[Vision2020] Housing Density, et al. (was: Climate Protection)

[Kenneth Marcy]

On Monday 07 August 2006 11:40 am, Craine Kit wrote:

> Which is better for the overall environment:
>
> 1)  having small houses sit in large yards that are filled with
> vegatation (e.g. the older areas of Moscow)
>
> OR
>
> 2)  large apartment buildings on small lots, which are paved over and
> have "landscaping" that consists primarily of bark chips and/or river
> rock (e.g. recent construction)?

The answer needs more facets to be considered. For example, where is the 
property located? To what use(s) is(are) the property to be put? How many 
people will be involved with this property use(s)? What will be the aggregate 
pattern of those peoples' activities traveling to and from this property and 
its use(s)? Is a particular property, or are group of properties together, to 
be devoted to one use, or is a variety of uses proposed for a single or a 
contiguous group of properties? And so on . . .

To return to your example, when considering housing growth related to 
increased University enrollment, one or more multiple-use, high-rise 
buildings adjacent to (or on an expanded) campus would be preferable to 
various sprawls of apartments two or three or four miles from campus. Yes, a 
new complex of "Towers" might be "paved and barked," but if it saved several 
hundred vehicle trips per day, the net environmental impact may be positive 
relative to commuting from and to apartment sprawl.

If the local economic demand for housing is more related to students here for 
a half-decade rather than to residents here for a quarter century, then the 
environment is benefited by planning for construction that more precisely 
meets this specific as well as the other demands rather than building many 
units of a few generic types.


Ken Marcy