Buys an SUV because of “safety”
immediately gets into a roll over accident
survives with minor injuries, but kills or hospitalizes five other people
They forgot to tack on “fuck you I got mine”
Usually it is same, but with six car lanes
Minimum parking standards desroyed density in downtown cores and were basically based off of no real numbers or data. The subsidizing of private vehicle ownership fueled the destruction.
You don’t love acres of pavement just sitting there taking up space and providing no value??? How can you not appreciate beauty??? /s
The funny thing is that some guy i worked for complained a lot about not having a lot of parking in the middle of a dense city.
I said yeah maybe but do you want it to look like some american parking city?
And he was like yes, i’m going there next month.Mmmkay i guess
“envy of the world” lol
New York was pretty well envied around the world.
Friendly reminder that rowhouses exist and essentially break reality with how they provide the best of both worlds.
Don’t dense urban cities require landlords?
No, a lot of people own condos. And even if you intentionally destroyed dense, urban areas for the sake of endless suburban sprawl, you would still have people needing or wanting to rent some of those houses. Students, people anticipating moving after a few years, lower-income folks, etc.
Cities Beautiful Pick one
Cities are noxious tumors on an otherwise beautiful planet.
The entire point is they don’t have to be that way. You are quite literally missing the entire critique. The US’s focus on cars and suburbia make it that way.
Without cars and suburbs cities would still be filled with soulless concrete and steel monoliths and trash
I don’t disagree, doesn’t mean they’re not ugly.
Density is not height.
You would prefer urban sprawl? Humans gotta live somewhere, density is ecologically the best way to do it.
NIMBYs think if they just ban density that the 8 billion people in the world who need housing will just poof and disappear.
Personally, I prefer dense, walkable, transit-oriented cities so we can preserve as much nature as possible, and so the people living in cities aren’t separated from nature by a sea of suburban sprawl.
I was on business in a major US city. I mapped the distance from my hotel to the edge of the wilderness. Including traffic, it would take hours to get there. It’s nuts how sprawling and wasteful many of our cities are.
One of the key lines from Strong Towns was roughly “during a time of abundance, any decision you make works out”. We’ve been building out cities during a time of abundance and that abundance has run out. Now we get to see just how badly we did by overbuilding infrastructure and constructing everything around a hugely inefficient car only model for transportation.
That’s a very good way of putting it. We’ve developed our cities in a fundamentally environmentally, socially, and fiscally unsustainable manner, but we were insulated from feeling the full impacts of it by being in relatively good times. But now those debts are quickly catching up with us with the climate crisis, housing crisis, widening inequality, rapidly degrading infrastructure, and quickly draining municipal budgets.
I don’t want to ban cities, nor do I prefer suburbs, I just don’t think they’re anything close to beautiful thats all they’re dirty and soulless.
Never said that suburbs are better, I’m just disagreeing with the sentiment that cities are beautiful. I think they’re ugly.
Is there a less ugly way to live?
I wish brother, I wish.
I think I’d rather have very dense population centers with intermixed accessible green spaces would be far preferable to the sprawling suburbs like you see in Texas
I don’t disagree, doesn’t make them not ugly tho
False dichotomies are fun! There’s absolutely a type of beauty to a well-run, upkept city. Should everything be a city? Nope, we need green areas, probably even more green areas than cities. The two can and should coexist in harmony.
If you think cities are beautiful you are entitled to your opinion, I just disagree. I think they’re ugly
Walkable cities produce less pollution per capita than suburban or rural areas due to less pollution from commutes and increased efficiency delivering utilities (due to the population density).
Suburban sprawl is what truly makes ugly stains on our word - concrete everywhere, destroying the watershed, with no native grass in the medians, and so many cars spewing out fumes, micro plastics, and disrupting migration patterns. They’re depressing places to live.
I feel the same could be said about industrial agriculture replacing the smaller family run farms. Nothing is more depressing than driving through hundreds of miles of monoculture fields in the mid west full of corn.
We need to tons of small permaculture farms to supply our dense cities. Not vast swaths of land devoid of native species to feed us as efficiently as possible with corn, the earth be damned. We need to learn to live in harmony with out stark urban rural divides.
Permaculture farming also has massive abilities to sequester carbon in the soil, as well as other farming techniques that involve plowing crop yields back into the earth, similar to the rich soils of the Amazon Rainforst which archeologists have determined was artificially made by man, and still holds the carbon they put into it.
That’s a very fair point, and one I agree with. I also think it’d help to move away from capitalism though. Capitalism is the force that encourages so many companies to throw away excess food rather than give it away, because doing so would lower demand and be “bad for business”. If we could just reduce our food waste that alone would do wonders in decreasing land use for farms, monoculture or otherwise.
I also think, over time the world should become more vegetarian. Even if you believe in food chains and that it’s okay for us to eat meat in general, the farming of animals often in cartoonishly cruel conditions solely for our consumption is abhorrent. Moving from meat based diets to (at least mostly) plant based is a moral necessity, and on top of that will massively reduce emissions (15% comes from livestock), land use, and biodiversity loss
Not just from an ethical standpoint, but from a logical one as well. The amount of food and water used to make a pound of meat for human consumption is ridiculously inefficient, in the face of Climate Change reducing the amount of Farmable land on Earth. Its super easy to start with meatless Monday’s to start reducing the amount of meat one consumes and is how i started down my road to becoming a Vegetarian.
The thought of not cooking meat and centering their meal around it is honestly scary for alot of people who tie it to their cultural identities, because they lack the imagination to even ponder an alternative so they dig their heels in, and refuse to change. Incremental change is bettet than no change, and the wheel is always slow when it initially starts rolling.
deleted by creator
Y’all sure like putting words in my mouth. I don’t prefer suburbs, I just think cities are ugly
I didn’t assume you were a fan of suburbs, I just read your comment about cities being blights upon the earth and argued why I think suburbs are more blight-like.
The only assumption I made about you is that you’d appreciate an appeal to environmentalism, since you called earth our beautiful planet
That’s fair, I suppose I misread your intent. I don’t disagree.
