I agree with you, but the X% power generation should be over 100% at least. They have the money for it, and they’ll create a ton of externalized costs to the residents. They should at least be required to provide something to them.
Power was the only externalized cost I had thought of. What else?
Interesting idea mandating power usage should be 100%+. I like that, on it’s face, not sure how reasonable that would be in the real world. I’m in Florida and solar is (was) booming.
Traffic, increased infrastructure demand, as well as increased power putting a strain on the power network requiring upgrades. It also takes potential employees from other workplaces, increasing their costs. Obviously water (which they can mostly elimate, but still). The space also can’t be used for housing or anything else, so increases the cost of housing. There’s also probably tons of effects we wouldn’t even think about.
The space also can’t be used for housing or anything else, so increases the cost of housing.
TBH, a lot of this can be fixed by better zoning. Such as removing minimum sizes for lots and easements. That’d allow for more dense housing without even going into multi-family homes like duplexes and triplexes, though updating zoning to allow those would also help. Right now, most new construction are these oversized, multi-thousand square foot monstrosities that few people actually need.
Another thing people don’t consider is the usefulness of mixed zoning. Right now most cities don’t allow spaces for businesses like small grocery stores to share a zone with houses in new construction. If it was allowed, a lot of people could easily switch to walking or biking to such places, reducing the need to overly large roads that take up a lot more space than you’d think.
And as a side bonus, this would be a lot more sustainable for the cities, budget-wise. Roads are expensive to maintain, as are the services that are run along them. With less dense neighborhoods, there’s fewer taxpayers per foot of road, pipes, cables, etc., the costs to the city go up. In most cities, the suburbs are acutally subsidized by the more dense neighborhoods near the city center.
If you want more details, I recommend the book Strong Towns by Charles L. Marohn Jr.
Sure, but it would still effect the cost unless there is literally zero demand. Less space is less space. It doesn’t matter how well it’s being utilized. Better utilization would decrease costs though, and yeah have tons of side benefits. Zoning should be fixed whether this is built or not, everywhere.
I agree with you, but the X% power generation should be over 100% at least. They have the money for it, and they’ll create a ton of externalized costs to the residents. They should at least be required to provide something to them.
Power was the only externalized cost I had thought of. What else?
Interesting idea mandating power usage should be 100%+. I like that, on it’s face, not sure how reasonable that would be in the real world. I’m in Florida and solar is (was) booming.
Traffic, increased infrastructure demand, as well as increased power putting a strain on the power network requiring upgrades. It also takes potential employees from other workplaces, increasing their costs. Obviously water (which they can mostly elimate, but still). The space also can’t be used for housing or anything else, so increases the cost of housing. There’s also probably tons of effects we wouldn’t even think about.
TBH, a lot of this can be fixed by better zoning. Such as removing minimum sizes for lots and easements. That’d allow for more dense housing without even going into multi-family homes like duplexes and triplexes, though updating zoning to allow those would also help. Right now, most new construction are these oversized, multi-thousand square foot monstrosities that few people actually need.
Another thing people don’t consider is the usefulness of mixed zoning. Right now most cities don’t allow spaces for businesses like small grocery stores to share a zone with houses in new construction. If it was allowed, a lot of people could easily switch to walking or biking to such places, reducing the need to overly large roads that take up a lot more space than you’d think.
And as a side bonus, this would be a lot more sustainable for the cities, budget-wise. Roads are expensive to maintain, as are the services that are run along them. With less dense neighborhoods, there’s fewer taxpayers per foot of road, pipes, cables, etc., the costs to the city go up. In most cities, the suburbs are acutally subsidized by the more dense neighborhoods near the city center.
If you want more details, I recommend the book Strong Towns by Charles L. Marohn Jr.
Sure, but it would still effect the cost unless there is literally zero demand. Less space is less space. It doesn’t matter how well it’s being utilized. Better utilization would decrease costs though, and yeah have tons of side benefits. Zoning should be fixed whether this is built or not, everywhere.