Originally Posted by
cooker
One of my points is that increasing density does increase open spaces, because of the land you are not using. And the built urban form is not static =- communities are continually evolving, and usually, densifying. And even if people want large lots, you can maximize the impact - you get more green for your buck if you make the lots long and narrow rather than square, because you need fewer streets (sketch to follow).
I disagree, increased density rules will reduce open space as the available space is consumed by new development--as you said communities are not static. With less dense development, the space already left open (yards) do not get consumed as the city expands outward. We haven't yet reached the population levels that will cause most cities to rebuild existing areas and remove yards. In most places any redevelopment, particularly if increasing 'density' occurs most often in former commercial and industrial areas that have fallen on hard times.
ADDED:
Your sketch of narrow long lots is familiar. There have been many communities platted in that way; however, what seems to happen is that people buy multiple adjacent lots and construct homes that fit a squarish lot better.
Originally Posted by
Mobile 155
In truth those op-ed pieces are most often just one person trying to tell everyone else that how they live or want to live is the "best" way to live and everyone would be better if they all accepted that. The idea that it will necessarily be better for mankind, the earth, or anything else is pure conjecture and wishful thinking.
+1