One does not simply walk to downtown. You MUST own a car.
Where I live, rich urban areas have plenty of trees and frequently get more planted around. Meanwhile, poorer areas receive zero trees because “they don’t have trees to receive maintenance”.
I normally don’t post about my blog here, but I literally posted this today so…https://dantheclamman.blog/2024/04/24/environmentally-youve-got-to-hand-it-to-sauron/
Tree is good, no tree is sad. Sounds reasonable enough!
“Urban sprawl” is an oxymoron. Dense urban areas are good, actually; it’s only the suburbs that sprawl.
It should be called suburban sprawl
Agreed. Suburban sprawl I meant
It should be called the place with trees and loosely densely population that would be okay if cars weren’t so ubiquitous because some people like space but let’s make sure not to exclude minorities so people don’t end up racist.
Tokyo
Tokyo (mostly) isn’t sprawl; that’s just how much space 40 million people take up.
This is not true? Lots of urban areas can sprawl, not least because of car centric planning (big car parks between islands of actual land use; roads built to ease the traffic of roads; urban ‘islands’ of tall and dense occupation connected by road with slivers of green in-between that don’t serve to actually offer a natural environment. Kuala Lumpur features all of these, for example) but also as economic centres decline and become disused and new developments in other areas spread.
