sewer lines under each row of houses, joining at the roads, and then emptying into a single pipe that goes into the sea. Lines are low load and low pressure so can get stuck easily depending on weather.
most homeowners get in their vehicles and drive to the store depending on distance to the store
3 homeowners might grow vegetables. Maybe.
100 apartments:
single sewer line, high load and high pressure, waste can travel further into the sea
grocery store on the ground floor of block, next to the kebab shop, apartment owners can take the lift or the stairs.
What are you talking about. It’s an island. Where are the animals for the kebabs? Where are the “groceries” coming from? How much power does it take for the “single” sewer line? Who said the houses would have a sewer line and not septic tanks? What roads? I’m not arguing for the thing on the left, I’m saying there’s a reason why we have been building villages in village shapes and not in apartment shapes.
I’m equally confused. The initial example takes only land use into account, but you expanded the example with food availability (trade ships exist, but whatever let’s assume it’s an island in a vacuum…), and when that wasn’t enough you expanded it once more to farming animal rearing. So let’s stick with that.
Are you advocating that houses would be better for farming and animal rearing given the lesser land availability?
In the apartment example, would it be inconceivable for the much greater surrounding land to be co-opted for farming and animals?
Who said the houses would have a sewer line and not septic tanks?
If we’re talking about an island in a vacuum, then that septic tank would need to be routinely emptied somewhere… which, surprise, means dumping it into the sea.
I’m saying there’s a reason why we have been building villages in village shapes and not in apartment shapes.
Because land in villages is typically owned by several different families who are unwilling to share it. If land boundaries were not a thing, chances are that villages would be highly centralised.
but you expanded the example with food availability
No, the example is always about “moving the problem elsewhere” which is the essence of colonialism, so when coming up with a neat solution, one must always ask “is there a problem I’m moving elsewhere?”. The food needs to be grown somewhere. The land is effectively in permanent use by your stomach. You can’t pretend it doesn’t exist just because it’s somewhere else.
Are you advocating that houses would be better for farming and animal rearing given the lesser land availability?
I’m saying apartments do not solve a problem here. Villages have collections of small houses and then some farms. Some of those houses are a bit further out, and some are in a cluster. That’s required because of the different job roles of the individuals in that society. Perhaps we should design with respect to those different job roles and optimise for internalities, bringing our lifestyle in line with our usage.
that septic tank would need to be routinely emptied somewhere
You can use it in biofuels and treat it with nature, then turn it into fertiliser. It is a resource. See how that internalises the usage? You are taking the big loops of “I need big government to solve this problem” into a “my community or family can solve this problem?”
would it be inconceivable for the much greater surrounding land to be co-opted for farming and animals?
That’s not how it works. It ends up being a wash due to just how much land is used for farming vs just living. I’m not arguing for McMansions here. I’m arguing for single storied, sometimes detached housing in a “community configuration”. Shared gardens and farms, and a mix of earthships and townhouse style developments. Keep the sustainable “loops” small.
Because land in villages is typically owned by several different families who are unwilling to share it
Even pre-capitalist and non-capitalist communities have a village like structure. Even nomadic tribes have a village like structure. They know how to share. We don’t need multiple stories.
Overall, the problem with advocating for higher density is often a statement of denial, similar to the “zero waste” people. Pretending that you are only using the space you sleep in and discounting all the space you use for food, and treating your problems as “waste” which is just thrown away and forgotten or left to some big government to deal with. This is the opposite of Solarpunk.
100 houses:
100 apartments:
What are you talking about. It’s an island. Where are the animals for the kebabs? Where are the “groceries” coming from? How much power does it take for the “single” sewer line? Who said the houses would have a sewer line and not septic tanks? What roads? I’m not arguing for the thing on the left, I’m saying there’s a reason why we have been building villages in village shapes and not in apartment shapes.
I’m equally confused. The initial example takes only land use into account, but you expanded the example with food availability (trade ships exist, but whatever let’s assume it’s an island in a vacuum…), and when that wasn’t enough you expanded it once more to farming animal rearing. So let’s stick with that.
Are you advocating that houses would be better for farming and animal rearing given the lesser land availability?
In the apartment example, would it be inconceivable for the much greater surrounding land to be co-opted for farming and animals?
If we’re talking about an island in a vacuum, then that septic tank would need to be routinely emptied somewhere… which, surprise, means dumping it into the sea.
Because land in villages is typically owned by several different families who are unwilling to share it. If land boundaries were not a thing, chances are that villages would be highly centralised.
No, the example is always about “moving the problem elsewhere” which is the essence of colonialism, so when coming up with a neat solution, one must always ask “is there a problem I’m moving elsewhere?”. The food needs to be grown somewhere. The land is effectively in permanent use by your stomach. You can’t pretend it doesn’t exist just because it’s somewhere else.
I’m saying apartments do not solve a problem here. Villages have collections of small houses and then some farms. Some of those houses are a bit further out, and some are in a cluster. That’s required because of the different job roles of the individuals in that society. Perhaps we should design with respect to those different job roles and optimise for internalities, bringing our lifestyle in line with our usage.
You can use it in biofuels and treat it with nature, then turn it into fertiliser. It is a resource. See how that internalises the usage? You are taking the big loops of “I need big government to solve this problem” into a “my community or family can solve this problem?”
That’s not how it works. It ends up being a wash due to just how much land is used for farming vs just living. I’m not arguing for McMansions here. I’m arguing for single storied, sometimes detached housing in a “community configuration”. Shared gardens and farms, and a mix of earthships and townhouse style developments. Keep the sustainable “loops” small.
Even pre-capitalist and non-capitalist communities have a village like structure. Even nomadic tribes have a village like structure. They know how to share. We don’t need multiple stories.
Overall, the problem with advocating for higher density is often a statement of denial, similar to the “zero waste” people. Pretending that you are only using the space you sleep in and discounting all the space you use for food, and treating your problems as “waste” which is just thrown away and forgotten or left to some big government to deal with. This is the opposite of Solarpunk.