Why would you do that? Are you planning to use the extreme example that I used to show how much EXTRA land would be available outside of Texas to actually suggest that we all move there? That wouldn't further your point much, would it?
Yeah I am also trying to understand why you gave your extreme example, it doesn't help your point but it helps mine. If you put the entire planet population in the area of TX but build tall, people would live in better comfort than if you make it one large suburbia.
The extreme example shows that there is practically infinite land. And that having trees, grass, and nature between dwellings is far superior for the environment. Why you would want to destroy that unless you're an evil bank investor is not explained in your commentary. You don't seem to have a real point other than you poke fun at the example, as if you didn't understand it. But I know you did. You just don't want to admit it, obviously.
If it's infinite then why not give everyone 100 sq km mansion and fly to visit each other? It's not like we need to worry about sustainability or something right?
You just don't want to admit it. Dense areas are better in every way. Better for economy, more profitable, more efficient, sustainable. The only reason to be opposed is if you are afraid that real estate you own will start going down in price because everyone suddenly needs less land for everything.
They aren't. You are lapping up marketing drivel from big builders.
Delivery of goods is the prime transportation issue in carbon footprint. Delivery of goods is multiplied in high density areas. Multiple vacuum cleaners, one for each apartment, rather than 5 people sharing a house, they each live in separate one bedroom apartments with separate things. 5 times the deliveries, 5 times the manufacturing, 5 times the pollution, not just carbon.
