this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
1213 points (86.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

9666 readers
50 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

What is going on in this comments section? Building dense is massively better for the environment than SFH, both in the construction phase and for the life of the units as far more residents can be served with less infrastructure sprawl. It also doesn't mean that detached housing will suddenly stop existing if we let developers build densely packed housing. Doesn't even need to be high rises, it can be townhomes, duplexes, five-over-ones, etc. You'll still be able to get a white picket fence suburban home or a farmhouse on some acreage if you want. In fact, it will become cheaper because all the people who want to live in cities will actually be able to move there and not take up space in that low density area you want to live in.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's the same attitutes that cause drivers to oppose public transit, despite the fact that public transit means less traffic. More dense housing options mean fewer people competing for the same low-density sprawl and farmland. Everybody wins by allowing more density to be built, instead of continuing our current model of government-mandated sprawl for all.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From an ecological POV I'm not so sure on the word density. More dense buildings, yes, but even more dense urban areas (read: than Paris/London) can lead to sealing of soils, UHI, recreational under-supply.

Sprawl is awful, too, and SFH is a luxury.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

There is a sweet spot in population density for cities. I am not sure about the exact number, but you get it, when building houses, that have four or five stories.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Yabbut it will attract the poors. That's the real reason.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It will become cheaper because all the people who want to live in cities will actually be able to move there…

Except when financial incentives line up so that it’s more profitable to let an apartment go vacant than it is to decrease rent to an affordable level.

Just go to Seattle - you’ll see apartment buildings at less than 50% capacity with rent starting at $2500/mo, immediately adjacent to homeless camps.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The financial incentives don't line up because there isn't enough (affordable) housing supply. Build more and they will be forced to drop their rates or sit vacant forever losing money. Some areas also have ass-backwards tax schemes that allow you to write off lost income from a "vacancy" as a loss. I'm not sure if Seattle does this but that is another major driver of those obnoxiously high rent vacant apartments in some areas.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Well yes, it's definitely great as a temporary means of housing, but realistically we all want some breathing room, some privacy, expandability... This is great for cities and Metropolitan areas, but you're not gonna get people elsewhere to prefer this over, say, a foresty cottage with full privacy, solar energy generation, your own crops, maybe even a water source that you can clean up to provide for your water needs.

The problem isn't that kind of house, the problem is the suburban hellscape with perfectly cut lawns that offer little to no biodiversity, little say in house designs, and an infrastructure design that promotes transportation by cars.

If we simply moved away from big cities, worked from home, and aimed for personal regenerative agriculture or at the very least a more simbyotic relationship with our environments, we'd be leagues ahead.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It honestly feels like someone is just running a sockpuppet operation, or it's run of the mill brigading

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I think it's just Muricans being Muricans, everything seems to be poorly constructed there so they think being able to hear other residents having sex is just an intrinsic quality of apartments and flats

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I live in a dense area and around me is not nature but farmland. So nature goes to shit anyway.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, but 90% of our production gets exported anyway. just lessen it to 50% and give us forrests.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

dense is massively better for the environment

Let's be miserable and live tortured lives for the environment, yay

#doingmypart

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People want to live in SFH’s. I just noticed this post from the all feed but it’s not that surprising that people who enjoy living in privacy with space would prefer the status quo and then say as much.

If I had the money to afford a downtown apartment that was large enough for my 5 member family, I would. I don’t want to live in an apartment complex with nothing to do in the suburbs.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

People want to live in SFHs because cities are currently full of overpriced shoebox apartments with almost no options between that and car dependent suburban sprawl. It's not for me personally, but townhomes and other mid density developments are perfect for most families and far easier to serve with public transport (see: streetcar suburbs). You can still mix in detached single family housing in urban areas where demand is low enough to make the financials work too.