Forum discussion

Density contributing to pandemic? Or not?

I've been hearing a lot of talk about density becoming a thing of the past. Like with the danger of antimicrobials, it would be great to have some more in depth backup information on whether density is really a danger factor, or if other factors are more important, when we go into these conversations. Does anybody have any new or better information?

0

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Wed, 04/22/2020 - 13:52

This will be an interesting conversation! Let me ramble for a minute on it... Of course, it's not the density itself that is the risk factor. It's the spaces and risks associated with density. Such as confined spaces with strangers: elevators, subway cars, and dense classroom, office, or retail facilities, especially where you might encounter an infected person sneezing or the like, or high-touch surfaces that may have been touched by an infected individual. Specific settings such as healthcare settings are of course a major issue regardless of surrounding density. "Density" may become a bugaboo but I very much doubt that it is going anyway in any real way. You can't get away from density without massive spreading out. We have all probably heard by now or seen examples of parks or hiking trails or beaches near urban areas where folks are trying to get outdoors in a safe way, and are encountering lots of other people. You have to drastically reduce density, as in come out here to rural Vermont, to not find that. So if you can really spread those people out very far, you can reduce density but that's not happening without a major multi-generation diaspora from cities. Which, if it happens, will only be made feasible (to the people leaving and the people already there) by major upgrades to those rural areas in the form of better broadband and cellular networks, better transportation networks, and better economic opportunities with remote work, etc. Which might bring many of the benefits of urban living to more areas while reducing some of the environmental downsides of non-density such as transportation energy intensity and poorer public health.  In those dense cities, offices, transit systems, elevators, parks, etc, are not going away, but which ones are more safe? What is a manageable density, and what is too much? Clearly airplane cabins, offices, and elevators probably will become less dense as a trend, but entire populations don't have anywhere to go. Therefore what are the adaptations that will make cities safer with appropriate adjustments to high-density areas? I think we will see systems redesigned, more behaviorally than physically in the short-term, and then in the longer-term the physical environment will adapt to what is working best in terms of behavioral and social adaptations.

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.