• MonkRome@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    2 days ago

    Most people suggesting we should densify are targeting suburbs, not rural areas. Suburbs are incredibly expensive and environmentally wasteful per square inch. They have all the utility of a city but spread out with more asphalt, cement, power, sewer, water, gas, cheap inefficient homes that leach heat/ac at an alarming rate, etc.

    In rural areas the infrastructure isn’t always as expensive because some residents have their own septic and well, live on a dirt road, heat with a wood furnace, etc. A few of those things are also more renewable. Additionally, rural areas are still required for our way of living (farming, logging, mining, fishing), while suburbs have negative societal value (they take more than they put back into the system).

    • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      I suspect the suburb issue is one of car centric US suburbs where you can’t even get out of it without a car, rather than somewhere like the UK, where I effectively live in what is now a suburb of a larger city (if I drove there, it’s about ten miles, through an entirely built up area), but that “suburb” is also a town that’s been here since medieval times with it’s own shops and workplaces and facilities.

      Seems to me the issue is less about low density suburbs, and more about the fact that there’s nothing there apart from rows and rows of identikit housing.

      • MonkRome@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        Absolutely, North America has a special level of stupidity. To clarify yes, the suburbs in the US mostly don’t even have a real town center, many are just residential, malls, and big box stores. The average property size and spread is also often much less dense than nearly any suburb in the UK. So the infrastructure and environmental cost is much much higher.