You're viewing a single thread.
"Urban sprawl" is an oxymoron. Dense urban areas are good, actually; it's only the suburbs that sprawl.
It should be called suburban sprawl
Agreed. Suburban sprawl I meant
It should be called the place with trees and loosely densely population that would be okay if cars weren't so ubiquitous because some people like space but let's make sure not to exclude minorities so people don't end up racist.
This is not true? Lots of urban areas can sprawl, not least because of car centric planning (big car parks between islands of actual land use; roads built to ease the traffic of roads; urban 'islands' of tall and dense occupation connected by road with slivers of green in-between that don't serve to actually offer a natural environment. Kuala Lumpur features all of these, for example) but also as economic centres decline and become disused and new developments in other areas spread.
Especially they sprawl when the developers are allowed to do as they please. They want the most profitable option, which is barren and opposed to what people and local government usually want
Nah. Sprawl is real, I live in one of the worst offenders
I know sprawl is real. I'm saying it isn't "urban."
Semantics.
Not really.
Tokyo
Tokyo (mostly) isn't sprawl; that's just how much space 40 million people take up.
That's still urban sprawl though. It doesn't need to be inefficient, it just needs to be constantly expanding.
That is still better than the alternative of suburbs. Could it be better designed or something. Idk, maybe.
The urban area is 80 miles across
Where do you suggest all the people go?
Are you really anti urban or are you anti people?
I'm anti so many people that you need a dense urban area 80 miles across to fit them all *edit on looking it up it's not all that dense, it's just a big sprawling city
What do you suppose we do, kill them?
Implement proper demography and population growth schemes so that you don't end up with so many people in the first place, manage your population distribution on a national level so as not to overwhelm the natural resources of any one area, build walkable communities with a variety of density to suit peoples differing needs
So you propose a population control scheme where people won't be allowed to have children unless allowed by the government or some kind of max cap of children per parent?
The government should also relocate people or forbidd them to have children unless they move?
Isn't it honestly best to have very dense areas so that the real natural resources (which I assume you mean trees and shit) are untouched.
I don't see what walkable communities have anything to do with this. Dense urban areas are usually the most walkable areas.
Most cities if not all cities aren't equally dense everywhere so we can check that.
-
One-child policies have been sucessful in China and India, disincentivising large families doesn't need to include banning people from having kids
-
No, the government should encourage busineses to disperse throughout the country and build affordable housing in multiple smaller cities
-
Again, no. Nature can only cope with a certain amount of foot traffic, the natural areas surrounding a city will survive better with fewer people
-
Tokyo is over 80 miles across. It takes over an hour to drive from one side to the other on the motorway It also isn't particularly dense; it has a lower population density than London or Madrid. It's just big.
Going back to the original post, compare the Shire to Mordor. If you had as many hobbits as you had orcs they wouldn't all fit in the shire (without building highrises). Their low density village centric way of life only works because there aren't very many of them.
-