this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2025
92 points (98.9% liked)

Canada

10537 readers
769 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Okay, sure. If you mean townhouses or something, lower density by urban standards, mid density when you consider the countryside exists too. I really, really don't see how the sustainability of anything benefits from that. You need more roads, more cars, more land and more building materials to house the same number.

If you just mean building the same kind of apartments somewhere else, like in Kamloops or something, you haven't actually changed anything except more roads and traffic again, because everyone is further from everyone else.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Mid density is mid density. No need to confuse thinking by averaging rural into the equation. We could average out across the universe and be at effective zero home per km2. It's a ridiculous argument, so why bother.

By mid density, I like most urban planners include everything from townhouse and multiplexes all the way up to low rise appt buildings under 5 stories. It's dense enough to enable urban transit and walkable neighbourhoods but efficient enough to not need elevators and supplementary water pumps to get water up to the top floor.

High rises have nice views when another one isn't in front of you, but man is it crippled when the power goes out.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago

They're also usually cheaper per unit than lowrises, where they're built. The location is just great, and the savings on transport adds up to more than building upwards costs, which is why it's economical for residents to buy them, even when there's no view. (Once you looks at supertall and maybe superthin buildings that changes, though)

If disaster resilience is your concern, that's fair, although it's not really a degrowth thing.