Re:Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in singl...
by mixmastamyk on Thursday December 02, 2021 @12:32PM
(#29419364)
No, dense city is much more efficient than suburbs. A hundred floors is a tiny fraction of miles. There was a post here showing the costs.
Most folks would prefer the “missing middle” if ever given a chance to experience it.
Re:Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in singl...
by quadrangle on Friday December 03, 2021 @04:17PM
(#29435632)
dense city is efficient, but density doesn't have to mean high-rises. It can be modest-rises, floors that are enough for people to still use steps to get to the top, so under 10 stories and dense, and that's probably in aggregate more efficient than high-rises. High-rises have serious problems and issues that are not just additive, and they are far harder to adapt, to change to adjust to changing contexts.
Re:Facing housing crisis, L.A. voters back duplexes in singl...
by mixmastamyk on Monday December 06, 2021 @03:03PM
(#29464849)
Yes, hence my mention of the missing-middle.
Super dense cities are efficient in some ways, but they have tons of other problems and they externalize tons of costs. What we're missing in the U.S. is human-scale density, especially in the form of cohousing arrangements.
Tall high-rises are not actually efficient. You know how much energy it takes to have elevators going up and down 40 floors along with all the other stuff? Land is not the single factor to calculate when we want efficiency.