If the island were 100 times larger, the houses would take 1% of the land area, leaving 99%. The apartment complex would take up .04%, leaving 99.96%, which isn’t much of an improvement. The proportions of our planet are much closer to my scenario than this made up island. That’s a reason why we might not “prefer apartments in our own town.”
There are good reasons you might want density, this just isn’t one of them.
Yeah, but most people don’t live in that other 90% . Most people live in urban and suburban areas where most if not all of the land is privately owned. Because of this the problem shown of fitting 100 households into 25 acres is way more common than your scenario of fitting 100 households on 2500 acres
And having trees and nature near urban venters is very much desirable, to help with air pollution (tho really not a lot), heat concentration and humidity.
If the island were 100 times larger, the houses would take 1% of the land area, leaving 99%.
Singapore government: if only.
Also wildlife, carbon capturing, and distance to everything. There’s reason why denser city is easier to go around, in this island, you might not even need a car.
There is approximately 15.77B acres of livable land and there are 8.2B people so if each person had just 1/4 acre that would be 13% vs if you gave each person 2000 sqft it would only be 2%. Then you need to factor in how to built transit for low density and how many more stores you need due to the lower density and you can see that it would be much better for the environment if we had higher density
If the island were 100 times larger, the houses would take 1% of the land area, leaving 99%. The apartment complex would take up .04%, leaving 99.96%, which isn’t much of an improvement. The proportions of our planet are much closer to my scenario than this made up island. That’s a reason why we might not “prefer apartments in our own town.”
There are good reasons you might want density, this just isn’t one of them.
Yeah, but most people don’t live in that other 90% . Most people live in urban and suburban areas where most if not all of the land is privately owned. Because of this the problem shown of fitting 100 households into 25 acres is way more common than your scenario of fitting 100 households on 2500 acres
And having trees and nature near urban venters is very much desirable, to help with air pollution (tho really not a lot), heat concentration and humidity.
Singapore government: if only.
Also wildlife, carbon capturing, and distance to everything. There’s reason why denser city is easier to go around, in this island, you might not even need a car.
Easier travel is definitely a great reason to increase density. Walking & biking > cars
There is approximately 15.77B acres of livable land and there are 8.2B people so if each person had just 1/4 acre that would be 13% vs if you gave each person 2000 sqft it would only be 2%. Then you need to factor in how to built transit for low density and how many more stores you need due to the lower density and you can see that it would be much better for the environment if we had higher density
That’s the difference between America and Western Europe. Western Europe is already mostly built up, they don’t have room. America does.
That’s not even remotely true. Do Americans actually believe this?
Yea, everything is pretty full here. We have plenty of nature, but there’s always traces of civilization.
I often miss the vastness of nature. Been to Alaska some years ago and being in nature is an entirely different feeling.
Spoiler: No it isn’t.