The person on the left is carrying bags, the one in orange is a delivery driver and a couple of people are wearing backpacks. Aside from car brained, Damaris is also blind.
The person on the left is carrying bags, the one in orange is a delivery driver and a couple of people are wearing backpacks. Aside from car brained, Damaris is also blind.
No worries, I understood your point.
But isn’t it better to have homes further from the heart of Main cities? I prefer the quiet of living in an area that only has residential housing.
A totally reasonable question, but in summary, the answer is no, it’s not better.
There will always be some people who do prefer to live rurally, that’s true. And they should have that option. But most people prefer the amenities of a city. The problem with how the US, Canada, and Australia do things currently is that the majority of the living area is “suburbia”, which tries to provide the peace of rural living with the amenities of a city. But it ends up doing poorly at both.
It’s particularly bad for people who cannot drive, like children, teenagers, and people with certain disabilities. Car-dependent suburbia is extremely restrictive on them compared to being able to, for example, hop on their bike a ride to their friend’s place, or to soccer practice.
You might say you want “only residential housing”, but isn’t it more convenient if there’s a cafe within walking distance? Or a community pub/tavern you can grab some food at? Isn’t it better to be able to stop off at a grocery store on your bike home from work, or the walk from the train station, than to have to take a dedicated weekly car drive to a large shopping centre 10–15 minutes by car away to do a single large shop (and hope you don’t forget anything on that weekly shop, or you’ll have to make a dedicated trip especially for that one thing!)? Wouldn’t most people be better off if they can walk or cycle conveniently to nearby sports clubs, community centres, etc. in order to partake in their hobbies and leisure activities?
There are also economic reasons behind it. More dense places like I’m describing have enormous economic benefits. People spend more in the local economy when they walk or cycle to shops, rather than driving. Because when driving they’re more likely to go to a big box store on the periphery where the profits go to a large national or multinational chain rather than a local business. Denser living costs a lot less for the government, because the cost of infrastructure like electricity lines, sewerage, and road maintenance are much, much lower than in lower density suburban or rural areas. And it makes the building and operation of public transport networks more feasible and affordable.
It’s also cheaper for the people who live there. Having a shared wall means you lose less heat in winter, reducing your heating cost. Being able to walk or ride most places means you don’t need a car, or maybe your family which would have had 2 cars now only needs 1, which dramatically reduces your transportation cost. (Seriously, an average car costs tens of thousands of dollars per year in petrol, maintenance, and the upfront cost. It’s a huge financial burden.) And, obviously, because of the above paragraph, your personal council tax/rates bill will be lower.
I’m not talking about everyone living in soviet-style concrete blocks, either. The ideal form of development is medium density. 2–3 storey townhouses and duplexes, 3–5 storey comfortable walk-up apartments. With modern building standards these are incredibly comfortable and quiet.