• Jolteon@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Unironically houses. If you go for the apartment, The remaining land will still be filled up, just with apartments instead of houses, and you’ll have to deal with 50x more people then you would have with house model.

    One of the main benefits of using houses instead of apartments is avoiding population density.

    • Dagrothus@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Nah you can still have high population density in businesses/venues whether people are coming from houses or apartments. Only difference is whether they have to drive 20 minutes through suburbia to get there. It doesnt feel any less dense when 90% of the land has zero points of interest besides houses so you simply drive past all of this nearly empty space to get anywhere.

      If you don’t care about going anywhere and just want to sit in your backyard admiring the grass most days, then sure, you do you.

    • BluesF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      There’s only so much population. Afaik availability of housing isn’t particularly a limiting factor for population growth, either, so I don’t think this is true. If we all moved into apartments then there would be less land used, no question.