In a couple of ways - the very small roads in these areas can't handle more traffic, parking will be harder, the public transport is already full (public transport is the most used means of communication in Oslo, not only among the hoi polloi, but also among the hoi oligoi), schools and kindergartens are full etc. Basically the infrastructure in large areas around the city was built to handle low density areas, and has already been stretched to the limit by the increased density as older houses are pulled down and replaced by 3-4 houses on the same area. Same thing applies in the areas where you have e.g 4 floor apartment buildings, and companies want to build e.g 8 floors next to that.
In addition to the infrastructure issue s, you obviously don't want a high, wide and massive wall where there once was green and sky.
Hmm. I’m not sure how old the city you mentioned is, and how infrastructure was built up over time.
Toronto over 100 yrs you can tell there are pockets or areas where roads are just terrible, and not through erosion alone, just poorly designed as an infrastructure due to now vision for increased citizen and travel capacity - and still today doing the same terrible mistakes like light rail (LRT) to connect a considerable hilly terrain - splitting street level with underground level public commute. Just adding more congestion, delays during a 4yr contruction that has NoT completed.
LRT = Metrolinx Eglinton East & West.
Now Toronto does have areas or buroughs that are a lot newer were their infrastructure is better suited for growth in population: Scarborough, Ajax, Oshawa, Mississauga and Brampton especially well designed. The latter two don’t have many tall buildings or condos - Mississauga has drastically changed in this area since when I lived there in 2004-2006. However the design still allows for longer street lights, better placed emergency services for greater coverage with some overlap, and probably THE best water filtration and treatment in the entire TheSix (6 burroughs make up the GTA greater Toronto area).
Older Towns or cities expanded to handle increased population does have it’s advantages.
More land and if better planned to handle a future increase of 3x in 10 yrs stretching that out you’d have a much better planned infrastructure (roads, traffic lights, emergency & public services and their coverage, Schools, housing, water treatment, etc).
Public transit have better more efficient designed buses (electric or natural gas), better capacity - I loathe people that use those gargantuan wheel sized strollers! They don’t carry more than the older traditional strollers from 21yrs ago and if you’re not using it for running I or jogging with your child don’t bother. Having 5yr olds in strollers - screams of laziness breeding laziness. Building subways is not a good idea - as it will limit or disrupt water mains, sewage mains, fibre optic, cable networks, and some electrical (not all are above ground on poles).
When a city is better planned for stages of growth and done right - in NO WAY does increased population reduce quality of life. nothing you’ve explained hard wires that, you’re just focusing on the here and now. It doesn’t prove reduced quality of life.
yesterday just yesterday South Barrie, ON had a tornado … I’ve never seen nor heard of this! 50 families homes had roofs lifted right off brand new <10yr homes. It was not a strong tornado that many have seen in the USA not even close, but it was a surprise for us living in Toronto. Barrie has VERY VERY minimal buildings above 5-10 floors and they don‘t cover a very large area/block. I’m curious if such a tornado would’ve even landed in Toronto due to our very high number of skyscrapers (condos and office buildings).
