1217
[meme] How would you rather see this land developed? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
793 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

I suppose since my country is very low population but very large I don't really see the problem. Everyone could have a house here and we'd still have plenty of room to space.

Sweden has a population of 10.5 million, ish, and an area of 447k square kilometres. Germany by contrast, has a population of around 80 million, and an area of 357k square kliometres.

That said, I believe low density can work just fine. You don't need highrises to improve population storage efficiency. Simple two-three story buildings work just fine too.

You could also lower the population, something modern society is managing just fine right now anyway. I personally really don't believe overpopulation is going to be a significant problem in the long run.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Everyone could have a house here and we’d still have plenty of room to space.

    You may not run out of wildlands, but if everyone is in large enough houses, it becomes difficult to get to the wildlands (or anywhere else you need to go) without using a car. For various reasons, !fuckcars@lemmy.world, is against designing cities around cars.

    That said, I believe low density can work just fine. You don’t need highrises to improve population storage efficiency. Simple two-three story buildings work just fine too

    I agree. The problem comes when you have large houses with big yards. If you instead have rowhouses, you have plenty of density to avoid car dependency (if the city is designed properly).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent