I don't know what people think are a biking/walking distance, but a distance of 1 km is walkable in ca. 15 minutes. Bicyclable in some minutes during summer.

More density than suburbs is really OK for a city core, but too much density is bad... Everyone should reject that. All the building projects I see are just concrete upon concrete, too dense, no green, just awful.

I would love to see more integrated greenspace instead of "hey, there's already a smallish park 2 km from you, go there to weep you hippie". Hence the original idea.

I guess some who are actual planners/architects are shooting it down, which is great, I can then imagine something better :)

About Le Corbusier. His core idea is interesting but from what I've seen the "towers in a park" implementations are basically "massive ugly badly designed towers surrounded by a malnourished slivers of grass". Also, for those: 1. the population density is invariably way too high, 2. the towers are always massive, 3. the green space sizes are absolutely too small, 4. the "green spaces" are boring and/or half dead, many times only grass (why not have gardens that actually produce food for people who live there, or forests)?

For example, Stuyvesant Town is one "tower in the park". It is IMO too crowded with too high towers. Reduce number of towers to 4 or 5, make towers lower, and it'd be more like it.

To give an exaggerated example, if one were to put a 6 floor tower right in the middle of Central Park, that's what I'm kind of after...

Why does having a car reduce the population density or impact foot/bike/bus at all?

As for the density cutoff of 2000 people / square km. Here we'd have a building of 100 people, 40 apartments (assume family of 2.5 people), 5 apartments/floor, 8 floors. Tower footprint won't make a huge difference, let's say it's > 500 m2, and this would be 1..2% per tower total area. In 1 square km (100 hectares) we'd have 20 such towers á 100 persons, thus 2000 people per square km. The towers would be quite low, and this would still be "dense enough" per that cutoff.

(This is napkin math so the real number is slightly lower or higher depending on various parameters)

Anyway, this an idea I'd like to see happen. I'm not an architect/planner (perhaps for a reason, say the shouts from the audience).

PS. https://www.sweco.se/projekt/satra/ this project (in Sweden) aims to build greenspaces where inhabitants can produce food. That's the theory at least, it will be interesting to see how it turns out. I do think this is again way too dense, but greenspaces to produce food is a great idea.

I would be careful to conclude causality here. There are a lot of confounding factors in these studies. For instance, most childless people are not childless by choice but due to already existing illnesses which predispose them to shorter lifespans. Socioeconomic factors also play a huge role. For instance, the numerous studies which show that adoptive parents live longer than their childless counterparts need to account for the wealth and lifestyle factors that allow these parents to adopt kids in the first place.

There have also been studies showing an inverse relationship. Nonetheless, a clear fact is this: "People with children live longer than people without". IMHO, they need a robust study on otherwise healthy and socioeconomically stable individuals (perhaps otherwise childless by choice sperm/egg donors) with healthy counterparts. In order to see, if something like, "In order to increase your longevity, its good to have kids." is reasonable or not. Personally, I'd say the judge is still out on that one.

I don’t know that this study is crap, but it fits the pattern on the surface: “Correlate politically valuable thing A with biomarker B, observe that B is correlated with universally valued C, totally ignore statistics to infer that A causes C”.

I say this as someone who actively believes it’s healthier to live in or near green spaces!

Everyone seems to want the city completely paved over in roads and parking and places to shop and eat and do as much for as cheap as humanly possible.

There's a small number of people who want greenspace and acknowledge it comes at a cost, and they seek it out.

Everyone else seeks out more cheap appliances and clothes and gasoline.

And this study does not prove anything about them being good for people.

Maybe instead of X USD on this study we should have spent that money on an actual green space somewhere...

Heat pumps or electric heating help solve climate change, not air pollution (it helps a bit if it replaces an old wood stove, but would make things worse if the grid is coal-powered, which is sadly still common).

Reversing aging isn't a thing and even if it were, it wouldn't be a solution to anything. Air pollution problems aren't only about physical health but mental health and biodiversity as well. Maybe I don't get the sarcasm.

An electric bike, though, is a pretty great choice!

Trains, trams, buses, bikes, walking, etc. are the actual solution.

Bicycles are the solution to that particular problem.