this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2026
267 points (97.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

16532 readers
1025 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 116 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I'd be upset, too. It shouldn't be a hotel, it should be a park. A hotel in this pretty neighborhood would be awful. Especially since it's probably going to be Millennial Beige

A lovely neighborhood that was ruined by a parking lot and will continue to be ruined by building a hotel there

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 58 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Yeah but a hotel is still better than a parking lot. It's literally the worst land use possible.

[–] LePoisson@lemmy.world 7 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Unless people are driving their cars from the adjoining suburban areas and want to park somewhere?

Like not saying parking lots are awesome but with such car centric infrastructure oftentimes they're more useful than a hotel. Which will come with its own set of folks looking to park somewhere so compounding that whole issue or finding a place to park.

Nevertheless, in general I agree that it'd be nice if we had way less cars and the parking lots that go with them.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Virtually every American city already has an incredibly excessive quantity of parking, so I doubt removing a single parking lot is really going to change that.

Driving is incredibly harmful to cities. Making it more difficult is a net benefit even if a small number of suburbanites will be inconvenienced. I wish there was another way, but there really isn't. There won't be enough demand for alternatives if driving is too convenient due to all of the subsidies society provides for drivers, including excessive parking spaces in city centers.

The best way to allow suburbanites to enter the city is bike infrastructure for closer suburbs and rail or brt for more distant ones. If we're concerned about those people then we should focus on expanding those things rather than preventing urban neighborhoods from getting better for the benefit of people who only visit them.

And yeah a hotel isn't ideal since it's also for visitors but it generates a lot more revenue for the local area than a parking lot does. And it does that without as much harm as a parking lot causes.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 39 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Can't do handbrake turns in the snow on a hotel

[–] vic_rattlehead@lemmy.world 51 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

I like your energy

[–] Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What about a compromise: A trailer park. Private equity still gets to lease out the land to tenants, who own their own trailer and rent them out to Air BNB guests. It's win-win-win.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'd make a Trailer Park Boys joke but I'm having a hard time enjoying it anymore

[–] bomibantai@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Got you dawg

"They could pay them $20 to fuck off"

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 17 points 2 days ago (4 children)

A hotel would destroy the view from those units along the left, as well as the church. They can see for quite a ways now, after the hotel, they'll be staring at a hotel. Why does this hotel get to bring down the living quality of those around it, with no compensation? Will rents in those units decrease because they are going be much less desirable when they are right up against a hotel with transient guests every day?

[–] Fidgetting@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Those "units" are the Spruce Street Mansion and while it was originally a house it has been converted to office space. It holds a law firm and a company called Discover Boulder Tours. The nearest house that is for sale to this location is 3.6M for ~3000 sqft or $1200/sqft, so if these were residences I'm not going to have much sympathy for the rich assholes. The Pearl Street Mall in Boulder doesn't need a park. It is going to need a ton of short term housing starting next year because of Sundance. This hotel is to put downward pressure on the number of airbnbs in the city.

I'm all for being anti development. I grew up in Boulder and it invented a lot of the anti development playbook. Boulder is so desirable precisely because it became very anti development 50 years ago allowing it to build a unique and desirable city. But this? This is rich NIMBY bullshit. They want their property values to go up because a speculator wants to buy it for a short term rental that is only occupied a couple months of the year during a film festival. Be anti development for sustainability reasons, not because rich jerks want higher housing prices.

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

A hotel would destroy the view from those units along the left

The view of what? The view of the parking lot and some streets?

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

There's totally compensation. They give the local arts place a bunch of money and host local art. (Which they can pay to get out of.) And they also have to let people use the roof for a whole 20 hours a week! (Which they can pay to get out of.)

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

If you don’t want to see other people or buildings, move to a cabin in the woods. Why should the people living in those units get to reap the profits of housing scarcity? Why should the people living in those units get to reap the benefits of living in a developed place developed with taxpayer money while disallowing others to do their same?

[–] lamlox@piefed.social 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] schnapsman@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago

And how was it? Worth demonstrating for in front of city council? I imagine someone switching off their car, closing their eyes and just soaking in the sweet satisfaction of having parked there.