As a concrete example: to build a building for 100 people, one must have 100*500 = 5 hectares of space around the building, reserved for a green space only, not parking lots or such.
Buildings would be more spaced apart and would not trap heat so much like traditional dense designs, so urban centers would be cooler. I dare to claim that people would be less crazy and generally happier and healthier when living like this. Over time, building less densely would see all kinds of positive effects compounding.
The green space could be used for many good things, e.g. growing hyperlocal food like vegetables, potatoes or whatever grows well in the climate, for having tree-shaded places during warm days, for just having a piece of nature to go to quickly and easily. Smaller batches of forest shading a path could connect multiple buildings built with the same ideas, and so on. It would be possible to use bicycles or walk along these paths.
In a nutshell, if one has to build high, then make all multi-storey buildings like a stacked nano-village surrounded by a larger green area/forest. Based on my subjective understanding very few people actually like the ground floor so that's a good place to put local small businesses like barber, shop, bakery, café, and so on.
I don't know what people think are a biking/walking distance, but a distance of 1 km is walkable in ca. 15 minutes. Bicyclable in some minutes during summer.
More density than suburbs is really OK for a city core, but too much density is bad... Everyone should reject that. All the building projects I see are just concrete upon concrete, too dense, no green, just awful.
I would love to see more integrated greenspace instead of "hey, there's already a smallish park 2 km from you, go there to weep you hippie". Hence the original idea.
I guess some who are actual planners/architects are shooting it down, which is great, I can then imagine something better :)
Staying below 2000 people per square km will make it difficult to provide good public transport or other amenities, including shops. Anyone able to afford a car will want at least one per household, further reducing the population density and making it harder to get around on foot/bike/bus. Ultimately the only people who would choose this form of low-density living over conventional suburban homes would be those unable to afford their own house. Pleasant landscaping is expensive to maintain and almost guaranteed not to happen for a handful of poor people so you'd either end up with impenetrable forest or bare grass and concrete between buildings.
There are a few cases where something like this works quite well, but generally only the highest density versions when located in or near a large, prosperous city that already has excellent amenities. Otherwise it tends to be a disaster.
Optimizing for one thing alone rarely works in urban planing, even if the idea of ample green space for everyone seems uncontroversial.
About Le Corbusier. His core idea is interesting but from what I've seen the "towers in a park" implementations are basically "massive ugly badly designed towers surrounded by a malnourished slivers of grass". Also, for those: 1. the population density is invariably way too high, 2. the towers are always massive, 3. the green space sizes are absolutely too small, 4. the "green spaces" are boring and/or half dead, many times only grass (why not have gardens that actually produce food for people who live there, or forests)?
For example, Stuyvesant Town is one "tower in the park". It is IMO too crowded with too high towers. Reduce number of towers to 4 or 5, make towers lower, and it'd be more like it.
To give an exaggerated example, if one were to put a 6 floor tower right in the middle of Central Park, that's what I'm kind of after...
Why does having a car reduce the population density or impact foot/bike/bus at all?
As for the density cutoff of 2000 people / square km. Here we'd have a building of 100 people, 40 apartments (assume family of 2.5 people), 5 apartments/floor, 8 floors. Tower footprint won't make a huge difference, let's say it's > 500 m2, and this would be 1..2% per tower total area. In 1 square km (100 hectares) we'd have 20 such towers á 100 persons, thus 2000 people per square km. The towers would be quite low, and this would still be "dense enough" per that cutoff.
(This is napkin math so the real number is slightly lower or higher depending on various parameters)
Anyway, this an idea I'd like to see happen. I'm not an architect/planner (perhaps for a reason, say the shouts from the audience).
PS. https://www.sweco.se/projekt/satra/ this project (in Sweden) aims to build greenspaces where inhabitants can produce food. That's the theory at least, it will be interesting to see how it turns out. I do think this is again way too dense, but greenspaces to produce food is a great idea.
As others have said this density is just way too low. It's an improvement on the status quo that exists in many areas (low density sprawl with individual private green spaces, but essentially no public green space) but this density is just not good enough to create walkable communities.
The only city I've visited that seems to get this right is Chicago, which has massive tracts of public land that are accessible to everybody by walking, cycling, or public transit.
Not everybody will be able to live right next to a park, but nobody will live very far from one, either.
One tenth of that might be workable. One hundreth is probably fine. Gives the apartment building a house-sized lot for garden. And gives neighborhood a block sized park. And gives the city a large, nature park.
I come from a family of farmers. I would not agree with this statement.
Where does this idea come from? Farmers can end up outside all day which can age someone heavily.
I have done my own study with 7 siblings in my family half with children and I can assure you having kids adds at least 3 years of biological age per kid.
It's not a huge difference: 2 additional years in men, 1.5 in women; but it's significant enough[1].
---
I would be careful to conclude causality here. There are a lot of confounding factors in these studies. For instance, most childless people are not childless by choice but due to already existing illnesses which predispose them to shorter lifespans. Socioeconomic factors also play a huge role. For instance, the numerous studies which show that adoptive parents live longer than their childless counterparts need to account for the wealth and lifestyle factors that allow these parents to adopt kids in the first place.
There have also been studies showing an inverse relationship. Nonetheless, a clear fact is this: "People with children live longer than people without". IMHO, they need a robust study on otherwise healthy and socioeconomically stable individuals (perhaps otherwise childless by choice sperm/egg donors) with healthy counterparts. In order to see, if something like, "In order to increase your longevity, its good to have kids." is reasonable or not. Personally, I'd say the judge is still out on that one.
I don’t know that this study is crap, but it fits the pattern on the surface: “Correlate politically valuable thing A with biomarker B, observe that B is correlated with universally valued C, totally ignore statistics to infer that A causes C”.
I say this as someone who actively believes it’s healthier to live in or near green spaces!
Everyone seems to want the city completely paved over in roads and parking and places to shop and eat and do as much for as cheap as humanly possible.
There's a small number of people who want greenspace and acknowledge it comes at a cost, and they seek it out.
Everyone else seeks out more cheap appliances and clothes and gasoline.
And this study does not prove anything about them being good for people.
Maybe instead of X USD on this study we should have spent that money on an actual green space somewhere...
We also know the solutions: electric cars (I just bought my first), heat pumps with electric heating, and reversing aging.
Heat pumps or electric heating help solve climate change, not air pollution (it helps a bit if it replaces an old wood stove, but would make things worse if the grid is coal-powered, which is sadly still common).
Reversing aging isn't a thing and even if it were, it wouldn't be a solution to anything. Air pollution problems aren't only about physical health but mental health and biodiversity as well. Maybe I don't get the sarcasm.
An electric bike, though, is a pretty great choice!
Trains, trams, buses, bikes, walking, etc. are the actual solution.
Bicycles are the solution to that particular problem.
Studies using observational and non-comprehensive data collection have their place. They show reality. If people in one city have an incredibly high rate of dying from heart disease, that means we could reduce premature deaths there. And we'd do that by looking at the results of controlled studies into the causes of heart disease, then see which ones are prevalent and changeable.
https://www.econtalk.org/adam-mastroianni-on-peer-review-and...
TLDR; the incentives are all aligned for researchers to do very narrow, marginal work.
It might just be the case that salmon consumption under some threshold confers benefits that outweigh suspected detriments especially when a population tends to replace salmon with worse food.
People spending time in the forest are protected by the shade.
