'We can no longer build what people can afford' (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 3 months ago by Worstdriver@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca

84 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 months ago

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.