Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023
Housing doesn’t take up more land because there is more space between it (especially in these really wooded Northeastern semi-rural areas, where people commonly have deer wandering through their property).
|
If an area has one-acre lots instead of 1/16th acre lots, it will by definition fit only 1/16th the number of households. Thus the demand for housing has to go somewhere else - which often means the exurban fringes.
It can be argue that it's a nice amenity for those who live in large lot wooded suburbia to have the pastoral setting. But this benefits a tiny percentage of the metro as a whole, and it was only maintained by instituting extreme anti-density zoning in the first place. It's not optimal for a metropolitan area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023
And very clearly, suburban density creates traffic congestion, which means you don’t spend less time in the car, use less gas or release less emissions, but rather more of all of the above.
|
This is a valid point - density does cause more traffic. It's harder to say however if it causes longer commutes. A more sprawled metro, with lower-density suburbs, should have less traffic overall, but the individual drivers will have to drive many more miles for things like work and shopping. Hence it might be a zero-sum exchange when it comes to commute times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc
Connecticut? Don't kid yourself.A good deal of New England in all if its 18th century glory is far from walk able. Sure, they have train stations and town centers but in very limited spaces otherwise they are not very walk-able at all.
|
For whatever reason, my home state suffered very, very badly during the urban renewal area compared to say Massachusetts, with most of the traditional downtown areas chopped up to hell, or in some cases completely obliterated.