844
submitted 3 days ago by TehBamski@lemmy.world to c/memes@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 88 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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.

[-] BussyCat@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

There is approximately 15.77B acres of livable land and there are 8.2B people so if each person had just 1/4 acre that would be 13% vs if you gave each person 2000 sqft it would only be 2%. Then you need to factor in how to built transit for low density and how many more stores you need due to the lower density and you can see that it would be much better for the environment if we had higher density

load more comments (8 replies)
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
844 points (91.6% liked)

solarpunk memes

2594 readers
278 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS