LogFAQs > #959755489

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	So I hear America is going to build ALL the bridges
Zeus 11/06/21 4:34:50 PM #20:	streamofthesky posted... Suburbs are in between rural and cities in population pressure and infrastructure requirements. Rows of detached houses all on the same water system and electrical grid with shopping complexes a few miles away are far more efficient than rural houses on acres of land that have to be reached individually by power lines and on their own closed well and septic systems each and require driving many miles to get to shopping centers. So much of this assessment is just fundamentally flawed. Suburbs are inefficient BECAUSE they share the same water system over a much, much broader spot of land which requires more upkeep and creates more logistical issues. Rural uses completely different systems where you're not relying on public infrastructure at all. A well and septic system have no increase to the overall footprint. As for malls and other stores, rural areas rely on people traveling more distance to reach those, whereas suburbs just build more stuff like that. And, more importantly, many rural areas don't even have malls. You're wrongly assuming that rural areas have all of the same conveniences as cities and suburbs, which they don't. Suburbs generally have all of the same conveniences as cities -- again, just spread out further and using the same infrastructure planning as cities -- whereas rural areas don't. As for power lines, those are a relatively small infrastructure cost compared to water. Any above-ground infrastructure will be far cheaper than anything underground. streamofthesky posted... The cost difference to build the same size house in a suburb or rural area is negligible. That's largely untrue, because labor costs can vary tremendously region-to-region and then zoning laws (another huge cost) tend to be more prohibitive in cities and urban areas. Even if you claimed that the material costs are basically the same (which isn't necessarily true), there are so many other factors that make rural home construction cheaper. A lot of the things you can do in rural areas you'd never get away with in suburbs. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:959755489] in So I hear ... [t:79746511]...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted... </cite> <quote>Suburbs are in between rural and cities in population pressure and infrastructure requirements. Rows of detached houses all on the same water system and electrical grid with shopping complexes a few miles away are far more efficient than rural houses on acres of land that have to be reached individually by power lines and on their own closed well and septic systems each and require driving many miles to get to shopping centers.</quote> So much of this assessment is just fundamentally flawed. Suburbs are inefficient BECAUSE they share the same water system over a much, much broader spot of land which requires more upkeep and creates more logistical issues. Rural uses completely different systems where you're not relying on public infrastructure at all. A well and septic system have no increase to the overall footprint. As for malls and other stores, rural areas rely on people traveling more distance to reach those, whereas suburbs just build more stuff like that. And, more importantly, many rural areas don't even have malls. You're wrongly assuming that rural areas have all of the same conveniences as cities and suburbs, which they don't. Suburbs generally have all of the same conveniences as cities -- again, just spread out further and using the same infrastructure planning as cities -- whereas rural areas don't. As for power lines, those are a relatively small infrastructure cost compared to water. Any above-ground infrastructure will be far cheaper than anything underground. streamofthesky posted... </cite> <quote>The cost difference to build the same size house in a suburb or rural area is negligible.</quote> That's largely untrue, because labor costs can vary tremendously region-to-region and then zoning laws (another huge cost) tend to be more prohibitive in cities and urban areas. Even if you claimed that the material costs are basically the same (which isn't necessarily true), there are so many other factors that make rural home construction cheaper. A lot of the things you can do in rural areas you'd never get away with in suburbs. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1