this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
29 points (96.8% liked)

Fuck Cars

15648 readers
523 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dojan@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (3 children)

You can still have trees and plant life in low density housing. You don’t need green deserts everywhere.

[–] ladam@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yeah fuck lawns too, they aren’t meant to exist

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tropic420@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But you still need way more infrastructure for the Houses.

[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Yup, tons more parking and tons more road space per capita as well. Low-density sprawl just needs a lot more stuff per capita.

[–] whitecapstromgard@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The one on the left has no communal space. The one on the right does.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't really care. As a lifelong apartment dweller; I hate people and want nothing to do with them. Get me a house far away from civilisation and I'll be happy. Communal space, my arsehole.

[–] rexxit@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is the insanity of people who advocate for densified housing, IMO. I loathe apartments and attached dwellings. It's like a dystopian future where you can't own anything or have private space. If I never have to share a wall or floor with someone again, it will be too soon.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

It’s like a dystopian future where you can’t own anything or have private space.

That's our dystopian, low-density present.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] rah@feddit.uk 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Why not prefer apartments in your own town?

Noise. Neighbours being closer.

[–] baseless_discourse@mander.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (13 children)

Uh yes, the suburban tranquility of non-stop leaf blowing, lawn mowing, and pickup humming.

Musics to my ears.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

It'd take it over the sound of the upstairs neighbor fucking his microwave while bowling at the same time

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This isn't a particularly convincing analogy. Islands have limited space. The suburbs where I live border tons of open space and parks. Meanwhile, our school district is already overwhelmed with children, so converting commercial spaces into apartments will merely add to congestion and sprawl. NIMBY's make a convincing argument against denser residential construction.

A better focus would be the ability to simplify public transit and walkability. Town centers and public spaces could be more accessible with denser residential construction, and the additional green space can be closer to where you live without everyone needing their own half-acre yard to mow and water.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (7 children)

Ownership. You will not own your apartment, it will be owned by your landlord and you will pay him whatever he demands. You will not own the forest, either. The state will, or some private entity will. No trespassing.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago

what no right to roam does to a mfer

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] AKADAP@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I spent seven years living in an apartment. I so enjoyed hearing the neighbors having sex, the thumping music they played, the smell of their cigarette smoke inside my apartment with all my windows closed, the random intrusions by management to repair something unrelated to my apartment, the random rent increases. Add this to the fact that I had no space for a work shop to make anything, and paying the equivalent of a mortgage with no equivalent home equity. Some people love apartment life, but it definitely was not for me.

[–] notatoad@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

the problem seems to be when people take "apartment life isn't for me" and then go to the conclusion of "they shouldn't build apartments for anybody"

you don't have to live in one. just let people build them. only allowing single family homes doesn't make single family homes more accessible for anybody, it just makes land more scarce and housing less affordable all around.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

This meme is advocating it as the only option

[–] kier@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Of course. Everyone can live in an apartment if they wish. I will be the one with the house at a reasonable distance.

You hate shitty apartments, not apartments.

[–] wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Name one good reason the average apartment experience could ever be better than living in a house.

People live in apartments to afford shelter, you'd be hard-pressed to find one that actually likes it better.

Sure you can make arguments about the concept of centralized feeling being better for nature, but no one actually wants to do it.

[–] Player2@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

As a student, I would rather rent in a modern apartment building than a house. No yard to take care of, closer to other stuff (grocery store is literally across the street), safer, no insects. I would 100% rather have a nice apartment over a meh house.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] El_Azulito@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, considering I can hear my neighbor through the wall right now, it’s hard to agree with this use of space.

[–] Taalnazi@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Good isolation is a thing. We've apartments where you could scream and you wouldn't hear it at your neighbour's.

[–] beemikeoak@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 3 months ago

Lies, compare:

To guadalajara:

Mexico

NewYork

LA

Debbie does

What we need is less people. Simple, use a condom.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You know how computers were supposed to make life so easy we'd only have to work a few hours a week, and how that never happened.

This is the same thing.

[–] AdmiralShat@programming.dev 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The issue is that all of those apartments are owned by one person getting filthy fucking rich from rent.

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Then organise the renters, let them buy the house to transform it into syndicate or cooperative housing. Social apartment construction isn't impossible.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 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.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years 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.

[–] skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›