Re: [sudo-discuss] new occuption in SF: #gezigardens

Are you telling us that high density urban housing is not more efficient than sprawled out rural housing? Keep in mind that the vast majority of people will not be subsistence farming. Also, as it relates to the Bay, people are not going to be going back to the land because of SF rent. They will move to Walnut Creek and sit in traffic for 2 hours a day, burning gas. -Jehan On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 6:01 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01(a)att.net>wrote;wrote: Hi Jehan;-) Ahh, the good ol' city mouse vs. country mouse arguement. If we avoid ad-homs this should be fun. First of all, a-priori generalizations are a-priori invalid. Individual ecological impact depends on lifestyle and employment, which vary widely for both city and country. One of the largest impacts is commuting by automobile. A country mouse who's a telecommuter will have a zero commuting impact. A city mouse whose workplace isn't served by public transport will most likely end up driving to work. That comparison, in and of itself, falsifies your generalization. Are you willing to argue publicly that all the city mice whose places of employment aren't served by public transport, or who work late/overnight shift and live or work in places where taking public transport is overtly dangerous, should quit their jobs and seek employment elsewhere? Re. smaller apartments: Can you operationalize your variables? How small? Have you ever drawn a floorplan for one? I've drawn plenty of floorplans, down to 160 square feet, and I'll gladly show them to you any time we have a chance to get together. Re. highrises: Can you operationalize those variables too? How does the water get in, how does the sewage get out, and where does the money come from to rip & replace the existing underground infrastructure for that purpose? And what do you do with a 10- or 20- story building full of people, after the expected 7.0+ on the Hayward or San Andreas takes out the power grid, water mains, and sewer mains, for a period of weeks to months? (We'll assume the building remains standing, though that can't be taken for granted.) Also about highrises, what do the children do at playtime?, where does the food come from to feed all those people in the high-density highrises?, and how does the food get there? Who has ownership? Who has control? Who makes the rules? Sweeping generalizations are easy; designing in detail and walking the talk isn't. In the next round I'll describe what I do about water, electricity, gasoline, and refuse. Cheers- -G. ===== On 13-06-11-Tue 9:34 AM, Jehan Tremback wrote: "Also there's a difference between a 160-square-foot house you build for yourself on land you and your friends own, and a 160-square-foot cell in an apartment complex that some developer builds as a means of extracting more money from the tenants." If you want to go out to the country and build a house on cheap land, that's your choice. You will be damaging the environment with your inevitable automobile use. If you want to live in the city, as many of us do, you will have to deal with the fact that many other people do as well. There are 2 ways to get more people onto a smaller piece of land- 1. Smaller apartments (I put tenants subdividing apartments in this category as well) 2. Replace 1950's style suburban houses with high rises. These facts are completely independent of whatever system of government and economy. -Jehan On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:32 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01(a)att.net>wrote;wrote: