Not Just Bikes did an excellent series on this specific problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0
I sure do understand it, but I also understand that when it comes to comparing the environmental impact of upper middle class urbanites and suburbanites, we're splitting hairs. Neither of these lifestyles as they exist now are sustainable, so what this really boils down to is a bunch of rich folks living in cities looking down their noses at us middle class plebs in the burbs, simply because they find suburbs aesthetically distasteful rather than out of any genuine concern for the environment.
Yea that is not at all true. You can literally compare the CO2 per capita for an average American/Canadian and someone from Europe and in general they produce 1/3 of the CO2. It is not a negligible difference.
This is largely caused because of the urban designs which don't focus on gas dependent suburbia. Or the benefits from efficiency at scale which can only be achieved in high density living accommodations.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
It is also a plain fact that downtown urban blocks are the profit generators for cities whilst suburbia is largely a financial hole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
You looking at a classist angle is I think an internal bias. There are poor/rich in both areas. It's just a straight fact though that suburban design is not sustainable both economically and ecologically.
I've never disputed this fact. It's true, the American suburban model is not sustainable. However, the urban lifestyle common in North America or Europe is likewise not sustainable either. So it does become a class/political issue since neither lifestyle actually address the issue at hand. It's just a bunch of people judging each other for their unsustainable lifestyles.
What do you mean by this? There is a large gulf of difference between the two, and I feel you are more commenting on the consumerist patterns of the above. That pattern is a lot more sustainable model in high density urban environments from a logistics, CO2 perspective.
From a modern quality of living perspective, it is vastly more sustainable both economically and ecologically to have people in high density housing. Hence why it was the traditional form of infrastructure for huge portions of history up until the failed US suburban experiment.
It's much easier to hook up good quality and efficient infrastructure to a high density block than to a suburban neighborhood. The above infrastructure would be better utilization rates, cheaper to install, and easier to offset than what you propose.
Ruralia and Suburbia are not financially or environmentally sustainable, not as modern society.
And even in rural areas, you expect all that technology to come to you.
So yeah, it works for you, because a lot of people think like you and you're a big voting bloc, but ultimately, you're increasing debt levels for everyone and burning the planet down.
But hey, you got yours, so we're cool...
That's fine, but cities like New York are not sustainable either. Ditto for commercial air travel, so the entire conversation is unproductive and pointless. It just degenerates into wealthy urbanites saying something along the lines of "You terrible suburb dwellers need to give up your unsustainable lifestyle and embrace our unsustainable lifestyle instead".
I'll take all of this more seriously when I start seeing environmentalists swear off things like commercial flight or eating food and wine that's been shipped halfway around the world. Until then, I'll enjoy my suburb and my car and my lawn with the picket fence.
CO2 emissions for households living in cities are noticeably lower (just goggle it).
> I'll take all of this more seriously when I start seeing environmentalists swear off things like commercial flight or eating food and wine that's been shipped halfway around the world
This is pure whataboutism and you know it. Just look at the co2 emissions of your lifestyle versus those of wine shipped from across the world.
This kind of network of mutually codependent systems is just the way things are.
You think your city is sustainable? Just two simple questions to put that lie to rest:
1. Where does your food come from?
2. Where does your water come from?
It's all about money. More people have more money.
The fact that we've pulled people out of agriculture and we can grow food for 100 with just 1-2 actually growing it is great for the planet, for the economy, for human development.
“Ruralia” is already entirely ecologically sustainable.
If you don’t want to subsidize rural infrastructure through your tax dollars, then frankly, we should just charge you exorbitant rates for our food and water, and then — by your metric — we’ll be entirely financially sustainable, too.
If you live largely "off the grid", grow much of your own food, don't go out much (since any going out means a lot of driving, if you're in the country), and rarely order goods delivery... sure.
Do you have your own paved road infrastructure, or are you relying on others to pay for that? Road infrastructure for low-density housing is a net drain on the public purse (unlike e.g. free healthcare, space exploration, etc. which are a net win, economically)
I'm a big fan of space exploration, but I seriously doubt that it's an economic net win.
> With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities-until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances.
What is this nonsense? "[T]he apartment house is a mere parasite." So the Court prefers suburbs to apartment living? Who cares? This is no basis for overturning fundamental property rights.
The Court in Euclid did what NIMBYs often do, which is to listen to all the arguments and then say, ultimately, "yeah, yeah, productivity, property rights, freedom, etc, I get it, I get it, but I don't want more density near me and isn't the intensity of my preferences on this issue what really matters?"
That's the beauty of technology though. I really don't have to make these tradeoffs anymore.
I can work from home which means I'm no longer limited to the job market in my immediate geography.
I can order practically any product I want online so it really doesn't matter if I live close to a city with great stores or not.
I can use a plethora of apps to meet people and date.
And of course, I have my car (and uber as a backup) so I don't need to be cramped into some terrible apartment in order to make the world accessible.
We love to romanticize these crowded industrial era cities, but when given the choice, most people would rather not live in dense cities at all.