We need to make our cities and towns more family friendly. This is called the “missing middle” in housing, and it’s why in north america all we see are either large condo towers or single family homes, which also drives our urban sprawl problems. Which exacerbate out dependency on cars.
Almost all new large towers/buildings in north america prioritize bachelor’s units 1 and 2 bedroom units. Trying to find a well priced 3 or 4 bedroom in a “lively” downtown center, close to transit and work, with plenty of schooling in the area is almost impossible. It’s also a factor in why cities became so empty during the pandemic, ie. Not to many families living permanently in cities.
Here’s a good article that also talks about the same issue with some different apparment layouts, and why developers don’t provide adequate family units.
https://www.centerforbuilding.org/blog/we-we-cant-build-family-sized-apartments-in-north-america
This together with zoning requirements in north america is pushing most cities and developers to only cater towards large towers or single family housing.
Why is it that your definition of “plenty” is right and others are wrong? Plenty is however much each individual thinks it is.
When most of the world can live in comfort with less space, then it would be good if everyone would. It would save energy, resources, and leave more room for nature.
Many humans are greedy and want more of everything, including space. Do you think that people who live in mansions do so against their will? Do you think that owning a mansion is good for the planet?
My definition of plenty can be flexible, and thinking about it we could be happy with less space. I lived in a caravan with an ex-boyfriend for a while which was about 20m^2, and space was not the main factor in wanting to move out.
That’s great, and good for you. But, that doesn’t mean that I, or others, “should” emulate you. We should do what’s right for ourselves. We all have limited time on this rock, and I don’t necessarily want to live your life.
@Iamdanno @7of9 Your rights end where someone else’s begin. If your house, yard, or car are so big that they interfere with your community’s ability to provide adequate housing and safe transport for everyone, you are infringing on other people’s rights and imposing excessive costs on society as a whole.
It’s not infringement if the city zoning and building offices approve it. If it’s legal, you can fuck right off. You don’t have to like it, but that doesn’t mean you get to dictate your beliefs on anyone else. Your rights end where other’s begin as well.
I never said you should emulate my life, what I said is that taking up less space would be good for the planet … you get limited time on this rock, it’s going to be a lot more limited for your kids if the food chain collapses.
There is no point in individuals trying to fix the planet. As long as the large corporations are allowed to operate unchecked, the result is a forgone conclusion. We may as well live the best life we can, in the time we have left.
Both are needed, corporations must be held account able and individuals need to make changes to how they live … I don’t believe either will actually happen, but that doesn’t mean that the morality of choices over resource use suddenly get inverted just because of a bad case of nihilism.
The corporation thing MUST happen if anything is to be changed. If that doesn’t happen, individuals are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Since the corporations won’t change anything, there’s no point in individual change.
If individuals changed, corporations would be forced to change (or would die) since they would no longer be profitable. It needs to be both at the same time.
That doesn’t negate the positive moral implication of making a pleasant comfortable life while consuming less.
Business as usual for individuals means business as usual for corporations.