Is living in multifamily housing better for the environment than living in a single family house?

Re: Is living in multifamily housing better for the environment than living in a single family house

I don't know..but if you want a plug in Prius you are going to probably need a garage.

 

Re: Is living in multifamily housing better for the environment than living in a single family house

All else being equal, the combined housing is better for the environment. If for no other reason than there is less exterior wall area to insulate. Of course, most new town homes around here are larger than the house I grew up in.

 

Re: Is living in multifamily housing better for the environment than living in a single family house

Higher density housing will almost always be lower footprint.
Larger population closer together equal less urban sprawl, shorter transportation requirements, more likely to use alternative transporation, more acres for green spaces..etc..etc

 

Re: Is living in multifamily housing better for the environment than living in a single family house

Multifamily housing is much better for the environment but much worse for my environment.

 

Re: Is living in multifamily housing better for the environment than living in a single family house

+1

I could potentially like a large townhouse or condominium provided I couldn't hear my neighbors, had a decent view and had a 2 car garage plus shop space.

 

I'm not so sure. I'm really not a fan of maximising density - it just means more people, more consumption, and more cars within a given area. It's not like the population's going to go down, it's just more concentrated. Isn't having a yard full of trees better for the environment than cutting them down and putting up an apartment building?

 

Re: Is living in multifamily housing better for the environment than living in a single family house

That's reality the vast majority of the time

In the ideal world, if you decided to put x number of people in a square mile, multiple family dwellings would leave more land for open space. There are very few places in the US where that would ever happen. More people per square mile would be packed in because that's where the money is.

 

If - and this is a huge theoretical IF that I know will never happen - only a certain number of people are permitted within a given area, then a single tower to house them all, surrounded by a park or a farm, would be ideal.

But the way we do things now, basically letting developers decide what our cities look like, you could say that single family homes are an effective way to control the population.

Increasing the population and density of a city only increases its footprint. All that stuff has to come from somewhere, generally further and further away. It's all based on cheap oil - if and when the transportation infrastructure fails, most of the city-dwellers will starve.

 

Re: Is living in multifamily housing better for the environment than living in a single family house

Meanwhile, back at the ranch so to speak.

Clearly from an energy use/use of resources to build and live in, the more dwellings per unit the better. (assuming reasonable design).

For example, given that heat rises, it is incrementally cheaper to heat each successive floor. Additionally, by building multiple level dwellings, you are only buying one set of roof and foundation for the entire building with it's environmental costs. So, one man's ceiling become another man's floor.

In addition, the thermal mass of larger units retains heat so that the heating loads of each individual unit is somewhat less. An interesting question is what is the similar effect on A/C loads. I would guess most of the same rules apply, except that individual A/C loads might be marginally higher per unit, given the parasitic heat sources in most dwellings permeating the whole.

 

Re: Is living in multifamily housing better for the environment than living in a single family house

A/C loads should be lower per unit most of the time.

Interior walls occupied on both sides will be roughly the same temperature on both sides so close to zero heat flow through those walls. A single family dwelling has the same parasitic loads per square foot plus the loss through hotter exterior walls.

 

Re: Is living in multifamily housing better for the environment than living in a single family house

I'm going to suggest that from a heating and air conditioning perspective, you want to minimize the outside surface area of the building per occupant. You can do this by having more units per building, and by having the units smaller and by putting more people in each unit. Thus a building of large apartments with one occupant each could be less efficient than a small, well-insulated home with a family living in it.

But other things being equal (volume per occupant, quality of insulation) the apartment building should be more efficient than the single-family house. Local climate also makes a difference. A well-insulated house on the west coast will use less energy than the identical house in North Dakota, NYC, or west Texas. Where you set your thermostat matters also.

OTOH, living in an apartment one has to be pretty lucky to have any sort of peace and quiet. I once lived for 4 years in an apartment building run by a large property management company. I said I wanted quiet, so they rented me an apartment in a building they tried to fill with quiet people. But it's illegal to discriminate against people with kids, and a couple of years later the couple next door had a kid, and then another couple, and then the company quit trying, and by the time I moved out the building was often noisy with screaming and kids running in the hallway. Other than that it was a nice building.

 

If it's maximum efficiency you want, I'd suggest a geodesic dome. Buckminster Fuller invented them, along with many other brilliant and fascinating things, as a way of enclosing the maximum space with the minimum amount of material. To increase the efficiency even further, the dome could be partially underground and use hydronic ground loops for heating and cooling. By controlling the temperature of the whole structure, you'd eliminate the need to insulate any interior walls.

Also, by locating hydroponic farms, homes, offices, and services all within the same megastructure, demand for transportation fuel would be reduced significantly.

 

Re: Is living in multifamily housing better for the environment than living in a single family house

Efficiency is not the goal, it is one of many interacting factors. Sustainability is the goal. That criteria determines what is better for the environment.

 

Re: Is living in multifamily housing better for the environment than living in a single family house

Absolutely.

We can have a self sustaining village with no modern ameneties living in wide spread houses - as well as a close knit community. Farmed land would be arranged differently.

But in a modern industrial society, sustainability means using less "stuff" - since producing & transporting those would consume less energy. That would mean smaller apartments. Walkable communities. Walking/biking to work etc.

 

Re: Is living in multifamily housing better for the environment than living in a single family house

Given our present way of doing things—making infrastructure—it's better for the environment, but can have lots of issues unless everyone is reasonably cool and has some sensitivity for their neighbors.

I do wonder if higher levels of density go against our basic nature as human animals, and may lead to greater amounts of violence.

I do think it enables public transportation, which is good and I personally enjoy using. And shorter commute distances are also a plus. But it also forces—once again—more people into more confined areas. And like I said, whether that goes against our basic nature—or whether reducing the isolation of our shiny metal boxes forces us to deal with people as people instead of inanimate objects—is something of which I'm not sure.

I think the worst case is sprawling moderate density cities, where density is too low for adequate public transportation yet there can still be the feeling of crowding and the shelter of anonymity, but without the higher concentrations that lead to the proliferation of arts and culture and the unique architecture and other attractions which give world class cities their appeal (at least to me).