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.
So um, why are the houses and nature mutually exclusive? I live in a suburban detached single family home, and my whole neighborhood is filled with trees, wildlife and even a tree lined creek that separates the back yards on my street from the back yards on the opposite side. You can't even see my actual yard from google maps because it's nearly entirely covered by tree canopy (at 6pm in summer my yard is 100% shaded). We have all sorts of wildlife including deer, foxes, owls, frogs, mallards, rabbits, squirrels, etc.
While I agree that we do need more housing options of all sorts, I don't for a second agree that nature and suburban housing are mutually exclusive. We just need to stop tearing down all the trees when we build, and plan better.
What about something like that ?
8 houses in a row, built using a wood structure and straw bale wall for insulation (thermal AND phonic insulation) and clay plaster. So the construction material is storing CO2 rather than emitting tons of CO2 like concrete does.
It collects rainwater for the garden and has enough solar panels for the community and to contribute to the electrical consumption of the village around it.
It leaves a lot of space for land to develop a food forest, permaculture projects and leave space for biodiversity.
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.
What not many people are touching on:
In 2, the owner of the building likely owns the rest of the land as well as the apartment. You are a slave to the owner as he owns the island and your "beautiful view" will either be absolutely not developed at all so it is difficult to use as a park or a source of food without explicit consent from your ruler. No community gardens without tons of power tripping and infighting of course either.
In 2, the owner of the apartment and land can and will bulldoze the entire forest and completely pave it over if there is the slightest hint that he can make more money that way, then jack up your rent for the privelage of living in a hellhole. Conservation of nature my ass. The building owner has a 99% chance about not giving a shit about conserving the rest. They will turn it into monoculture or cattle farming or a parking lot and stores. This post is literally landlord propaganda.
Edit: owns the apartment building, not apartment.
You see one apartment building. A property developer sees room for 100 apartment buildings.
I just moved from an apartment to a house.
If the apartment had the same floor space and the city actually accommodated my hobbies (I need a large garage to work on cars and finish fixing a boat) then I would’ve gladly stayed.
However. Apartments above 60m² are rare and expensive, and all garages/industrial sites are unfavorable because you can put another bloc or supermarket in there. The cities became living hubs for corporate workers whose entire lives can be crammed into a 40 meter apartment and their only entertainment is a depression rectangle or a gaming console.
If the apartments are no shoe boxes and have lavishly big (garden) balconies I'm all in. The space should be around 100-120 qm each with flexible drywall placement for individual footprints.
I love living in a walkable city but I envy a friend of mine a little bit, who exits his apartment into a market center with cafes, shops, supermarkets, barber, doctors etc.
Because FUCK living that close to other people. Humans fucking suck to be close to and I'd go fucking postal having to deal with that shit.
I hate my neighbors as it is and barely see them. If I could hear their shithead kids screaming and throwing themselves into the walls I'd burn down a city block.
A lot of people in this thread are mistaking the map for the territory. Like yes, obviously neither the development on the right, or the left would actually happen in real life, because why are these people even on the island? What do they eat? What do they drink? Where do they work? The sole statement of the graphic is that dense developments have a reduced impact on nature compared to sparse developments. Discussing the logistics would exceed what can be conveyed by such a format.
Counterpoint: they didn't need to clear all the trees, or at the very least, they could have replaced them with more native trees once they were done building. I'm not gonna pretend that houses don't cause a ton of environmental destruction, but imo they really don't have to continue to be destructive long-term; they do it because people usually go with the lowest bidder.
There is so much possible between these. Both options suck.
Different families have different needs.
We all know that soon enough, the center of the island will be filled with cheap appartement blocks, and all the beaches and access to water will be owned by rich people with huge houses.
so many people in comments need fucking therapy. idolizing atomization and misanthropy and then wondering why the world has gone to shit. "fuck other people and their children" Andys wondering how fascism is on the rise and why people do mass shootings. it's you. the only difference is you haven't pulled the trigger yet. get help.
my only gripe with apartments is that people are too fucking stupid to sort their garbage and recycling according to the giant fucking posters in the garbage room.
and strata vote manipulation to make idiotic changes that benefit nobody that actually lives there, while never fixing anything that breaks.
This thread is an object lesson in why the whole world hates Americans.
For those complaining about noise in apartments: in my experience apartment dwellers are quite considerate and when living in an apartment I never had any major noise problems.
Now that I live in a single home let me tell you about the noise of neighbours mowing their lawns, constant noisy renovations etc. and in general a lot more car noise.
Quite honestly, it was more quiet in the apartments that I lived before.
Edit: and besides, I think people are confusing apartments with the real cause: housing areas with low socio-economic status tend to be more noisy. Correlation is not causation and all that...
Density zoning is the source of the housing crisis.
People think it's market forces that have created the housing crisis, but it is exactly the opposite: government ha been artificially restricting supply for decades.
There are so many places where 100 units is a more profitable use of land than 10 units, but it's prevented by density zoning.
When we lived in an apartment someone set off the fire alarm several times a week, sometimes at 3am which is a shitty way and time to awaken. Never want to live in one again
As long as I can live in a hollow under a tree far away from the apartment building, okay.
But if not then I’ll just walk into the ocean because that’s still too damn many people.
Really good framing of it
Take a look at the UK on Google Maps.
Pretty green, right? Plenty of space to expand those towns and cities.
Zoom in. It's pretty much all farmland. There's precious little nature in that.
Density isn't going to save nature. Having fewer people and sustainable farming will save nature. Density is useful for having things like efficient public transport, and reducing the need to have a car. It also localises noise, and I feel we don't value quiet enough.
The picture on the left could be even worse. There are areas where people move in and tear all the greenery out of the garden and then either cover everything with paving stones or gravel. Everything around the house! Then there's also an ugly metal fence or plastic elements in the garden, sometimes you can see fake plants.
Some humans are so stupid...
Either way is fine as long as I still get a house.
What nature? I have to drive 2 hours to see nature. Bring on the houses.
Can we get a version with all treehouses?
We've been dead set on getting something fully detached since living in an apartment style condo. There's 0 enforcement of the little bit of laws we have as soon as it's an apartment building. The city is 100% hands off for anything not detached. None of the laws on the books are focused on or designed with any kind of density in mind.
The condo boards are HOA's on steroids. The rulers of these little fiefdoms don't just fuss at your lawn and paint. They decide if/when the roof will be looked at, if they should bother to top up the emergency fund as much as suggested, etc. It's insane. As much as we prefer the low impact of high density, it's just not livable.
Family have tried finding apartment buildings (condo or rent) but have given up. All of them are studio, 1, or 2 bedrooms. Max seems to be ~900 sqft, which would be fine if they were square. Unfortunately they all seem to be very long and narrow. The 900sqft also includes balconies, storage spaces, and parking spots here. It's not great.
Every apartment style condo in this city also has serious building issues. The city just signs and doesn't inspect. The builders (major builder #451) just disappear after each build as they "go under" and the major builder they were "part of " are not considered liable since it was a subsidiary. Regulations were put in place to prevent this with detached builds but they don't cover condos.
Until regulations make them livable I doubt we'll see a serious adoption of them for a while here.
It's impossible to not hear your neighbours in an apartment. There are ways to reduce that, but almost no apartment is built like that. Not to mention that often you want to open windows for fresh air and get to breathe in smoke from cigarettes. It's a different kind of hell to live in one. I agree that it looks nicer from outside. There can even be parks nearby. But never venture there after dark, because you'll get your vallet stolen. Due to that every street must be light up during the night, and now you can't see the stars...
Anyhow. People fucking suck
Put a few more towers there for double or triple the housing and we’re in business.
The landlord would sure prefer option 2.
The meth head neighbor fighting with the scary guy who is always mean mugging people, the shoddy repairs and maintenance done to the lowest standards, the ever increasing rent even though the building is paid off…
We have plenty of space, we just need an economy that allows people to afford a single family home. A sfh can be built with nature in mind… the earth has plenty of room for 10 billion people.
Of course, the question was posed as a distraction. By asking how the people should develop the island, an important point was skipped, namely, what would they eat, what would they drink? Historians would later refer to this island as 'cannibal island'.
While I'm all for this, the problem I see with high-density buildings is that it's easy to put them up, but it's hard to then build the services that this many people need. You can put an apartment block with hundreds of new residents, sure, but where are the doctors, the schools, the hospitals, the public transport routes, etc?
All very solvable problems, but one that high-density living often fails to cater for, because some rich developer cunt is happy to throw a high rise up and forget the rest.
Now, do the houses in the same density. I'm talking, wall-to-wall, stacked on top of one another in a brick filled with shingles, confusion, and misery, thanks to the lack of any connecting hallways, stairwells, or elevators. /j
Unironically houses. If you go for the apartment, The remaining land will still be filled up, just with apartments instead of houses, and you'll have to deal with 50x more people then you would have with house model.
One of the main benefits of using houses instead of apartments is avoiding population density.
Everyone's gonna starve
