• gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.