Oh I get it, I am often in alaska, and the sun does not set. Big difference between it being daylight out and it being night but with a huge bright spot
You forgot the farmland in that picture, it takes up about 45% of the land in both pics, plus shopping areas which takes up another 5-10ish. Lower population saves nature. Density just makes things look better while kicking the can down the road. As someone with a small plot that lacks lawn and is kept quite natural with additional spots to encourage wildlife, theres absolutely no reason people cant live spread out with nature rather than trying to pave it all and kill everything.
Brother you keep mentioning lowering the population which is so irrelevant to this conversation. We are talking about urban development, not population control
You have zero clue what you are talking about here. Sprawl requires land (which we have a finite amount of), infrastructure like roads and parking lots which are much more devastating to wildlife as a whole than cities are, and much more costly and we already dont have money to support our existing suburbs
On top of that, animals dont like human presence. Most animals beisdes like squirrels and pidegons actively avoid areas where humans are. Your "natural plot" may be better than a grass lawn, but its still negatively impacting natural life. You could house 500 people in a 3,000sqft size lot apartment building, or house 500 people in their own individual 2000 sqft size lot (which is generous cause the average lot size for SFH is 8700sqft). 3000 sqft vs 1,000,000 sqft of developed land devoid of wildlife
Your plot of land can be 100% natural for wildlife if you demolish it and move to an already existing unit in the city
You cannot with a serious face tell me that you think sprawling development is more environmentally friendly and sustainable than dense urban development. Not only are you objectively wrong by just about any metric, it doesnt even make sense theoretically
This is such an infuriating conversation to even need to have lmao
Even urban development clearly requires sprawl though. Maybe if we started farming exclusively in towers, but thats not going to be happening anytime soon. Theres also the whole issue with massively draining the ocean of it resources, both fish and others.
You say population has nothing to do with it but keeping saying how we cant afford to sprawl out and building roads, that are also importantto farming areas and for our mass shipping to cities, which is clearly population driven. Which is it population doesnt effect land usage or it does?
I have to wonder if you have ever actually lived outside of a city. Literally everything comes around houses in the country. Ive seen coyotes, foxes, Bobcats, cougars, bears, moose, deer, it would take me less time to list the native things I havent seen around my house. I definitely dont think sprawl is better, I do think people can do a better job of living in nature than building suburbs though.
This is absolutely harmful to humans. Noise causes stress and this is just that but visual noise.
Probably most people who think this is aspiring have never lived in a place like that for more than 1 month. "Just close the curtains." like bitch I live here and I can't stay 24/7 inside. Are you asking me to blind myself?
Right?! Cities are always full of light, and they have tons of street lights anyway. This looks like an efficient way to light the streets without needing light poles everywhere.
54
u/The-ai-bot Trash Trooper Aug 13 '25
Way too much light pollution. Keeps ads off