Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat I observe from your exchanges is that there is flexibility in your way, and the notion that someone must organize people to do the right stuff. Even the efficiency of urban, vertical development may suit lots of people, but others don't like congestion.
If it is truly so affordable then why not send us (Zambians) the plans as we are always ready to save a few bucks especially when it comes to building. But its got to be cheaper than cement blocks - the current norm for most houses in Zambia.
Although your quote suggests it is no better than bricks or concrete????
I must also note that most villagers ...[text shortened]... as mortar.
The best ways to cool a house in Zambia are:
1. Higher ceilings.
2. Plant trees.
Originally posted by normbenignYes, governments must 'organise people to do the right stuff'.
What I observe from your exchanges is that there is flexibility in your way, and the notion that someone must organize people to do the right stuff. Even the efficiency of urban, vertical development may suit lots of people, but others don't like congestion.
My home town of Livingstone is expanding. Many outside policy makers have strongly recommended to the town council that a limit should be put on that expansion as it is far more efficient to force people to make better use of the land already within the city limits. However, due to corruption, the City Council continues to give out plots for development (because they receive bribes to do so). The long term harm to the city as a whole is enormous. To give an example: The Livingstone water supply looses over half the water they pump and treat to leaks. If the city was half the size, then half those leaks would not exist and there would be an instant 25% saving on water. There would also be a 50% saving on repair costs, making it a lot easier for them to actually fix those leaks and save even more. This cost saving could be passed on to the customers.
In reality Livingstone could be cut down to a 25% or 10% of its size. Ideally we could fit everyone in 3 or four sky scrapers. This would mean an enormous saving on roads, fuel, vehicle maintenance, water pipes/ electricity lines, phone lines etc etc.
Yes, some people don't like congestion, but most of them do not realise just how much we all pay for that privilege. For example, I know people who spend 3 or more hours a day in their cars.
But most importantly, the fact is that we do not have enough land to house everyone in luxury. The fact is that the majority of people on this earth must live in apartments of some sort. So if we are going to talk about a dream house, lets talk about one that the majority of us can actually aspire to. If you want a sustainable future then it has to work for all of us. Yes I know you and rwingett would rather keep the rest of the world poor so that you can maintain your life styles, but I can assure you that such an attitude is simply not sustainable.
I came across this recently:
&feature=g-all-u
ad from about 6:30 he addresses density and says that:
1. High density produces about 1/4 of the green house gas emissions that low density does.
2. High density uses about 1/50 of the land area of low density.
It is my belief that these two savings alone far exceed anything the dream house in the OP can provide.