finley wrote:'Course there would. Same number of people, different locations. As I argued in another thread, house size is a very small part of a human's ecological footprint. 3,600,000ha/10,000,000households = 3600m2/household. Even if you assume 80% of that can't be touched (for various reasons) or is needed for industrial use, that's still 700m2/household, which is enough to provide a lot of basic needs with an appropriate infrastructure in place.
Of course, you'd need a much more efficient transport architecture than the 19th-century crap we've got at the moment, but that's a different story. Land area is not an issue. In fact it might make people realise how precious land really is, and that you can't reduce your ecological footprint by just cramming everyone into high-rise shoeboxes.
Ecological footprints will be there no matter if we live in a high rise or low rise dwelling.
How much extra piping and electrical connections and parking space and broadband and even concrete for walls and floors we would need let alone space? ...
The problem with buildings of ALL types in Taiwan is they don't have proper design and materials for the climate.
Anybody who lives in Taiwan can see that wherever there is concrete and road wildlife generally retreats and disappears.
ichbinjenny wrote:Note: That 8K bill is for maintaining a climate-controlled basement, office and storefront over standard two-month billing periods. Lots more going on here than in your general home.
Forumosans browsing this forum: JackRyles and 5 visitors