<story><title>More green spaces linked to slower biological aging</title><url>https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2023/06/more-green-spaces-linked-to-slower-biological-aging/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jnurmine</author><text>If I could design zoning things and building regulations and generally Simcity&amp;#x2F;Cities micromanage in real life, I would set a demand of reserving let&amp;#x27;s say 500 m2 of green space for every occupant in a multistorey building. This aggregated space would have to be right next to or around the building.&lt;p&gt;As a concrete example: to build a building for 100 people, one must have 100*500 = 5 hectares of space around the building, reserved for a green space only, not parking lots or such.&lt;p&gt;Buildings would be more spaced apart and would not trap heat so much like traditional dense designs, so urban centers would be cooler. I dare to claim that people would be less crazy and generally happier and healthier when living like this. Over time, building less densely would see all kinds of positive effects compounding.&lt;p&gt;The green space could be used for many good things, e.g. growing hyperlocal food like vegetables, potatoes or whatever grows well in the climate, for having tree-shaded places during warm days, for just having a piece of nature to go to quickly and easily. Smaller batches of forest shading a path could connect multiple buildings built with the same ideas, and so on. It would be possible to use bicycles or walk along these paths.&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell, if one has to build high, then make all multi-storey buildings like a stacked nano-village surrounded by a larger green area&amp;#x2F;forest. Based on my subjective understanding very few people actually like the ground floor so that&amp;#x27;s a good place to put local small businesses like barber, shop, bakery, café, and so on.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>542354234235</author><text>Like others have said, this would make things so spread out as to be unusable for walking&amp;#x2F;biking. You want more density, but with large, nearby swaths of mixed use spaces with lots of greenspace and walking paths, biking paths, shops and activities, and public transit. The higher density supports the local shops in walking&amp;#x2F;biking distance, as opposed to suburbs where you drive to larger more central locations for shopping. This also means you need less space devoted to roadways and parking  spaces, so you get even more space available for mixed use type greenspaces. You then have a city that is comprised of lively individual neighborhoods where people can go about their daily lives and activities within a half mile of green space filled walkable area, or they can hop on public transit (or ride bikes on protected paths) to go to one of the other lively individual neighborhoods.</text></comment>
<story><title>More green spaces linked to slower biological aging</title><url>https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2023/06/more-green-spaces-linked-to-slower-biological-aging/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jnurmine</author><text>If I could design zoning things and building regulations and generally Simcity&amp;#x2F;Cities micromanage in real life, I would set a demand of reserving let&amp;#x27;s say 500 m2 of green space for every occupant in a multistorey building. This aggregated space would have to be right next to or around the building.&lt;p&gt;As a concrete example: to build a building for 100 people, one must have 100*500 = 5 hectares of space around the building, reserved for a green space only, not parking lots or such.&lt;p&gt;Buildings would be more spaced apart and would not trap heat so much like traditional dense designs, so urban centers would be cooler. I dare to claim that people would be less crazy and generally happier and healthier when living like this. Over time, building less densely would see all kinds of positive effects compounding.&lt;p&gt;The green space could be used for many good things, e.g. growing hyperlocal food like vegetables, potatoes or whatever grows well in the climate, for having tree-shaded places during warm days, for just having a piece of nature to go to quickly and easily. Smaller batches of forest shading a path could connect multiple buildings built with the same ideas, and so on. It would be possible to use bicycles or walk along these paths.&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell, if one has to build high, then make all multi-storey buildings like a stacked nano-village surrounded by a larger green area&amp;#x2F;forest. Based on my subjective understanding very few people actually like the ground floor so that&amp;#x27;s a good place to put local small businesses like barber, shop, bakery, café, and so on.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>PartyOperator</author><text>Towers in the park is not a new idea. Le Corbusier was a big fan. In practice it tends not to work well. Additionally mandating a very low population density almost guarantees failure.&lt;p&gt;Staying below 2000 people per square km will make it difficult to provide good public transport or other amenities, including shops. Anyone able to afford a car will want at least one per household, further reducing the population density and making it harder to get around on foot&amp;#x2F;bike&amp;#x2F;bus. Ultimately the only people who would choose this form of low-density living over conventional suburban homes would be those unable to afford  their own house. Pleasant landscaping is expensive to maintain and almost guaranteed not to happen for a handful of poor people so you&amp;#x27;d either end up with impenetrable forest or bare grass and concrete between buildings.&lt;p&gt;There are a few cases where something like this works quite well, but generally only the highest density versions when located in or near a large, prosperous city that already has excellent amenities. Otherwise it tends to be a disaster.&lt;p&gt;Optimizing for one thing alone rarely works in urban planing, even if the idea of ample green space for everyone seems uncontroversial.</text></comment>