It’s impossible to not hear your neighbours in an apartment. There are ways to reduce that, but almost no apartment is built like that. Not to mention that often you want to open windows for fresh air and get to breathe in smoke from cigarettes. It’s a different kind of hell to live in one. I agree that it looks nicer from outside. There can even be parks nearby. But never venture there after dark, because you’ll get your vallet stolen. Due to that every street must be light up during the night, and now you can’t see the stars…
Anyhow. People fucking suck
Neither have water, so neither?
Obviously the blue part is land
But then you have to live in an apartment…
The neighbors kids who live above you will stomp around at 2:00am.
The neighbors below you will complain when you make the slightest noise.
I grew up between a big house with it’s own forest, and a town house. At this point in my life, I have spent more time living in apartments, and the last 4 years living in studios. Gotta say, I have no desire to move into a house at any point. Having an apartment in a well built city with good public transport is just way nicer.
for a while now i’ve maintained that commie blocks (at least over here) are some of the best places to live, and i have to conclude that the only reason people think most other areas are at all appealing is because they have simply never actually been in the commie block areas.
It’s like how my dad had never once even considered the notion of riding a bike, then one day i convinced him to buy an e-bike and since that day he has driven a car… literally 3 times, i think. Once you actually consider the merits of it it’s so obviously better.
Yeah. I’ve lived in one in eastern Germany for a weeks at one point. It was in a park, which had seating, locations for BBQ, playgrounds, and all streets around where very reduced speed. The flat was sized and partitioned well. Insulation sucked, though I’m pretty sure renovating one to modern standards is cheaper than leveling and replacing it.
Concrete framed buildings help a lot with this. Other noise proof options are out there as well
My favorite is a few hundred meters of trees with a fence and stone walls
I’ve lived in shitty apartments but dated two people who lived in “modern” high rise appartments. In mine I heard the neighbours occasionally since they were clearly old motels that they half arsed into units. The modern apartments I practically never heard anyone.
Though “modern” apartment generally price out people who are up all hours making noise it’s more the fact that these appartments usually have body corporates or people that live on site. Being the typical “up all hours stomping around” type would be a quick way to have your lease terminated.
Edit: Duh and the super obvious thing I forgot, improved sound insulation in modern apartments I imagine as well.
I guess that’s just an argument for better made apartments.
The thing is, you can’t really engineer against anti-social behavior. For every better made apartment you will find that there is an even bigger anti-social idiot who still manages to make life hell for their neighbors.
I’m pretty blessed with my mostly boomer neighbors (🤞) who don’t make a peep after 10PM, but my girlfriend has had some shitty neighbors even though her apartment is pretty well made. Sound insulation between apartments is no match for cigarette and marijuana smoke wafting in from the balcony below any time you want to open the window to air out, or if, heavens forbid, you want to sleep with the window open in the summer, nor does it help much if they are partying and speaking loudly on their balcony until 4AM on weekdays. And then I’m not even getting into how they’re treating shared spaces.
The proximity makes everything so much worse than it would be with a house, at some point only adding distance helps.
I’ve lived in two separate but equal soviet era concrete blocks, and I could count on my three hands the number of times I’ve heard my neighbours do anything. I assume they dropped a neutron star or something.
That is except renovations… the type where they start drilling at 8am and do not stop until 6pm… those are not so rare.
I’m convinced one of our neighbours removed all of their internal walls by using a tiny drill bit to remove that much of one wall at a time. Nothing else can explain weeks of constant drilling.
I guess my point being: they had it figured out 50 years ago (except for renovations).
Seriously. Solid concrete apartments are so impervious to noise that the only times i hear any noise other than them dropping anvils on the floor is when it comes through an open window! I’m more annoyed by people in the room next to me than i am by anyone outside the apartment.
We can’t live in an apartment because it will always have bad insulation. We should all live in single unit housing with… checks the quality of insulation in your average 1970s ranch house oh shit, oh fuck.
Also, gotta say, love to live in a street level neighborhood Cul-de-sac with that one guy revving his motorbike at 3am. Single pane glass, noisy neighbors, and god help you during July 4th or Jan 1st when someone gets ahold of fireworks.
But for some reason, we completely forget about this shit when we talk about apartments. Like the suburbs - particularly the corners near intersections or school yards or big churches or highway on-ramps - aren’t routinely noisy af.
Most of my apartment neighbors are actually really cool, chill people. There’s a handful of people who stink, but like… Oh well?? That’s living around other humans? You adapt to the shitty ones and get along with the good ones.
If you run around assuming all your apartment neighbors will forever be annoying, you’ll never get to know any that aren’t. Same with neighbors in the suburbs. Being around humans can suck sometimes, but if you look you can often find decent people.
I’ve met more decent wild animals than I have people.
Ok, misanthrop.
You say that like it’s an insult.
Someone who hates or distrusts humankind certainly isn’t a positive trait.
Awww surely not!
Ever heard that quote, paraphrasing the start of it:
You run into a jerk in the morning, you ran into a jerk.
(Maybe you know the rest) If you give that some thought for the rest of the week (assuming you’re out and about), interested to hear any thoughts on it :)
Part of the reason I hate people is I put a ton of effort into trying not to be a jerk, stressing myself out with constant worry from monitoring my behavior at all times, but other people don’t seem to give anyone else the same courtesy.
And that doesn’t even get into how hard it is for me to relate to almost everyone. I watch weird TV shows, listen to weird music, read weird books, and have weird hobbies. Outside of the weather I don’t really have anything to talk to them about, despite their seemingly constant need for interaction.
The suburbs are noisy as fuck. That’s why I want to live in the middle of nowhere.
try: Alaska
you can have trees with people or trees without people, we have train, boats, and airports. Enjoy the tundras full of moss and few people, the largest city in the United States (by area) and the reasonably tall mountains.
You joke but the Canadian Rockies are pretty high on my list of places to wander naked until I die.
That’s really the foundational problem. If you could exist without bugging or being bugged by the neighbors dense housing would be so much more appealing
This is absolutely correct.
I live now in a well-made townhouse. I can’t hear the neighbors, ever, even the living room, or the kitchen. Or the bedroom! I love this place compared to my last crappy townhouse, or any apartment I’ve ever been in, ever.
These threads are full of people making the straight-up weakest arguments for destroying nature…
“…but privacy and noise!”
Ugh, just take all that money you would have spent on the ridiculous driveways, extra lengths of road, utilities, and lawn care and put it into higher quality building materials for the apartments/townhouses.
We build crap quality places in the US and all I hear from my fellow countrymen is “we can’t (or don’t want to) do it any other way”.
Unfortunately, where I live it’s very hard to find a well-made apartment or townhouse. I love the idea of an apartment or townhouse where I couldn’t hear the neighbours no matter what they were doing, and I couldn’t smell their cooking, or be exposed to smoke when they’re smoking, and so-on. But, that just isn’t realistic. Even if laws were passed to make that a requirement as of today, it would be decades for the existing housing stock to be sold off.
If I could live in the city and never see another person I think I wouldn’t mind it.
No, wait, still not enough trees or animals or stars in the sky.
That’s why we should build “luxury” apartment blocks in nature with high ceilings and very good noise cancellation, surrounded by agriculture and food forests, ideally growing their own food. Everyone gets a killer view and can quickly go out into nature.
And then connect these big ass apartment blocks with underground train.
If it were like that you’d find me living in the food forest and not the apartment.
IMO this is a universal problem. I’ve had neighbours in a single family house that choose to mow their lawn at 7am on a Saturday and have a very loud pickup truck that I can hear start up any time they drive it.
This has literally been a non-issue for me in every apartment I’ve lived in for the last 10 years here in Sweden. You probably need some better building codes, this is a solved problem.
this is a solved problem
LOL no, it’s solved problem where you are
so you’re agreeing it’s a solved problem then, just that wherever you live is refusing to implement it.
I’ll rephrase - this is a problem that has an established solution that you can easily copy.
What makes you think it would be just one apartment building instead of filling the island with apartment buildings?
For the same amount of people, you wouldn’t need to.
Who says only X amount of people will move to the island? The island will always fill up over time, at least with suburbs, there will be some green left
No no, one apartment building and the rest of the island is a surface level parking lot because an underground lot was too expensive.
This is a consequence of the inane policy of mandatory parking minimum requirements in local zoning codes. Remove them and this problem goes away.
It depends also on the type of houses. It’s not the same a cabin in the woods and a house with a garden.
Yeah give my 5th floor apartment a back yard to garden in and the we’ll talk.
Check out Habitat 67 in Montreal - an architectural student solved this in the 60s. Apartments where everybody gets their own rooftop terrace. Given the funding, the original plan was for a 30-story terraced hill of mixed-use and apartments in an A-frame with public green space underneath that mixed the density of apartments with the benefits of single family homes.
Since everybody thought he was crazy, he only got a fraction of the funding for what he ended up building for the 1967 World’s Fair, but those apartments have the longest occupancy time of any building in Canada (some seeing 2 or 3 generations living in them) and a 5-year waiting list on units.
Last year, a 3d model of the original concept was released for Unreal Engine: www.unrealengine.com/en-US/hillside
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotment_(gardening)
This is a solved problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_gardening
Very common in and around the old Soviet style Eastern European blocs. The style of construction was known as “Towers in the Park” and was often paired with rail stops and local commercial centers for the convenience of pedestrians.
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.
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.
Easier travel is definitely a great reason to increase density. Walking & biking > cars
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.
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.
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.
That’s not even remotely true. Do Americans actually believe this?
Spoiler: No it isn’t.
Counterpoint: they didn’t need to clear all the trees, or at the very least, they could have replaced them with more native trees once they were done building. I’m not gonna pretend that houses don’t cause a ton of environmental destruction, but imo they really don’t have to continue to be destructive long-term; they do it because people usually go with the lowest bidder.
Counterpoint: they didn’t need to clear all the trees
You’re not laying plumbing and electric through an old growth forest. The roots of those trees won’t allow it. You’ve got to clear the whole lot and then replant.
they could have replaced them with more native trees
That would require a local nursery specializing in the cultivation of native plants at the scale the developer requires. At the industrial level, its easier to just ship in some stock variants, whether they work locally or not.
From an ecological level, it is easier to simply not break things than it is to fix them afterwards. Stripping the soil and resodding it, tearing up all the old plants and replanting, and kicking out the native wildlife for years at a time isn’t in any way conducive to ecological preservation.
You’re not laying plumbing and electric through an old growth forest. The roots of those trees won’t allow it. You’ve got to clear the whole lot and then replant.
Okay, but… What if… You didn’t bury the pipes and wires and put them overground (you have good points, I’m just shit-posting NCD-style now)? Snake them between the trees. You don’t have to have houses all in a row. Sure, they’re less efficient space-wise, but then you can have your yard and your white picket fence without disturbing the surrounding environment!
That would require a local nursery specializing in the cultivation of native plants at the scale the developer requires. At the industrial level, its easier to just ship in some stock variants, whether they work locally or not.
Just uproot the trees and replant them later, EZ.
From an ecological level, it is easier to simply not break things than it is to fix them afterwards. Stripping the soil and resodding it, tearing up all the old plants and replanting, and kicking out the native wildlife for years at a time isn’t in any way conducive to ecological preservation.
Yeah, well, we’re gonna have to learn how to do it eventually.
From a semi-serious standpoint, if our population keeps growing, we’re either going to have to learn how to tear up ground and then replace it in an ecologically-friendly manner, or we’re going to have to push off into space. We’re currently scheduled to have a population collapse due to climate change, but let’s be honest here, that’s going to come with significant ecological destruction.
Cough I mean: nature put it there, just have nature put it back. Simple as.
You didn’t bury the pipes
Seems like a bad idea in colder climates, and also, in other non-cold climates. If the pipes aren’t below the frost line, then they’d freeze and bust open, or, if they drained, you’d be without water for the whole of the winter. You might be able to get away with it in a hotter climate, but then you run into other problems. What do you make these pipes out of? A single conduit of inflexible pipe would be best, since this would deliver water along the fastest route, would be easiest to service, and might also require less chopping of local ecology than if the network was more decentralized or if the pipe was flexible. Because you’re going to have to chop up the local ecology to some degree. Tree branches will grow into or around the pipe, which is a bad thing. A flexible pipe might avoid that but you’d gain a lot of other problems in return. If you go with steel, especially galvanized, that’s kind of ideal, as plastic is gonna have a pretty sorry half-life in the sun and heat and elements. So, you could do it, but, it would take some amount of effort. If you had a stable singular conduit, you could also maybe pump the hot water through more constantly, or, pump it back and forth in times of low demand and otherwise store it in some sort of tank more local to the houses, which might help prevent freezing.
I think probably the best solution, in this case, is just to dig deeper than the, say, 7 feet that the tree roots are gonna be, and then bury your pipe about that deep. Only problem is that you’re gonna have a much harder time servicing anything if you have any sort of problem along the way, since now you’d have to trek through the forest and try to get at it through there. You might want to make a whole fucking very deep custom underground service corridor for all of your utilities, at this point, and that’s going to be incredibly expensive. Especially if your soil conditions are garbage, which they probably are, and you’re still going to have to dig and chop through the roots of the trees where you decide to have outlets for your utilities. I can see some sort of combination of an overhead pipe and an underground service tunnel here, that seems more reasonable while still also being insane, very stupid, and inefficient.
Just uproot the trees and replant them later, EZ.
Old growth forests have interconnected root systems, so you’d have to cut up all the trees at the root, raise them up, and then hopefully you can put them all back in the same configuration you got them out in. Not really a great way around that. This is probably going to kill all your trees. The local nursery is actually a better idea, and it’s better just to move away from an industrial scale of tree production that only produces a couple different kinds of trees, which I think is kind of psychotic at its face.
Yeah, well, we’re gonna have to learn how to do it eventually.
I dunno if our population will keep growing, to be honest. I’m not entirely sold on the idea that just education and birth control will curtail population growth to a maintainable degree, or at least, to the degree where our level of growth won’t outstrip our level of innovation to be able to compress said growth.
Also, probably no chance that we return earth to a pre-change state. Well, maybe. You have promising ideas like spraying sulfur dioxide or some other type of aerosolized chemical high in the atmosphere, like in snowpiercer, and that might be able to curtail a lot of the major effects of climate change if only someone was really willing to do it or co-ordinate an effort.
But seed banks, banks of genomic information to re-sequence species from close neighbors. You can’t really bring back those plants or those species if the conditions which surrounded them no longer exist. I’m not even talking, say, the rainforest as a whole, right. That would be incredibly difficult, but you could line up a process of succession, take the hardier species, plant those, propagate them, then slowly start to propagate other plants that can take over and develop other niches as they arise, same with animals, and probably you’d wanna pair both of these with a good degree of population control so you don’t get any runaway problems like with kudzu in the south.
No, the bigger problem there is that, I don’t really know how you would decrease carbon levels, or global temperatures, or decrease soil acidity, or other chemical traces in the soil, or the level of sand in the soil, or whatever other problems you might have. The reasons why those plants and ecosystems destabilized and went extinct will still be around, and would still have to be combated. You could maybe cook up some different schemes to try and solve those, more geoengineering, more terraforming, but we’ve already been straining credulity with this whole thought experiment, here. At some point, you really have to start asking why a shit ton of people would start to undergo this sort of a process if they couldn’t even see the value in the ecosystem enough to prevent themselves from destroying it in the first place.
You’re also kind of looking at it in terms of, what level of natural change should be allowed to happen. The dinosaurs went extinct from natural causes present in their ecosystem, whether that be an asteroid or a big volcano or whatever. The massive fungus forests that died because of the proliferation of cyanobacteria, that was also a natural process. These things were also massive extinction events. So we really gotta figure out what we’re trying to do here. Are we trying to preserve human suffering? Are we trying to lock nature in some kind of stasis because we think that to be advantageous? Are we maintaining nature and trying to minimize human involvement out of a kind of ethical obligation to do so? I don’t really know.
I dunno, in any case, better to just have everyone live in an apartment complex, I think.
Now imagine apartment buildings taking up 100% of the island and that’s what you get under the current system.
Great, that means people have a place to live.
not sure how you imagine it’s better for those people to just… not have a place to live?
Yes because housing is the only thing that matters. More houses! Cover the planet in housing!!!
Don’t have children.
so you’re literally just saying people should go homeless then, wonderful!
You are allowed to wildly infer anything you would like.
And most of them are unoccupied.
Three apartment buildings and the rest is all parking lot
Zoning bylaw might require 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Three buildings would then need 450 spaces at roughly 128 sqft. each which would take up nearly an acre and a half.
The three buildings on their own probably wouldn’t need even a single acre.
The picture on the left is just an argument against lawns.
Partially, even if you got rid of the lawns the houses would still take up significantly more space for both the road infrastructure as well as the houses themselves.
The way i see it is people prefer to fence themselves from the world in their tiny square, rather than enjoy a larger piece of land they have to share.
Right? And also…who needs space between two homes if there are no lawns? Just moosh all the outer walls together.
Come to think of it…that’s gonna result in a ridiculously long line of houses. Maybe we could moosh roofs and bottom floors and stack 'em up a bit to make the line of houses only a half to a third as long, and then leave a little space between Consecutive House Stacks™️ - y’know, so that there’ll room for more windows.
And why don’t we stick the whole thing underground to further minimize damage to the landscape. Besides it’s way cooler to be called a vault dweller than a condo resident.
Lawns aren’t the reason people want to have space from their neighbors.
It’s amazing what insulation and proper sound proofing can do. Never lived in thicker walls than here in Germany. Other than the blasted church bells, it’d be hard to convince me I was living next to people if the windows were opaque.
There is so much possible between these. Both options suck.
Different families have different needs.
Neither options. There’s a third option, involving a really smaller number (smaller than 100), but it’s too controversial to be written as a comment, I guess…
I mean seriously, the first thought that came to my mind was: “How is this better for nature? They are going to poison the shit out of the ocean around their shores dumping their shit right into it because they’ve got nowhere else for it to go, because it’s still too many people for that area.”
Even if they try to build septic, it’s just too damn small for it to not be leeching into the water unless they dig the septic tank insanely deep.
Wouldn’t a water treatment facility for that much wastewater take up about as much space as the living area? What about electricity generation? And where is fresh water coming from?
These fucking simplistic ass views will be the death of us.
Exactly what I thought: “still too many people”. Considering one house/apartment to one person, there are 100 people. Where did they all came from? Being born. How they were born? Well, for the sake of Lemmy rules I’ll stop here, because what I’m thinking is still a taboo on societal debates.
because what I’m thinking is still a taboo on societal debates.
Yeah, eugenics is gross and you’re wrong that there are too many people for the earth to support
eugenics is gross
First and foremost, I was never talking about eugenics (a thing that would mean “selective breeding”, definitely not the thing I’m defending). It’s about other topics seen “as controversial as it” (although even the visible, blatant climate change is still seen as “controversial” by negationists in an anthropocentric world), which I guess will become clearer at the next paragraphs.
you’re wrong that there are too many people for the earth to support
While indeed Earth physically supports way more humans, don’t forget that humans were never the center of the biosphere: there are trees, algae, jaguars, owls, spiders, ants, bears, bacteria, protozoa, complex and beautiful sea life, and so on. We need to account for every single species, not solely homo sapiens. And that all life on Earth depends on Earth’s resources, mainly water and oxygen.
Unless you’re talking of humble cave people (hominins/hominids) who indeed maintained an harmonic relationship with fauna and flora behaving as all living beings do (collecting out-of-the-wild food and hunting preys to eat and survive) while also keeping a balanced reproduction (i.e. not reinlessly procreating), the “modern humans” can’t be no polluting. It’s the nature of modern humans: modern humans will pollute, whether they live at houses, at apartments or even at “modern caves” (bunkers).
Fire discovery is something to blame for this behavior. There’s always someone who’ll lit some logs and set fire on wildfire so to “expand their lawn”, or there’s always someone who’ll think “huh, I guess my apartment neighbors need money to exchange things, maybe I could become the leader and build a big polluting factory here to employ them while making industrialized things to sell them, because bartering craftsmanship is a primitive thing we can’t accept” (Fun fact: you don’t see birds carrying “money” or “goods” across the skies, for example).
Last but not least, I’m no alien nor a jaguar or a tree, so I’m obviously aware of myself. I’m aware of how polluter I am on Earth being a “modern human”.
If it didn’t become clear, I’m defending for primitive and sustainable ways of life (a return to our hominin origins), ecocentrism (Nature above humans, not humans above Nature), the awareness of how unbridled procreation is dangerous to both the Earth and the humans as well the “right” to live not being a “duty” to live. Again, all “controversial” topics for many people but whatever.
There was an episode of Sliders where Thomas Malthus was a significant person and the global population was kept under 250 million.
It sounded nice, even with the lottery system.
It sounded nice
That’s literally eco-fascism 💀
Not really. If you used money you were put in a lottery to commit suicide and if you were chosen you got a big party to celebrate your sacrifice. The only people who had a problem with it were the Sliders.
ok
We could also all live in cells. Maybe even hook us up to VR so we dont even need to get out into nature. You could maybe even harvest energy, by keeping us in nutrient filled tubs while simulating a perfect world into our neural perception.
If you’d build an apartment tower surrounded by food forest and nice fields everyone would get an amazing view. Better view than from ground level. Make the ceilings high and very good noise insulation and great windows. And it would be cheap because the land could be cheap.
I dont think food forrests are viable solutions. Maybe in very particular places in the world. But globally, commercial food productions will not be replaced by food forrests any time soon
I think there are some trees who are very efficient in creating calories - so maybe with more genetic engineering.
But yeah mostly you’d have smaller fields like potato or wheat or corn between hedgerows, and food forest or orchards for fruits and most of all for a nicer view. The main idea would be that you don’t need to transport food except from the surrounding area to the apartment tower. You’d produce / recycle food, water and energy locally.
The theory is great! But i doubt that modern consumers will accept this. Sadly! We want our bananas, and oranges all year round and they must be as affordable as possible.
We do need change to change things but personally i think that what is driving denaturation is the chase of profit not comfort and ease of life. I am not moving into a 1 room condo and stop eating watermelons so that multi trillion companies can increase their proffit margins and make even more money for people who dont live the same life as the rest of us.
We are already producing too much food and too much land is being used to create food that goes into feeling animals that will become food. Eating less meat will have a larger effect that eating locally grown onions to save on transportation
Well for me Solarpunk is about what would be possible - except for our current global regime preventing it. So yeah it’s fantasy.
I don’t know if the costs work out low enough, but you could build such a lone apartment tower on farmland right now. If you had like a government owned “eco bank” funding this. If the land and construction costs can be kept low enough. It would be really cheap with some advances in premanufactured parts or 3D printing or house building robots. Kite power for very cheap wind energy.
If you could buy in for 50k and get all your living costs, food, energy, water and internet basically for free for the next 20 years, plenty of people would jump at this. And if it’s big enough (500 units?) you could justify having a doctor and a kindergarden and hybrid local / remote school. If we were serious about climate change, everyone could live in luxury with a killer view.
so… I love the dream, but it is a utopia.
First of all, farmland is a diversity graveyard. Just because it is green, does not make it natural or even pretty. I live in a country that uses 61% of its area for farmland and although it makes for a cool Windows background, there is not much life in fields like that. Changing the farmland to food forests could maybe change this, but this leads to the second point
The reason why farmland is accumulated into larger and larger fields is, because it is cheaper and easier to run. Going the other way, diving it up into smaller production and mixing it up, will make everything more expensive, complicated and require a lot more (manual) work to run.
500 units is not even enough to support a local grocery store in current times, let alone a doctor or a school.
That said, i had not realized where this was posted in. It just popped up on my feed, so I guess you are right in that it could be a great setup if it could work.
Yeah I have no idea if or how it could work. Commie blocks used to design local neighborhoods with shops and kindergarden. Maybe it would be that when you have kids your move to a block with a kindergarden and school, then it would make more sense.
Maybe it would be harder to farm but maybe it could also be solved through lighter robotic farm equipment. I once calculated that you only need ~250m² for potatoes to produce enough calories so feeding yourself so it’s theoretically not that difficult. I also hope in the decades to come we can genetically engineer better food plants. Like higher / better quality protein crops.
But my main idea was how to create a view for people that want to “live in nature”. But the hippie ideal for a farmstead is unsustainable with so many people. An apartment block would save a lot on heating, cooling and infrastructure. The proper sci-fi utopia would then be to have underground railway tunnels connect thousands of such apartment blocks in nature. Then much surface area could be rewilded instead of having roads and bridges. But tunnels are rather expensive.
They supplement and decentralise food production, building resiliency into our systems.
my only gripe with apartments is that people are too fucking stupid to sort their garbage and recycling according to the giant fucking posters in the garbage room.
and strata vote manipulation to make idiotic changes that benefit nobody that actually lives there, while never fixing anything that breaks.
I got bad news for you. Recycling and Trash go to the same landfill. But your point about needing better education and parents who are qualified to raise children into adults is valid.
Speak for yourself, this is not universally applicable.
Sure bro whatever fairy tales you want to believe. I didn’t believe it until I saw with my own eyes.
Sweden sends less than 1% of waste to landfills, this is well documented. No fairy tales.
Again, not universally applicable, I’m sure other countries are a lot worse in this regard.
it’s fucking wild how difficult of a concept trash incinerators seems to be for people to grasp, or the idea of melting glass and metal back down into new products.
How about we agree that the majority the world’s recycling is not recycled? I’m trying my hardest not to be a prick to you, you tall blue eyed, fishy breath, boozer.
Fires (i live in london)
*slaps cheap cladding
“This cladding can burn and kill so many people so well”
(Genuinely though, Grenfell was ridiculously tragic, and its disgusting how making decisions to cut costs and be cheap cost lives, I mean in no way to be mocking that. I’m sorry for any losses you may have incurred in such a tragedy yourself.)
concrete is a magical material
Either way is fine as long as I still get a house.
