Over the last 20 years or so (which was around the start of the Pluto in Sagittarius building boom from 1995-2008), especially in my home state of California, the tearing down of run down buildings and building mixed use buildings in their place has become commonplace. While I get what these local governments are doing, which is beautifying blighted areas, these developments are a major factor in one of the world's biggest issues.
How do these mixed use developments contribute to climate change? The main reason is simple: overpopulation. The buildings that are generally demolished to make way for these developments are used car lots, old repair shops, vacant buildings, among other properties that nobody lives at, in order for new businesses to replace the demolished businesses, as well as many new residents above these businesses. More people in the city equals more vehicles on the street, which means more carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide emitted into the atmosphere. This massive increase in population also results in more traffic as a result of the increase of vehicles in the city, as well as overcrowded schools, due to the increase in residents.
The oxymoron is that some of the biggest culprits of these mixed use developments are cities run by Democratic municipal officials. As everybody knows, the Democratic party is the party that is against climate change, yet these Democratic officials still push for these developments despite the inevitable overpopulation and negative effect on the environment and our school systems that these developments create. Why?
More people in the city equals more consumers, which equals more revenue. And as I've mentioned in my main blog, Left Wing Astrology, politicians with a mixed or aggressive Pallas (Pallas and/or its ruler in hard aspect to Jupiter, any aspect to Pluto, and conjunctions and trines to the South Node) are prone to compromising on their beliefs (nearly all Democratic politicians have left wing economic and social indicators) in order for more money and power. This is obvious when you look at the ethics, or lack thereof, of our federal and state governments, so it's unlikely to be any different with our local governments, but just switch "big business" with "the developers". If everybody had a Universal Basic Income, or if there was no monetary system at all, then these types of developments would be less prominent. This would also be the case if Alan Lin's theory on political ideology and ethics and Dick Minnerly's Consideration Cycle were mainstream knowledge, for we'd know how the true character of our elected officials.
I'm not against all development, as it's very positive when the positives far outweigh the negatives, but despite eliminating blighted buildings, mixed use developments create far bigger problems in the long run. The gangs are still there in gentrified areas of LA like Venice, West LA, Hollywood, Silver Lake, and Echo Park, despite the areas not looking nearly as "ghetto" as they used to.