zlacker

This page is completely wrong in so many levels. It says it's talking about population density, but many of the cons are about population numbers. If you have the same number of people of a city, but spread out more, it is harder to provide services for them. Pollution? Yeah, a city looks bad, until you realize how suburban sprawl absolutely decimates entire ecosystems in huge areas. It is way better for the planet if human beings concentrate in a few places, and try to leave the biggest amount of area possible to nature. Also, the pollution per capita of less dense areas is way bigger, since the lack of public transit means everybody needs to drive everywhere.

>>greisk+(OP)
I think the one row about resources still makes sense though. You didn’t even answer OP’s original question regarding it in your reply. All you did was state an opinion as a fact without providing any proof. At least, I attempted to do so. A simple counterexample to your “common sense” claim that it’s easier to provide resources when people aren’t spread apart is housing.

I didn’t even read the pollution part. That’s a whole different topic that wasn’t being discussed.

But thanks for the downvote! Next time, please make sure your reply is up to par if you feel the need to downvote.