Density and deforestation (Atlanta, North Atlanta, Buckhead: apartment complex, houses, neighborhood)

[ATLTJL]

Just as chance would have it, on the anniversary of 9/11 I was watching videos of One World Trade Center since last time I was in NYC it wasn't quite finished yet.

They have a neat little video on the elevator ride up that sort of shows I guess an imagined version of how New York developed.

As I watched it, a through struck me: Is this really what we want?

For the urban advocates, NYC is kind of the gold standard. I like NYC as much as the next guy, but let's be honest. They turned it into a concrete jungle where the only bits of nature are contained in planters or within the city's parks. Mostly Central Park, but of course there are much smaller beautiful parks in the city as well. I was once in New York for three days where I didn't see a single tree because I didn't go to a park or walk down any of the streets that have planters. By the end of it, I was beat.

Anyway, it just made me think, the price of density is destruction of nature. I don't mean a little here and there, but I mean if you want a city like New York, what you're going to get is a concrete jungle like New York. Because even around the city, there's a ton of concrete to support the infrastructure of the city.

As we grow, grow and grow, a good question to ask might be if this is what we really want. I guess most cities these days are growing smarter than NYC did, but I hope we can be good stewards of the land.

That's all!

[AnsleyPark]

Amen.

[cqholt]

This concern was addressed with the Atlanta City Design
https://www.atlcitydesign.com/acd_book.html page 244

[jsvh]

Density means less deforestation.

People don't just disappear because something doesn't get built. Urban density uses far less land / forest per person than suburban sprawl. So if we force people to sprawl out it results in more deforestation.


I recommend one of the classes if you want to learn more: https://www.georgiaconservancy.org/goodurbanism/

[Soccernerd]

New York only developed to be as dense as it is because of demand. 8 million people live in its city limits. It has the highest concentration of Fortune 500 companies in the country. All of this will create demand for density. Atlanta just doesn’t have the demand, and even if it did, people in North Atlanta and Buckhead wouldn’t want their mansions turned into high-rises.

Although it sucks (imo) living in such a dense city as New York or Chicago, it’s less of an impact on the entire than if everyone lived in single-family homes and worked at suburban, corporate campuses.

[bu2]

Almost nobody wants NYC. There's NYC, Dubai, Singapore and a few others. The European cities are not built up like that.

[back2atl]

I have a gut feeling that being away from our natural environment fundamentally clashes with how humans are wired. Hence so many being resistant to hard core urbanism.

People just tend to be happier around plants, trees and bodies of water.

[samiwas1]

No, we don't want that. Who in their right mind wants a city of concrete? It's soul-crushing. But, you can build density and keep some trees and bodies of water around. You just have to be smart about how you do it. Using NYC as an example should be a non-starter. We don't need 25,000 people per square mile. Let's say we shot for 15,000 per square mile in the core (no one outside the core cares about density and urban fabric).

A huge apartment complex like this one on Huff takes up about 250,000 square feet of land, and likely houses at least 400 people and parking. 250,000 square feet is less than 0.1% of a square mile. To get 15,000 per square mile, you'd need 38 of those complexes. That means that each complex could have 730,000 square feet of land. That leaves plenty of space for streams, lakes, trees, roads, trails, some extra SHF, etc.

Screw the concrete. high-density jungle.

[jsvh]

I think many of you miss that density means more forest green space and often more time spent in nature.

I'd bet the Atlantan's living in dense midtown spend more time out enjoying than those in the soul-crushing suburban car commutes.




Screw the low-density suburban deforestation.

Save some trees and bring on the density. At the very least people deserve a choice on their lifestyle and we got to stop the arbitrary rules limiting density.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Screw the low-density suburban deforestation.

Well, this is just straight-up false. Look at this low-density suburban treeless neighborhood!! And this one! And this one!

I mean, come on! Support urban density all you want, but at least be remotely factually accurate. Most suburbia is most certainly not deforested. And outside of parks, most high-desntiy areas are fairly treeless, or have just small street trees. I get your point about it being more concentrated, but stop pretending that urban areas are more tree-filled than suburbia...it's just plain not true.