• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 year ago

    In this case, the communal space is a forest far from housing. You can avoid people by walking alone through the forest.

    I think that’s a better experience than walking around your backyard

    • Dojan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I suppose since my country is very low population but very large I don’t really see the problem. Everyone could have a house here and we’d still have plenty of room to space.

      Sweden has a population of 10.5 million, ish, and an area of 447k square kilometres. Germany by contrast, has a population of around 80 million, and an area of 357k square kliometres.

      That said, I believe low density can work just fine. You don’t need highrises to improve population storage efficiency. Simple two-three story buildings work just fine too.

      You could also lower the population, something modern society is managing just fine right now anyway. I personally really don’t believe overpopulation is going to be a significant problem in the long run.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Everyone could have a house here and we’d still have plenty of room to space.

        You may not run out of wildlands, but if everyone is in large enough houses, it becomes difficult to get to the wildlands (or anywhere else you need to go) without using a car. For various reasons, [email protected], is against designing cities around cars.

        That said, I believe low density can work just fine. You don’t need highrises to improve population storage efficiency. Simple two-three story buildings work just fine too

        I agree. The problem comes when you have large houses with big yards. If you instead have rowhouses, you have plenty of density to avoid car dependency (if the city is designed properly).