• SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    You’re probably not going to save 95% of the trees given the major earthworks likely needed for managing sewage, stormwater, and other utilities. You’ll probably save most of them, though.

    40k looks pretty optimistic for the size and number of buildings, too.

    • Sergio@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      18 hours ago

      probably not going to save 95% of the trees

      I was wondering that too… maybe they meant: plant new trees, and the total number of new trees would be 95% of the number of old trees?

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        17 hours ago

        I’m guessing they’re just not aware of construction impacts on trees. It’s not something most people think about.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          I supposed they meant “And this amount of space is still available for greenery” rather than “These, specific, trees will be preserved”

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I don’t know if it’s the same in USA but with all these new regulations building houses these days is an environmental disaster

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      Depends how many floors they have but yeah, that would be quite high density at 60k/km²