• aberrate_junior_beatnik (he/him)@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • ChilledPeppers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Kaboom@reddthat.comBanned
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the difference between America and Western Europe. Western Europe is already mostly built up, they don’t have room. America does.

    • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ll go with 99 apartments and one house on the other side so I can be as far from them as possible.

  • iconic_admin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • Kaboom@reddthat.comBanned
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    What makes you think it would be just one apartment building instead of filling the island with apartment buildings?

  • dubious@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    the simplest solution is to stop having so many babies. population reduction is critical to quality of life.

  • Bosht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Logic here is broken because we don’t make these decisions anyway. A developer will instead put 30 apartment buildings while chopping down anything that gets in the way, then charge more for rent than you’d be charged for the mortgage on the house. There’s also the fact that this picture assumes every family on the left pic doesn’t give a fuck about free scaping, preserving trees, or planting new ones? Idk, whole thing is jacked.

  • Kiwi_fella@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You see one apartment building. A property developer sees room for 100 apartment buildings.

  • Linktank@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Now imagine apartment buildings taking up 100% of the island and that’s what you get under the current system.