• @FlowVoid@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You have a very US-centric perspective on “sustainability”.

    There are plenty of sustainable communities all over the world, today as in the past, that consist of 100s to 1000s of people living in low density housing within reach of a small center.

    Some of their garages have two cars, some have only a moped, and some have no vehicles at all.

    They are generally rural, not suburban. Not all are near big box stores. Those with big box stores existed before the big box stores arrived, and they would continue to exist if the big box stores left.

    Their existence does not necessarily depend on support from higher density regions, especially in parts of the world where higher density regions will ignore their requests anyway.

    • @schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      These are the walkable non-suburban communities being talked about. Why are you trying to use examples of the desired outcome as a counter example (and reason to continue destroying said towns)?

      • @FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I am responding to the suggestion that only high-density communities are sustainable. That’s simply not true. It is possible for people to live sustainably in either low density or high density communities.

        Which in turn implies that the problem with suburbs is not necessarily their density, but other factors.

        • If you can walk or use a low speed vehicle to get to your destination and you can walk to the second family down in 5 minutes it’s not a low density settlement just because you can see a single story house.

          Villages are missing middle (at least until the commercial center gets gutted and replaced with car yards and parking and 50% of the houses are demolished for highway).