think it makes a more cohesive society to try to have something for everyone.
Yeah low density housing with lots of green space, local stores public transport links is a far better environment to live in
Low rises (<5 stories) is actually the best of all worlds. Allows for more density but doesn't feel crowded.
I like the idea of a villiage square type plan. You have a bunch of 2-5 story buildings around a central green area. Each square is essentially a little community and you can allocate some of the ground level space to retail.
I live in an area with great green space and great neighbours, I just wish I didn't have to leave my area to get to literally any shop.
In this image I can't help but notice how much infrastructure cost there is here. Consider need for water treatment pipes run to and from each house for water and sewage as well as sewage treatment infrastructure. Keep in mind that failure rate increases with each house and by length of these runs that you are adding and fire hydrants being added every so many feet, shut off valves. Don't forget that we now have significantly bigger demand for water as we now have a lot more vegetation to manage and a higher reliance on emergency services as we are spread out over a larger area so we now have to increase ems, fire, and police spending. Then you add the costs for electrical infrastructure with your sub stations and transformers and all the costs set to maintain that especially since these are underground lines apparently and ofcourse we have increased risk of failure again per service and foot run and higher demand on those services which will require more workers which turns into money being spent outside of the community. You then add the cost of data lines and phone lines including the costs associated with maintaining and upgrading those which are also apparently underground which means your upgrades may be significantly more expensive and will take much longer to deploy. Now that we have all these houses separated we will now have a population that will be more dependent on vehicles so now we have to factor in all of our road maintenance costs and our public services will not require far more vehicles as well which means we will also need mechanics to repair and maintain these vehicles. Now with roads alone when we consider the costs involved things get rather expensive quickly. Cost to maintain roads, even roads that are seldom used, is surprisingly expensive and require a lot of workers to build and maintain as well as vehicles, machinery, and land to store, recycle, and create materials needed to repair and build the roads. On top of that there is also an often missed statistic of vehicles which is public safety as they are a leading cause for injury which is another stressor on our little community.
This is far from all the possibly missed costs of our suburban/rural neighborhood but I feel these are some of the important ones people live to overlook.
Condos and Housing coops go a long way I think to reduce some of the pain points most people have had with apartment living. The issue now is that most people are comparing owning a home where you have a lot of control over your circumstances and price stability, vs having a landlord that is doing the minimum and raising rents every chance they can. If apartments were built for people, and not landlords would they still have cramped hallways and balconies, would they have poor insulation and sound proofing, would they have old noisy AC units, etc, etc. The thing is, even in cases where people do choose to not have an amenity, people still had the choice.
Have you not heard of mixed density? There should be houses, semi, townhomes, 3 story walk-ups and apartment buildings. You could probably do all that and still keep 50% of the island nature.
Not only this, but in the second picture, that other 96% is ripe for rezoning - money men will not stop until they buy off enough politicians to develop it into something resembling the first picture.
Edit: I'm not saying I like it, I'm just stating facts.
The shores become resort property. The rest becomes a mini-mall. The resort buys the apartment complex a year later. With any houses, all houses get bought by cooperations and rented out as overpriced Airbnb houses. Fuck we can't have anything nice with unfettered capitalism.
Edit: Sorry, off-topic rant.
The island on the right probably isn't as hot either.
When I see the image what came to mind was that experiment where they had an overpopulation of rats in a cage and how all of the rats turned on each other and killed each other.
Too much human density is not good. You have to be sure to get the percentage of humans to a acre of land just right, to prevent the rats situation.
Nature is important, but Humanity moreso.
Thank you for explaining why suburbs suck. Also, the mass of people flooding an area all at once is just a niceness.
Fewer people ..1 house
I'm sure this solution works well with cities like London or New York. /s
just genocide eh?