Reply #38: No, you probably wouldn't. But then you don't live in there now. [View All]

[last1standing]

Right now there are thousands living in hillside shacks with no running water, garbage collection or parks. Even if you ignored the logistics of displacing these people while you razed their current homes and built new structures there as well as parks, steep inclines are not the best environment for children to be playing on. As for confiscating the homes of the wealthy, I think the golf course seizure is less likely to cause the same amount of uproar. Plus, cities need their wealthy citizens just as they need their poor.

I appreciate your critique of my numbers but I do have a couple of questions. First, is 25% a solid number for green space? Living in the Detroit area, I can promise that there is nothing close to that here and I can't say that I've been to too many major cities that could boast that number. Now while I'm not holding this city up as a model for anyone I can say that I would rather live here than in the hillside shacks of Caracas. Second, Would increasing the number of units per floor decrease the percentage of necessary footprint? I've seen many apartment complexes with more than ten units per floor so I'm not sure why that would be a bad thing if it provides more environmentally friendly areas.