# Ok, so i basically wanna know which is best for the enviroment, a dense urban center or a vast, sprawling suburb.



## -KwK345- (May 23, 2007)

I am SOOO confused!! I have posted threads regarding this subject in the skybar, other city forums (city-data and skyscraperpage), and yahoo answers. I have got an assortment of answers and I don't know who or what to believe. Is anyone here a professional urbanist (is there a such thing as an urbanist?), architect, or urban planner??!! Ever since my suburb vs. urban debate thread(s), I thought urban areas were better for the environment (yes, I've come a long way from my suburb-loving days), but now IDK. Some of you seem to think a dense urban center isn't best. I thought everyone would think it was! Ok, well let me just clear some things up and you can tell me whether I'm write or wrong. An urbanite pollutes less per capita but because the area is so dense, the pollution is more concentrated. If the urban smog was spread out like suburban smog is, the urban smog would be less? Besides cars, what else exactly pollutes. Is there really more cars in an urban area? If so, couldn't that be caused by auto-dependency brought on by suburbs? Even if you do live in an urban area and still drive, at least you have many other modes of transportation, unlike most suburbs in the United States. Another thing- does all the concrete in urban areas stop rainwater from going back to the aquifer, thus causing the city to need to get water elsewhere?? And last (I'm sure you're glad to hear that! ;-)) but not least, the urban heat island effect. Is the majority of it caused by black rooftops? When uhie is taking place and we turn up the AC, does the energy used in the AC produce heat, thus furthering the problem? Are we just fighting fire with fire. Oh, and if the area is really dense, can't buildings shade other buildings? I mean, if you look up urban heat island effect on wikipedia and look at the map of NYC, Midtown Manhattan isn't very hot even though it doesn't have a lot of dense vegetation. And finally about energy used in a suburban house vs. an urban apartment unit. Let me put it this way- there is a 1200 sq. ft. house in the suburbs and a 1200 sq. ft. condo in a highrise in a dense, urban area. It is 90 degrees in the urban area and 83 degrees in the suburban area. Which uses more energy to cool? (Remember, the condo unit is only exposed to the heat on one side, while the house is exposed on at least 4.)
Phew, I think that is everything! Please help me, I'm so confoozed!


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Isn't it a no-brainer? In a suburb you need to drive a car just to buy a loaf of bread. That's as much information as you need to reach the answer.


----------



## Spoolmak (Aug 4, 2007)

Not necessarily... I live in a suburb, and I am walking distance to grocery stores. Suburbs aren't just houses. They are grocery stores, restaurants, malls, convenience stores, movie theaters, banks... everything you need so you dont have to drive into the city.


----------



## Skyscrapers 2009 (Jul 30, 2008)

Yes but they take up much and destroy land that could be used for farming. Cities as dense as they are take up less space.


----------



## Spoolmak (Aug 4, 2007)

Yeah but in all reality, most people will not raise a family in a highrise apartment building. 
It is nice to look at from a mountain top though


----------



## williamk (Sep 29, 2008)

hno:


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Dense cities definitely are better for the environment overall. 

Urban water management tends to be better in a dense city as there is more surrounding land to absorb run-off minimising the peak flow into rivers. The greater percentage of land that is taken up by an urbanised setting, the worse for the water table. 

Secondly, dense cities *tend* to result in a lower rate of car use, *tend* to be easier to supply infrastructure to (electricity, water, public transport) and tend to offer the same quality of life as a suburban area as long as they're looked after properly. People always seem to use the strange argument about bringing up a family, yet I would rather bring up a family in an apartment block with everything in walking distance, parks nearby and PT on my doorstep than a soulless suburb where the kids are bored and have to drive at an early age, making exercise a chore to do.


----------



## Eureka! (Jun 7, 2006)

Cities are worse for the environment per amount of land due to less trees etc but they also hold many more people in that area. Suburbs destroy native wildlife, need much more infrastructure, big suburban houses use more energy and water and cars are more used than PT.

So per person a city would be better as the leftover room would be used for wildlife etc


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Depends on the suburb and the natural landscape of the city.

If you cut down rainforest to build suburban homes with plain lawn, then of course its horrible (Happens in north-eastern Australia).

However, a suburban garden can also be an oasis for life. Many people grow vegetables, fruit trees and so support a large community of animals that can feed on these crops (eg. parrots, fruit eating bats...). If such homes are constructed on a uniform landscape, then suburban homes can enrich local biodiversity.


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

Hahaha, city living best for the environment?!? Where do you guys think all the construction materials for the tall skyscrapers come from? ENVIRONMENT. To say city living is better for the environment is not at all true.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

jbkayaker12 said:


> Hahaha, city living best for the environment?!? Where do you guys think all the construction materials for the tall skyscrapers come from? ENVIRONMENT. To say city living is better for the environment is not at all true.


Where does the material for suburbs come from? Unless you want to live in Hobbiton (under a hill) you're deluding yourself in thinking that there is much difference overall between the two in terms of source of materials.


----------



## -KwK345- (May 23, 2007)

jbkayaker12 said:


> Hahaha, city living best for the environment?!? Where do you guys think all the construction materials for the tall skyscrapers come from? ENVIRONMENT. To say city living is better for the environment is not at all true.


Well, using recycled material in rban buildings is a growing trend.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

At the end of the day you got to work out which dweller emits the least.

Id say it would be the dense urbanite- reliance on public transport and much closer to work/ shop/ leisure/ education, heat imprints, emissions, water usage and services of apartments significantly less than the equivalent suburban housing.

Also the collective ideology, in part enforced, by dense cityscapes. The other huge factor: the decreased usage of cars.


Dont get confused by the detractors that accuse dense cities of the industrial pollution that the suburbanites are supplied by. Look at the dense citydwellers of Lanzhou, with the burdened title of the most polluted city in the world, then look at the suburbanites across every Wal-Mart catch that Lanzhou's factories supply. In short manufacturing may get outsourced, as does the pollution - but that shouldn't hide the fact we've just moved one problem form one place to another, almost like sweeping the dirt from our patch under the carpet, then pointing the finger at the carpet being dirty.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

I can only speak for Vienna but inside the urban area, the number of cars per person as well as the rate of car usage are significantly lower beyond any doubt than in the suburbs or in rural regions. 

Some major traffic arteries in Vienna even have seen traffic numbers decrease, I know of at least one case where this was hardly caused by transfer of traffic to new highwighs etc. 

Density and mixed usage of buildings (ie shorter ways for the people) has so many advantages. Not only for the mobility but it also facilitates the creation of efficient distributed heating networks for example as many other communal services can be done more efficiently due to economy of scale.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Spoolmak said:


> Not necessarily... I live in a suburb, and I am walking distance to grocery stores. Suburbs aren't just houses. They are grocery stores, restaurants, malls, convenience stores, movie theaters, banks... everything you need so you dont have to drive into the city.


Thats not the point. You don't have to drive into the city, but you have more often than not to drive in the suburbs.



> Yeah but in all reality, most people will not raise a family in a highrise apartment building.
> It is nice to look at from a mountain top though


Wrong as well. I know of a number of new urban style dense city developments in Europe that attracted a very high share of families. Thats a fact. An urban environment does not have to be nice for families, but it can be very attractive, you just have to make it attractive. Its a myth that only suburbs can be family friendly.

Just one example in Stockholm:


----------



## _BPS_ (Feb 7, 2005)

I live in the largest suburb of North America, and everything is within walking distance, including shopping malls.

Personally, I prefer living in a suburb becaue it is more open & vast, and also a lot more quieter than an urban environment. Urban environments produce more noise-pollution and this is something which you cannot avoid if you are outdoors.

I can manage living in an urban environment, but I just hate the noise-pollution. Its like.. 24-7.


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

I think Jared summarized it best on one of the THREE duplicate threads you also posted on SSP: 

"The urban heat island effect is generally cuased by modification of the land surface. Asphalt and concrete absorb and retain much more heat from the sun than forests do. A dense urban center will produce less heat per capita, since the city's footprint is so much smaller. Imagine it like this:

You have four lots. You could
a) put one single-family house on each lot or
b) put a larger building (that can accomodate 4 familes) on one lot, and have the other 3 forested

b) would produce more heat on the single "large building" lot than any single one of the 4 one-house lots, but the total heat from the 4 lots in b) is less than the total heat from the 4 lots in a).

Very little of the heat island effect is the result of people heating their homes. And again, a spawly area would have MORE heat emmited than a dense area of the same population, but it would be spread out over a larger area."


Though, chances are, if you haven't figured it out yet, with all the evidence blatantly on display for you, you never will Kevin. :|




Spoolmak said:


> Yeah but in all reality, most people will not raise a family in a highrise apartment building.
> It is nice to look at from a mountain top though


In North America maybe, but that certainly is not the case in the rest of the world.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

_BPS_ said:


> I live in the largest suburb of North America, and everything is within walking distance, including shopping malls.
> 
> Personally, I prefer living in a suburb becaue it is more open & vast, and also a lot more quieter than an urban environment. Urban environments produce more noise-pollution and this is something which you cannot avoid if you are outdoors.
> 
> I can manage living in an urban environment, but I just hate the noise-pollution. Its like.. 24-7.


Then you belong to the lucky ones. I have been to a suburb on the east coast and nothing was in walking distance, except for the neighbours. Another one which was older was substantially better, but it was built before the car age.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

Big families are bad for the environment. Cities are greener by concept if they are walkable.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

I think that it shouldn't be too extreme on either side: not too dense and also not too much low-density . 
IMO a medium density urban environment (ca 5000-10000 people per km2) is the most livable environment, because it's dense enough to get to shops, schools, restaurants etc. without having to take the car, and also creates an interesting urban environment, with enough mid and high-rise buildings, as well as architectural variation with buildings from many different architectural styles. (As opposed to a low-density suburb where there are only lowrise buildings). 
Most important IMO should be the infrastructure,especially public transport and the accessibility of it, and this is most accessible in a medium-density city IMO. 
The disadvantages of low-density urban environments, like (NA) suburbs is that you have to use the car to go (almost) anywhere, which obviously isn't good for the environment because of pollution and the higher release of CO2, as well as the monotony of architecture and the under-developed infrastructure(shops, restaurants etc.) , when compared to higher-density urban environments. 
The disadvantages of a extremely high density (50000+) are that land prices are horribly high, which makes larger apartments unaffordable for most people, and possibly a lower hygiene, esp. in 3rd world countries. 
This is why IMO medium -density urban environments are the best, though i'd say that high-density is definetily better for the environment then low-density because it is more concentrated, and so pollution is less widespread, and since a high-density urban environment is very walkable and usually has good PT, which means that there is fewer pollution and CO2 release per person than in low-density suburbs .


----------

