you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

according to this map

approximately 1% of all habitable land on earth is used for housing and any kind of transport (streets, tracks) while 50% is used for agriculture.

the amount of land we use for housing is absolutely negligible. if you tear down all suburbs, you barely save any land area. it's just not worth it.

though suburbs still suck, but for different reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Its less about how much land is being used and more about the accessibility of that land. By suburbia being spread out so much, transportation becomes more difficult to implement. Many suburbs are so far away from a simple groccery store that walking there is unreasonable at best. Being so spread out also means we need to spend more resources to provide services. Thats more miles of roadways, water pipes and electrical lines that need to be installed and maintained.

    There are other important things to consider too besides just total land area like wildlife corridors, stormwater management, and access to nature as an amenity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • yeah i know, i was just pointing out that

    We should knock down the suburbs and use that land for sustainable energy generation, food production, or let it re-wild to support conservation efforts!

    is not a meaningful argument because the amount of food you could produce instead of the suburbs is negligible. But also yeah, suburbs suck for lots of reasons, as you said.

  • source
  • parent