B. Carfree

Most all of the air quality issues in urban environments stem from excessive use of motor vehicles. Unfortunately, the most clogged streets just happen to be where the densist housing is placed (largely low-income, historically). Perversely, much of this damage is done by suburbanites commuting into cities in their one-person cars. There really is a need to dramatically tax this activity, preferably into extinction. Alternatively, perhaps we should mandate that private cars "biofilter" their exhaust through the passenger compartment. I bet it would change the way people commute if they couldn't completely externalize their toxins.

kickstart

So, what do you think is more likely in reality?

Things to continue as they are today without change.
Technological advancements solving the safety, and environmental concerns.

Mobile 155

Until then you still have three choices. Up, down our outward. And if you read the report you know they were talking about indoor pollution. I doubt if that will change in our lifetime. No one "brought" the indoor pollution from rural, suburban or other urban areas to influence the study. It is something that is endemic to dense urban living and people seem to have just learned to live with it or move away. Still read the study and explain how you can tax the problems listed for urban indoor pollution away?

Ekdog

Great to hear London seems to finally be winning its war against the car.



London is a city that was barely designed for horse and cart, let alone the automobile. Even so, cars are a big part of life in central London, and yet, they’re about to be outnumbered by cyclists.
Transport statistics are normally eye-wateringly dull, but Transport for London’s latest report makes for surprisingly good reading. The number of cars has been halved in the last 15 years: 137,000 per day were coming in in 2000, compared to 64,000 in 2014.
Even more impressive is the transfer to alternative transport: in the same period, cyclists trebled from 12,000 to 36,000, and the number of rush-hour cyclists is expected to outnumber motorists in a few years.

All this is a welcome and necessary accomplishement for a city that’s seen double-digit population growth over the same period. With London growing larger and more dense, other transport solutions like subways, buses and bikes are having to grow to meet demand. Increasingly, cars just really aren’t part of the equation for rush-hour London.

https://gizmodo.com/london-is-finally-winning-its-war-against-the-car-1757014384

tandempower

The challenge for new densification is to maintain trees and green space while adding living space. I have been trying to think of designs for multistory buildings that contain branching pipes connected to composting toilet/trash receptacles so waste can be stored and composted on site and trees can be planted so that the tap roots and other roots can network through the composting pipe system. This is essentially like building a cavernous hill where trees and plants can grow in the hill without infiltrating the caves. That way, people can inhabit and use the caves without the trees and green space requiring removal.

The problem with combining trees/greenery with habitable structures is that plant enzymes and growth break down concrete and stone, corrode metals, etc. So engineers have to come up with ways to minimize the susceptibility of built structures to organic material growing on/through them. I think they also have to come up with designs that are not only safe to inhabit and long-lasting, but also are engineered in a way that allows them to eventually collapse into usable land. In other words, with so many built structures everywhere, people of the future will need to be able to deal with infrastructure-collapse without having to sort out tons of metal and glass shards that would otherwise make the rubble dangerous to work with/in.

In a way, all we really need to do is look at how other animals live. Many mammals and some birds are good at burrowing into hollow tree trunks and digging out spaces within root systems without killing the tree. We need to figure out ways of doing the same, only in addition to hollowing out spaces under natural trees, we also need to figure out ways of building structures above ground that tree roots can grow around and through as well.

Idk how far we can build up or down while maintaining adequate water and soil nutrients for trees and plants on the tops and sides of structures. Skyscrapers are narrow and tall because land costs are based on square footage of the underlying parcel. Large pyramids or other artificial hill-like structures might be more efficient for combining green-growth and livable square-footage, but there is not much precedent for this kind of architecture, besides some shopping malls, maybe. And, again, we have to think hard about how to engineer a huge, inhabitable hill/pyramid that will not eventually collapse into an uninhabitable pile of dusty concrete and rebar. Maybe wood or other carbon-based material can be used as rebar, idk. Sustainable density is definitely a challenge.

Seattle Forrest

B. Carfree explained the why of this pretty well. I'll add that asthma is terrible, but it's not the alpha and omega of health. It's my belief that on balance, city living is at least as healthy as country living and for many people it's preferable. I'll counter your point about asthma with my observation that methamphetamine use is a lot more prevalent in rural areas than in urban ones.

Mobile 155

Non of that deals with the question of what we have now. And your animal example may work against dense living. Most animals on the top of the food chain require their own space. They even mark it out. But back to putting 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5 pound sack, the question posed by the OP about what happens when a well designed big urban adds population? In the real world of today once you occupy all available living space you have to build up, down out outward.

What society does depends on what they find important. Some may find the conditions in the national study I posted as acceptable. UHI and Indoor urban air quality may not bother many but even in this forum it bothers some. From the time before Rome ruled the known world up, down or outward has been the solution. It is just my personal solution and may not be yours but I and my family picked outward. We would rather not deal with the problems of high density living while you and many others may. I simply don't see a near term solution to the many problems high density mega urban cities have. And if I am to be honest once we have escaped those problems they no longer seem to be our problems. It seems to be the problem of those the stayed in the high density area.

So my answer might be different than someone that thinks those problems will be addressed and so a solution to over crowding of pleasant city like the one mentioned in the OP can be solved by shoving people into tighter groups. To me the quality of life would suffer.

Walter S

It's odd that you would cite methamphetamine use as a health factor related to rural living. Those drugs don't just jump on you when you move to the country. If you take them they might have a big influence on your health. If you don't then it's just not a factor.

Walter S

What classifies a city as being of such a density as to become unhealthy compare to a more rural environment?

tandempower

You are taking that example completely out-of-context. It was only meant in response to the problem of losing trees and green space as density increases. If you want to have BOTH trees/greenery AND more habitable space, you have to find ways to combine tree cover with habitable structures underneath them. I wasn't making any claims or suggestions about how people/animals respond to densification. Furthermore, people build berm-houses and the like in areas that aren't dense. Density and eco-housing are separate topics, BUT it just so happens that eco-housing that combines trees/greenery with habitable space is an issue where densification is concerned.

That's exactly what I'm talking about with the inhabitable hill/pyramid structures. You don't really read what I write, do you? You just scan it cursorily and respond.

If low-density living is more desirable than high-density living, one of two things will happen in a free market: 1) people will start buying their way into lower-density areas and drive up prices to levels rural people can no longer afford, which will drive rural people into undesirable higher-density living situations. 2) People will keep moving out of cities to rural areas, which will continue densifying and/or sprawling outward until they reach sprawl-limits, which will force densification anyway.

A third option is Mars. Space X has landed a re-usable rocket vertically so the possibility of sending humans to Mars is coming nearer. The question is whether migration to Mars will happen rapidly enough to outpace terrestrial population growth.

Quality of life will also suffer if efforts are made to artificially reduce population growth mechanisms like advances in medicine, agriculture, and other technologies that allow more people to survive to older ages.

TheLibrarian

People complain about new York but there is plenty of room upstate. Major cities may have reached their limit and if people want to crowd on top of each other for some reason not my problem. You can figure out how to do the centipede thing with your neighbors. NY has spread out. Brooklyn and Jersey city and the Bronx are pretty much all a part of the same urban swath now. I couldn't do it for an extended period and it is unhealthy. They expand out, they expand up and they deal with their waste issues. You couldn't pollute all the land or use all the resources in my lifetime even if they were trying.

Mobile 155

As I said earlier it is all on what is more important to you. Your observation verses government studies not withstanding. I have no problem with you or anyone else living shoulder to shoulder in a dense area with any of the problems I have posted. I left and they are no longer my concern. The issue will always come back to the same thing. The problems caused by too many people in one place and the problems with people spreading out. You have a problem with non urban meth labs and you observe something I would question without supporting evidence. Looking at nationa crime statistics I would be doubtful. But still it comes down to what do you do when you run out of livable space in a city that has to room to expand outward? As asked by the OP?

The he answer will always be the same. But I should have added a forth option. Take space away from current residents, build up or dig down or spread out. Looking at the rust belt in the north east I think I see the choices most people make. I doubt if that will change in any of our lifetimes. Just as an observation.

gerv 

Yes... as the article in the original post states, they was a lot of car-centric animosity in Copenhagen as cycling and other infrastructure grew. A group of people worked together to recommend change and it worked.... This is a indication that it could work as well anywhere. In fact, much of the infrastructure we do have in the US is the result of groups and individuals advising and demanding better...

As with almost all human endeavors, you get nowhere if you don't try.

Mobile 155

Really I don't know. It seems as if the traditional urban housing and the problems with maintaining it have exacerbated the indoor air quality as much as anything. At least from the study I posted that was admittedly after the fact for my family. Boston proper and outlying Boston were part of the main focus but I got the impression many other urban centers scored about the same. All I am saying is I am more than satisfied with the decision to leave and the advantages I believe it gave our children. I have no interest in living anywhere that has more than maybe one common wall with a neighbor. Never with a wall and a floor and not a chance a snowman's chance in Death Valley having two or three walls a floor and a ceiling with anyone.

That is what makes life so great, we don't have to like the same things.

tandempower

To return to the issue of Copenhagen specifically presented in the article of the OP, should Copenhagen respond to its growing popularity by building vertically and adding density or should other areas provide what people are looking for in Copenhagen so everyone doesn't have to move there? Once upon a time, I remember this being the issue for the Netherlands because it was so bike/pedestrian friendly and population density was being stressed by immigration.

The question is how these bike/pedestrian friendly areas like Denmark and the Netherlands can become so popular in attracting immigration YET other areas of the world aren't hopping on the bandwagon to copy their model and attract some of the same immigrants? Maybe the Netherlands and Denmark should be forced to conform to the rest of the world so there's nowhere to flee automotivism. Would that be a good solution the problem of people migrating out of automotive misery?

I-Like-To-Bike

You are no doubt serious in believing that people are "migrating" from strife torn areas like Syria to "flee automotivism", and that significant immigration into NL, DK or any other country is based on the same "automotive misery".

Seattle Forrest

Housing doesn't affect air quality to a great deal, it's the high concentration of internal combustion engines on the roads and freeways. I'll share another anecdotal observation that I've made with you: there are more freeways in cities than urban areas: think Chicago vs Nevada. Indoor air quality is strongly affected by outdoor air quality. There have been many studies that have shown this.

Seattle Forrest

You'll be shocked to learn that I don't live shoulder to shoulder with other people. That's a strawman. And not the only one in your post.

Seattle Forrest

[h=1]In Town vs. Country, It Turns Out That Cities Are the Safest Places to Live[/h]
Study Shows That Cities Are Safer Than Rural Areas, Despite Crime | TIME.com

[h=1]Big-city crime? Murder rates are higher in rural Canada[/h]https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/big-city-crime-murder-rates-are-higher-in-rural-canada-1.1204349

^ This is true of the USA as well.

[h=1]Rural Youth Suicides Almost Double Rates In Urban Areas[/h]
Rural Youth Suicides Almost Double Rates In Urban Areas

kickstart

I've lived as far in as NYC, and as far out as Kodiak Ak.
I find it ludicrous to suggest city living is healthier. Life is what we make it except for external influences outside of our control, and there are far more of those in large cities.

I-Like-To-Bike

Ludicrous suggestions/"ideas" far removed from the subject of living car free and/or rationality are what this list is all about, doncha know?

denis123

According to this, people in cities live longer than people in urban areas:

https://www.cfah.org/hbns/2014/gap-in...nts-is-growing

Mobile 155

Ok I read the opinion point by the reporter you posted. You are saying accidental deaths out weigh intended murder so it washes out. Your opinion and I would still have moved. No what was the major indoor air differences in the study I posted? They tried to match social and economic conditions between those studied and posted the results. I agree those results seem valid and for the reasons I have mentioned. So that is what my opinion is based on.

Normally crime verses accidents is considered apples and oranges. But I believe places like central Cleveland, Chicago and Detroit speak for themselves. If you google the ten most dangerous places to live do you believe they will have higher or lower densities. I have expressed my opinion on health here and danger in other places and I agree they have little to do with what the OP asked.

So so again what does even a place with a great bicycle infrastructure do when it runs out of available living space or more to the point building space? Just the things I posted earlier, squash in, build up, dig down our build out. Anyplace where they have a thriving metro area has cast their vote.

tandempower

I don't know where they're migrating from but the article says that Copenhagen's population is growing and there is at least the implication that its popularity as a destination has to do with its forward-looking attitude toward carfree living.

Why are you bringing up war-refugee migration in relation to Copenhagen if you don't think it's the cause of the city's population growth?

Mobile 155

Getting back to the posted article about Copenhagen it seems as if the solution they are moving to is out by reclaiming wetlands and islands. They also have run into the no room to build means what you have will have to cost more. And even as they do build more the normal working people will have to be moved. SanFrancisco and Manhatten have the same problem and have used the same solutions. Copenhagen doesn't seem to have any interest in building up if the article is to be believed.