You see one apartment building. A property developer sees room for 100 apartment buildings.
I just moved from an apartment to a house.
If the apartment had the same floor space and the city actually accommodated my hobbies (I need a large garage to work on cars and finish fixing a boat) then I would’ve gladly stayed.
However. Apartments above 60m² are rare and expensive, and all garages/industrial sites are unfavorable because you can put another bloc or supermarket in there. The cities became living hubs for corporate workers whose entire lives can be crammed into a 40 meter apartment and their only entertainment is a depression rectangle or a gaming console.
What nature? I have to drive 2 hours to see nature. Bring on the houses.
When we lived in an apartment someone set off the fire alarm several times a week, sometimes at 3am which is a shitty way and time to awaken. Never want to live in one again
in both scenarios developers eventually buy up the entire island and fill it with either
Can we get a version with all treehouses?
If the apartments are no shoe boxes and have lavishly big (garden) balconies I’m all in. The space should be around 100-120 qm each with flexible drywall placement for individual footprints.
I love living in a walkable city but I envy a friend of mine a little bit, who exits his apartment into a market center with cafes, shops, supermarkets, barber, doctors etc.
I’ve lived in an apartment and I just can’t do it. I hated every day in it.
A lot of people in this thread are mistaking the map for the territory. Like yes, obviously neither the development on the right, or the left would actually happen in real life, because why are these people even on the island? What do they eat? What do they drink? Where do they work? The sole statement of the graphic is that dense developments have a reduced impact on nature compared to sparse developments. Discussing the logistics would exceed what can be conveyed by such a format.
Logic here is broken because we don’t make these decisions anyway. A developer will instead put 30 apartment buildings while chopping down anything that gets in the way, then charge more for rent than you’d be charged for the mortgage on the house. There’s also the fact that this picture assumes every family on the left pic doesn’t give a fuck about free scaping, preserving trees, or planting new ones? Idk, whole thing is jacked.
It feels like whoever made this only sees those large suburban sprawls in the South West of the US where it’s all flat desert. Or the suburbs built on large tracts of farmland that had trees taken down many years before for crops.
Housing development is expensive when you have to cut down and uproot large tracts of forest. They’re not willing to do that unless there is a high rate of return… Such as an apartment building with a hundred tenants.
the simplest solution is to stop having so many babies. population reduction is critical to quality of life.
So um, why are the houses and nature mutually exclusive? I live in a suburban detached single family home, and my whole neighborhood is filled with trees, wildlife and even a tree lined creek that separates the back yards on my street from the back yards on the opposite side. You can’t even see my actual yard from google maps because it’s nearly entirely covered by tree canopy (at 6pm in summer my yard is 100% shaded). We have all sorts of wildlife including deer, foxes, owls, frogs, mallards, rabbits, squirrels, etc.
While I agree that we do need more housing options of all sorts, I don’t for a second agree that nature and suburban housing are mutually exclusive. We just need to stop tearing down all the trees when we build, and plan better.
Don’t forget the huge energy savings (heating/cooling, transportation, infrastructure) by having denser housing. It isn’t just a measurement of “I can see trees,” but all the daily human activities that have a reduced environmental impact in denser development. It’s counter-intuitive, but rural areas that are “nearer to nature” are often worse for the environment.
There is probably a break-even point, I don’t think everyone living in skyscrapers is ecologically ideal and I wouldn’t want to live there anyway. But medium-density development with multi-unit (shared wall) buildings allows huge energy costs, while also making public transit more viable and providing a tax base that actually pays for its own infrastructure.
Based on your description we might be neighbors
I think the point of the island is to show that when you have limited space, residential density really matters. Even if you took away all the concrete, spacing, etc between houses in this example and just out 100 ranch style homes in a corner with no spacing in between them, it would leave room for significantly less nature.
Your neighborhood sounds beautiful, and that’s great, but that ratio between nature and residents is probably being achieved with more land than if high density residential housing was in place.
why
Well, you could count the trees on the right and find a way to fit them in between the houses on the left.
I was thinking the exact same thing. It just feels like 2 extremes. Take the left one, don’t put concrete everywhere, and add 80% of the trees from the right.
A garden is not wild nature.
What point are you trying to make?
Or are you just adding a random fact to the thread?
He-She is just telling that there is a difference between a garden and an actual wild nature space. Gardens are manicured environments with a fraction of biodiversity that are made to serve human needs, and also frequently require constant maintenance and resource consumption on garden tools, fertilizers, etc, and frequently are changed whenever the house changes owner or tenant. They do not contribute to nature preservation at all actually, they just provide more comfort to the inhabitants like some trees for shading. A real wild nature space demands a lot of continuous space devoid or almost devoid of human presence or interference, like a whole Manhattan island of trees that will not be cut, and no fertilizer maintenance at all, and big animals that are dangerous to humans such as wolves, bears, moose, etc.
The picture on the left could be even worse. There are areas where people move in and tear all the greenery out of the garden and then either cover everything with paving stones or gravel. Everything around the house! Then there’s also an ugly metal fence or plastic elements in the garden, sometimes you can see fake plants.
Some humans are so stupid…
Left, 100%. I don’t share walls with randos.
Why build up when we can build down to utilize geothermal. Under ground houses saves nature!
'cause you drown if it floods
Just don’t make the hole go below sea level, easy peasy
Yeah! Nothing ever floods above sea level!
Hear that, Genova?!
Sea levels are rising.
