• skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    What is going on in this comments section? Building dense is massively better for the environment than SFH, both in the construction phase and for the life of the units as far more residents can be served with less infrastructure sprawl. It also doesn’t mean that detached housing will suddenly stop existing if we let developers build densely packed housing. Doesn’t even need to be high rises, it can be townhomes, duplexes, five-over-ones, etc. You’ll still be able to get a white picket fence suburban home or a farmhouse on some acreage if you want. In fact, it will become cheaper because all the people who want to live in cities will actually be able to move there and not take up space in that low density area you want to live in.

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      People want to live in SFH’s. I just noticed this post from the all feed but it’s not that surprising that people who enjoy living in privacy with space would prefer the status quo and then say as much.

      If I had the money to afford a downtown apartment that was large enough for my 5 member family, I would. I don’t want to live in an apartment complex with nothing to do in the suburbs.

      • skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        People want to live in SFHs because cities are currently full of overpriced shoebox apartments with almost no options between that and car dependent suburban sprawl. It’s not for me personally, but townhomes and other mid density developments are perfect for most families and far easier to serve with public transport (see: streetcar suburbs). You can still mix in detached single family housing in urban areas where demand is low enough to make the financials work too.