has this image gone through some AI filter or am i paranoid?
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2026
267 points (97.5% liked)
Fuck Cars
16532 readers
771 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 Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don'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 topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do 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:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Lol, this is wild. I've parked there several times. Parking in that area does kinda suck, but so does getting a hotel for a reasonable rate too, which is generally more important.
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
Yeah but a hotel is still better than a parking lot. It's literally the worst land use possible.
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.
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.
Can't do handbrake turns in the snow on a hotel
Not with that attitude.
I like your energy
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.
I'd make a Trailer Park Boys joke but I'm having a hard time enjoying it anymore
Got you dawg
"They could pay them $20 to fuck off"
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?
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.
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?
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.)
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?
Hey I’ve parked there
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.
I feel like this post and highlighted quote requires more context. The parking lot is next to a church, most of the voices of dissent in the article are from people who go to that church and someone involved with another hotel being constructed not far away. The City Council voted 7-1 to approve the replacement of the parking lot with a hotel. Councilmember Nicole Speer, the one quoted above, is a member of the church who voted IN FAVOR of removing the parking lot.
Why doesn't the church have its own parking space? Maybe they can replace the church with a parking garage and put the church on top of that.
In other words, it's even worse because they would mostly only be parking there on Sunday anyway.
Frankly, church people can be the worst, most entitled assholes about this sort of thing. I remember a cycle track got removed in my city because, even though the bollards had been removed and the church-goers had already been allowed to park on top of it on Sundays, they still weren't fucking satisfied!
Be a real shame if something happened to that church🙃
*Edit: Still thinking about how infuriating this situation is. I really do think if I rode that stretch regularly, I'd make it a point to vandalize as many cars parked in the should-be bike lane as possible.
Good point. If that's the main issue, a hotel with a parking garage could have a much higher capacity for cars and offer parking passes for the Church. I'd rather see low-income housing or a park, but it's not my town.
The sacret parking lot
The Ford is my shepherd. I shall not want.
"That they gathered themselves together, to fight with Joshua and with Israel, with one Accord."
A fuckcars sub is arguing against removal of a parking lot?
In a photo post no less.
Where the fuck are the mods?
I'm not a fan of removing dissenters just for being stupid and wrong. I'd rather insult them.
The sale would be to build a hotel. It's not like hotels reduce the amount of vehicles people are driving.
It's potentially worse than the parking lot.
So this a “fuck everything I don’t like including cars” sub. Got it.
You understand that cars are used to get places??? So when a parking lot is replaced, then those cars that were using the lot need to find another place?
You understand second order effects right?
But cars don’t have to be used, which is the point of this sub. A hotel can have people arriving via shuttle, via bus, walking from a nearby train station. Yes there will be cars, but it’s reduced. A parking lot can only be used as a parking lot for cars.
Fantastic. MAYBE people WON'T use cars to get to the hotel.
But everything I can find, shows that building a hotel DOES increase cars on the road. Linked one example.
Where should they put the hotel then? In the middle of nowhere so people have to drive there?
There are quite a few jotels already there so I'm not sure what your point is?
Who says they need a hotel. Might as well ask where they would put the used car dealership.
Yeah, nobody ever goes to Boulder CO, anyone dumb enough to visit their kid at UC can easilly sleep in their... car...
Ok fine then, another hotel.
There are quite a few in Boulder already, quite a few near UC Boulder... So what's your point?
