Skip Navigation

Some architectural and city planning with relation to climate seems counterintuitive to me. Can someone explain?

I would assume living in more pleasant warm climates would incentive less dense planning since walking/travel between locations would be less unpleasant and also energy consumption for heating wouldn't be as in high demand. Meanwhile cities in colder climates would incentives dense planning that allowed for people to get what they needed without having to leave a building, or not having to walk far. Also housing more in less buildings could conserve heating energy.

Yet here is a picture of Rio Di Janeiro

And here is Nuuk Greenland

In fact looking at a lot of extreme north communities, it seems they prefer single family housing that's fairly spread out, this is the case in Scandinavia, Alaska, Greenland and Russia. Idk, just seems weird to me.

4 comments
  • You're observing a problem of scale. There's basically no people in Nuuk relative to Rio. It takes a lot of resources to create dense efficient layouts, and those resources are easier to concentrate and more profitably invested in places with more people.

    There's enough people in Rio for density to make economic sense. Space is cheap in Nuuk and resources are more scarce.