This is trying to sound dystopian, but it fails because car storage is not suitable for housing. We also have more square footage of sidewalks than dwellings. So?
> Why is it surprising that there’s more cheap to build car parking
By that logic it would be cheaper not to build anything, so why is something built in the first place?
A hundred people in the space of 5 cars is unmeasurably better for the economy. Workforce, consumers, etc. If 2 of them open craft coffeeshops next door 98 of them won't need to go somewhere to get a nice drink, and so on. Once you don't need to cross 6 lanes on foot all sorts of possibilities open. Proximity is benefit multiplier at the same time reducing ecofootprint
Why is it surprising that there’s more cheap-to-build car parking than there is expensive-to-build housing?
" So not only is 32% of your apartment just for your car and otherwise useless, but its also by far the most expensive part of that apartment to build." in the example linked, for reference.
Specifically for housing in America, though, more houses don't lower the price. That's because the more housing is owned by an individual builder the more they control appraisal comps. Why do you think they have so much marketing to try to convince you that it's good for the environment? They are able to get zoning exceptions to build high density, high priced living. Pick any skyscraper residence in America. Nearly all, if not all, are far more expensive than surrounding suburbs.
Are you saying we should pour concrete over land as long as there's land remaining? Let's try to have a more nuanced discussion perhaps
> Or that we don't need money?
The opposite, dedicating space to park 5 cars some of the time instead of 100 people living is the waste of money here. This doesn't even take into account damage to the planet from spreading people all over it
> Fitting 100 people in the space of 5 cars sounds a lot worse, not better
Only if you make it bad, I've seen some comfy skyscrapers
Here's nuance. The entire population of the world could live in Texas with an American quality of life. A back yard and a lawn, a 2 car garage, etc. And that's just Texas. Where are you from?
>The opposite, dedicating space to park 5 cars some of the time instead of 100 people living is the waste of money here. This doesn't even take into account damage to the planet from spreading people all over it.
This doesn't damage the planet. Building skyscrapers to line pockets of bankers so they can build so close together that trees and crops can't grow in the surrounding area is damaging.
>Only if you make it bad, I've seen some comfy skyscrapers.
Really? Did they keep chickens and goats in their apartment? Did they plant forests in their balcony?
Yeah. Everyone would have sub 90 sq meters of space for everything, and there would be zero space for any sort of forest, park, a shopping mall or any roads for all those 8 billion cars. People would have to have drone deliveries for everything because roads would be gridlocked with all those cars and you won't get anywhere anyway. And better wear PPE mask outside at all times. Is that American lifestyle?
> Crops can't grow
If you spread 100 families on surface and give everyone 90 sq meters, that's all gone area for crops. Add infrastructure, electricity, piping, roads and junctions to handle private traffic. Add maintenance. But if you stack em vertically in the space of a medium sized parking lot the remaining space is all crops or trees or whatever.
> Did they keep chickens and goats in their apartment?
Sounds like animal cruelty to me
> Did they plant forests in their balcony?
No but a forest is available within walking distance. In your ideal world really no one leaves their designated box for a healthy daily walk? Ah right, I forgot about 6 lanes of traffic to cross.
It sounds like you might need some help with the math. Do you?
You just don't want to admit it. Dense areas are better in every way. Better for economy, more profitable, more efficient, sustainable. The only reason to be opposed is if you are afraid that real estate you own will start going down in price because everyone suddenly needs less land for everything.
When land is expensive enough efficiency finds a way.
Same applies to all office jobs.
Even to physical labour, if we have robot telepresence[2].
[0] IDK, might be?
[1] Or at least +/- a time zone or three.
[2] AI-on-the-edge robotics probably ends those things as human work opportunities.