An interesting discussion has broken out at Planetizen, about whether or not cities are really the golden examples of sustainability that they are...
An interesting discussion has broken out at Planetizen, about whether or not cities are really the golden examples of sustainability that they are often held up to be. Could it be that city dwellers actually use the same (or, even more) amount of carbon as those who live in the suburbs? Tony Recsei argues this, and that people living in areas of lower population density are generally happier and more healthy:
The evidence available so far indicates that Smart Growth policies forced into unwilling communities do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, do not facilitate travel, do not improve health, do not increase housing choice and do not reduce overall costs.It seems that planners are intent on sweeping us backwards into despotic, overcrowded Dickensian gloom.This point of view has created much discussion in the comments and around Planetizen. Even if you don't agree, it's an excellent way to challenge and strengthen your assumptions. Read the full essay here.