|
|
|
|
|
|
by dmoy
779 days ago
|
|
|
> That’s like saying the US should have no environmental regulations because there are other countries with less protection. It's not the same. The US has (nominally) some measure of keeping people out of the country. Cities in the US can't keep people from other parts of the US from moving there. We don't have internal population control like say China internal residence permits (I'm sure there are other examples, that's just what I know about). So people are gonna move to cities whether you want them to or not, and we need to build places for them to live. Unless you want to drastically restrict freedom of movement. > But stepping back, I don’t get the point of trying to concentrate density in a small area and creating problems for the environment and quality of life From an environmental perspective, it is the better way if you don't push people back into pre-industrial era. Dense cities use drastically less energy per capita, and pollute less exhaust/etc. |
|
|
I feel like the arguments for density being environmentally friendly are often focused on a few aspects to tell this narrative, but ignore other aspects. Traffic is higher in dense areas and contributes to concentrated pollution and mental health issues that have other effects further on. Constructing giant concrete buildings is more polluting than small wooden buildings (if sustainably harvested). And so on. A comprehensive analysis of all the aspects doesn’t seem to exist. But I’ve not searched very much either, I’ll admit.