PowerSwitch

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/07 ... cities.php

'Lloyd has looked at the correlation between urban density and driving habits before, but has also concluded that medium density cities are often more sustainable than the uber-dense. This debate seems to be heating up again, with George Monbiot arguing for strict planning laws, compact cities, and high density,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/g ... n-planning

while David Boyle over at the New Economics Foundation suggesting Monbiot has it all wrong, and medium density is the way to go:

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/2011/0 ... -on-cities

'First, the evidence about energy use and densities is not nearly as clear cut as he suggests. Very low densities like Los Angeles mean high energy use, but so do very high densities like New York and Tokyo. The spectrum between those makes very little difference.

Second, future cities are going to have to provide for their own needs, growing water and using waste as raw materials for new industries. Both those activities require space. High density living means trucking the food in every morning and the waste out every night. It is old economic thinking.

Third, the human spirit requires nature. Our mental health requires access to trees and growing things. High density cities are a recipe for insanity for the poor. That's not sustainable either'.

Jon

Ha ha. These people all write as though we'll have any say in the matter.

People will go wherever there's a chance of not starving. All this talk of "sustainability" of any kind of city is tripe.

The Monbiot/Moonbat ratio is decreasing.

City planners are failing, moonbats solution, more power for city planners.

And you whine failing banklers are rewarded.

There have been cities for thousands of years. That isn't going to change any time soon. That said, the megalopolises like Tokyo and LA are not going to survive in their current forms. I'm not sure London is looking too hot, either.

I agree with other posters that there's not a lot we can do to influence this any more - although *not* approving further developments that assume universal car ownership (either shops or housing) would be a good start.

Londons population actualy peaked in 1939.
Within reason, theres not really an upper limit to city population density.
Whats as, if not more important, is the population in a wider area.
Londons problem isnt so much its own population, its the fact that neighbouring "towns" have gone from 1,000-10,000 garden towns to 100,000 resident cities in their own right...

some of the most irritating arguments i've had on the web about overpopulation/overshoot..

"you just have the impression of overpopulation because of densely populated cities.. just move into the countryside where it's not overpopulated"
arghh.

I agree with the comment that it's all about the population of the broader area

RunningOnEmpty wrote:There have been cities for thousands of years. That isn't going to change any time soon. That said, the megalopolises like Tokyo and LA are not going to survive in their current forms. I'm not sure London is looking too hot, either.

London will eventually be swallowed by the sea. It's now just a question of "when", not "if."

I believe it is now inevitable that we will fail to prevent the 2 degree rise in global temperatures that will trigger additional positive feedback mechanisms leading to a 6-8 degree rise before the end of this century. And that means places like London are toast. At some point in the coming century, the Thames Barrier will fail. When that happens, people will start leaving London like rats from a sinking ship, because they will know that it will happen again.

This issue is all about logistics, not spatial development -- and the energy and resource balance that links the two. Also, whilst some cities (e.g. London) survive on international services and the housing needs for service workers, a contracting global economy will hit these areas harder than manufacturing centres that earn an income from real trade -- like Guangdong.

All cities, throughout history, have had a 'hinterland' which supports their needs. The exception is major ports, like London, which used shipping to supply their needs. Energy depletion and problems with food supply will severely limits the ability to geographically isolated megacities in areas with a low agricultural output to survive -- e.g. in the southern USA, many Russian cities in Siberia, Delhi, and many of the population centres of the Middle East. Cities on large rivers -- Vienna, Budapest, Cairo -- can still use the river as their main source of supply, if those rivers continue to flow and don't silt-up (e.g., lower snowfall in the Alps/Tatras will hit the flow of the Danube).