What a disingenuous rhetoric. Degrowth is centered on meeting people’s needs. No one needs a house. Everyone needs a home. Not everyone needs a home in Vancouver.
One central tenet of degrowth is accepting that nearly everything, at some point, will have to stop growing. This includes Vancouver, and a reasonable person could conclude that this headline is an econonic signal that now is probably the time.
Until absolute population declines,
It’s a big country, medium density development in other areas can accomodate everyone more cost effectively than more unaffordable skytowers in earthquake vulnerable Vancouver.
Okay, sure. If you mean townhouses or something, lower density by urban standards, mid density when you consider the countryside exists too. I really, really don’t see how the sustainability of anything benefits from that. You need more roads, more cars, more land and more building materials to house the same number.
If you just mean building the same kind of apartments somewhere else, like in Kamloops or something, you haven’t actually changed anything except more roads and traffic again, because everyone is further from everyone else.
Mid density is mid density. No need to confuse thinking by averaging rural into the equation. We could average out across the universe and be at effective zero home per km2. It’s a ridiculous argument, so why bother.
By mid density, I like most urban planners include everything from townhouse and multiplexes all the way up to low rise appt buildings under 5 stories. It’s dense enough to enable urban transit and walkable neighbourhoods but efficient enough to not need elevators and supplementary water pumps to get water up to the top floor.
High rises have nice views when another one isn’t in front of you, but man is it crippled when the power goes out.
They’re also usually cheaper per unit than lowrises, where they’re built. The location is just great, and the savings on transport adds up to more than building upwards costs, which is why it’s economical for residents to buy them, even when there’s no view. (Once you looks at supertall and maybe superthin buildings that changes, though)
If disaster resilience is your concern, that’s fair, although it’s not really a degrowth thing.
What a disingenuous rhetoric. Degrowth is centered on meeting people’s needs. No one needs a house. Everyone needs a home. Not everyone needs a home in Vancouver.
One central tenet of degrowth is accepting that nearly everything, at some point, will have to stop growing. This includes Vancouver, and a reasonable person could conclude that this headline is an econonic signal that now is probably the time.
Until absolute population declines, It’s a big country, medium density development in other areas can accomodate everyone more cost effectively than more unaffordable skytowers in earthquake vulnerable Vancouver.
So you’re thinking everyone in low-density suburbs would be better for the climate? (Degrowth is usually a climate thing)
Are you misconstruing my comments on purpose? I said mid density. Also degrowth is not just a climate thing, it’s a sustainable everything thing.
Okay, sure. If you mean townhouses or something, lower density by urban standards, mid density when you consider the countryside exists too. I really, really don’t see how the sustainability of anything benefits from that. You need more roads, more cars, more land and more building materials to house the same number.
If you just mean building the same kind of apartments somewhere else, like in Kamloops or something, you haven’t actually changed anything except more roads and traffic again, because everyone is further from everyone else.
Mid density is mid density. No need to confuse thinking by averaging rural into the equation. We could average out across the universe and be at effective zero home per km2. It’s a ridiculous argument, so why bother.
By mid density, I like most urban planners include everything from townhouse and multiplexes all the way up to low rise appt buildings under 5 stories. It’s dense enough to enable urban transit and walkable neighbourhoods but efficient enough to not need elevators and supplementary water pumps to get water up to the top floor.
High rises have nice views when another one isn’t in front of you, but man is it crippled when the power goes out.
They’re also usually cheaper per unit than lowrises, where they’re built. The location is just great, and the savings on transport adds up to more than building upwards costs, which is why it’s economical for residents to buy them, even when there’s no view. (Once you looks at supertall and maybe superthin buildings that changes, though)
If disaster resilience is your concern, that’s fair, although it’s not really a degrowth thing.