High density housing - not high rises necessarily, but a much higher density than is the norm is Australia, is part of the solution, not the problem.
You raise alot of good points for medium and higher density housing and it has lots of benefits also, and obviously it's what will happen in the major city areas more and more in the future.
In theory, higher housing density can be cheaper, and allow for cheaper provision of services and public transport. Higher density housing in the form of apartments and terrace housing also has the potential to have lower heating and cooling requirements (an advantage for both sustainability and housing affordability). Local regulations often work against this however, for example density caps, height limits and requirements for housing setback. Some of these do have good reasons, but could arguably be solved in other ways with less restriction on density, thus less restriction on housing supply, and potentially/theoretically lower housing costs.
A paradox is that large cities where high densities are found are generally less affordable. Which causes considerable complications and a stressful living experience, people have to work longer hours per week and for much more of their lives.
A range of researchers have explored the impacts of high density living highlighting benefits relating to efficient use of land, reduced reliance on automobiles and enhanced social interaction.This form of living, however, has also received criticism from those in favour of ‘traditional suburban’ lifestyles as well as in relation to potential impacts such as noise, pollution, limited space and overcrowding.
Without changes to regulation, demand for houses is likely to continue to outstrip supply, meaning prices will continue to rise and densities increase while dwelling size decreases. This is likely to be unpopular and may be detrimental to well being. Moreover, as available land diminishes, green spaces and urban leisure facilities may come under increasing pressure for redevelopment, provoking higher prices or relocation to out of city areas.
In either case a loss of services would result and research suggests that wellbeing would probably be affected. Political intervention to prescribe minimum standards for dwelling size may merely exacerbate the problem as more people are priced out of the market.
High density housing - not high rises necessarily, but a much higher density than is the norm is Australia, is part of the solution, not the problem.
There is significant research which shows that high density living is unpopular and that factors associated with high density living are detrimental to wellbeing.
It's ok to cram people into areas for several reasons and around city areas it pretty much has to be done, as lots and lots (millions) of people have to live there for work reasons, but how great is it for the environment and happiness when you can't grow your own veggies and fruit, you can't have a large tank to use the rain water for your house (city rain is probably polluted anyway, or will be) you cant have chooks and get the eggs, you cant fish in lots of areas because its too polluted from too many people and the waste they create, the ocean will get more and more filthy/disgusting because of the millions of people who's sewerage is pumped into it, instead of having a septic system that helps fertilise ones garden on a block.
It's the way we will go no doubt tho, more and more into the future we'll have larger high rises and higher density housing in more and more places, with less and less green spaces and eventually we will get to be like China where people live in a big shoebox and kill themselves more because they are so depressed at the shit way of life.
A hard rain is gonna fall either way.
Yep, an acid rain probably in the city areas eventually.
No, we are very lucky here we don't get acid rain on such an extent as other countries do and have.
Australia has not experienced the problems caused by acid rain in other countries around the world. The emissions produced in this country are, in a global context, relatively small, and our geographical position isolates us from pollution caused by others.
However, being aware of the risks and keeping polluting emissions to a minimum now will help to ensure that acid rain does not become a concern for Australia in the future.
Because of our geographic alignment and our massive land mass and our 0.3%of the world population all contribute to why it is not a major problem in Aus. We are lucky here in lots of respects.
Something will probably happen eventually by mother nature, something like a tsunami maybe, one bigger than the 2004 boxing day one and heaps of the coastal areas will get smashed, the one in 2004 -
The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was an undersea megathrust earthquake that occurred at 00:58:53 UTC on Sunday, 26 December 2004, with an epicentre off the west coast of Sumatra, Indonesia. The quake itself is known by the scientific community as the Sumatra–Andaman earthquake.[4][5] The resulting tsunami is given various names, including the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, South Asian tsunami, Indonesian tsunami, and Boxing Day tsunami.
The earthquake was caused by subduction and triggered a series of devastating tsunamis along the coasts of most landmasses bordering the Indian Ocean,
killing over 230,000 people in fourteen countries, and inundating coastal communities with waves up to 30 meters (98 ft) high.[6] It was one of the deadliest natural disasters in recorded history. Indonesia was the hardest-hit country, followed by Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand.
With a magnitude of Mw 9.1–9.3, it is the third largest earthquake ever recorded on a seismograph. The earthquake had the longest duration of faulting ever observed, between 8.3 and 10 minutes. It caused the entire planet to vibrate as much as 1 centimetre (0.4 inches)[7] and triggered other earthquakes as far away as Alaska.[8] Its epicentre was between Simeulue and mainland Indonesia.[9] The plight of the affected people and countries prompted a worldwide humanitarian response. In all, the worldwide community donated more than $14 billion (2004 US$) in humanitarian aid.[10]
I could see something like that effecting one of the coasts of Aus one day, then we would be pretty fucked. Unless you live a fair bit inland of course. If something much bigger than that 2004 one hit in several areas at once all over the world and killed say 230 Million people or more that could cull the human population a wee bit, I think we kind of need these things to happen (on large scales) to slow the breeding and humans down somewhat, otherwise we are just going to keep breeding like rats.
This is strictly speaking about a global perspective though, I think we have 'boundless plains to share' here in oz.
