• Izzy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • jerkface@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      And fuck the 900 poor people, they can live in the fucking sea where they won’t bother me.