Comment on Well done, all of you!

<- View Parent
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

The urban core generates tons of revenue for the city,

The urban core is consuming the resources produced in the rural surroundings. Again, two acres of agricultural land per urban dweller. The population density of land used by/for humans is 320 per square mile.

and then the suburbs spend it all.

Agreed, the suburbs are terrible. More specifically, lawns are terrible. Replacing all those lawns with gardens and orchards would completely reverse that problem..

But again: every 320 people need a square mile of agricultural land, regardless of how densely you decide to pack those people. There is no replacement for that land area. Whether we cram ourselves in high-rise apartment buildings, or spread ourselves out among our crops, we’re using two acres of ag land per person.

We still need the rural roads, the rural water. Vegetation needs irrigation. We still need rural wires to convey solar and wind power from those agricultural areas back to the grid at large. Internet Cabling is a little less important: lower rural population density means substantially less interference for wireless.

The answer that Strong Towns keeps finding is to invest more money in medium density mixed use neighbourhoods. … And I think you deserve to live somewhere like that.

Please don’t wish that on me. That sounds like the worst of all worlds. None of the benefits of rurality; none of the benefits of urbanity. Not dense enough to actually justify public transit, but still packed in like sardines. Needing to leave home and go into the city for any sort of entertainment. Needing transportation, because you don’t have enough room to simply be comfortable where you live.

It seems that “Strong Towns” is primarily interested in maximizing tax revenue. That is not an objective I find particularly appealing.

source
Sort:hotnewtop