4 ms·
I don't understand why such a large fraction of our usable land in people-dense areas needs to be consumed by expanses of ugly, dead cement full of giant deadly
by beambot 9y ago
I don't understand why such a large fraction of our usable land in people-dense areas needs to be consumed by expanses of ugly, dead cement full of giant deadly "creatures" traveling at high speeds, nor why that state of affairs needs to be imposed everywhere on everyone.
It's all about balance...
- lazyjones 9y ago> I don't understand why such a large fraction of our usable land in people-dense areas needs to be consumed by expanses of ugly, dead cement What other useful space would you put between tall buildings? Pedestrians have plenty of space to walk, at least I don't hear much about pedestrian traffic jams. Roads are very valuable and they're being used for many things that everybody needs: buses, ambulances, fire service vehicles. Do you really want them gone?
- ctdonath 9y agoI'm actually surprised that space hasn't been occupied by more buildings.
- lazyjones 9y agoBuilding codes prohibit this in many places, i.e. the taller the buildings, the more free space is required between them (for light, safety etc.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_area_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_area_ratio
- matt4077 9y agoThe services you mention could be run using just a single one-way lane, alternating between blocks. And, yes, pedestrian traffic jams do happen. There's also untold other costs of traffic, and potential uses for more space: - Outdoor dining - retail displays - kids playing - Trees, bushes, etc - Bike lanes
- lazyjones 9y agoSee, that's what I mean by "urban hipster lifestyle". Outdoor dining can be done in backyards (pretty much every 2nd tavern in Athens, a big, sprawling, dirty city) does this. Retail displays - pardon me, how many more do you need and why do they need to be in everyone's faces in the middle of the street? It seems that millennials don't really know what they want and aren't flexible enough to choose from available lifestyles in different cities, countries etc. - instead, they what everything together immediately right in the place they live, no matter how contradictory those things are. If you want trees, go to a park. Kids can play there safely, too, without being run over by an ambulance or biker. ;-)
- majewsky 9y agoThe spirit of capitalism, condensed into one statement: If your kids want to breathe non-toxic air and play, they better be prepared to walk (or, rather, drive) half an hour to the park.
- lazyjones 9y ago> If your kids want to breathe non-toxic air and play, they better be prepared to walk (or, rather, drive) half an hour to the park. Wake up, "cars" is no longer synonymous with "pollution". I take offence at such ignorance as an EV owner. As for kids who want everything while condemning capitalism: the problem isn't that they want clean air and play time, the problem is that they demand just as vigorously warm pizza delivered to their home in 10 minutes, furniture brought to their doorstep by whoever sells it on Amazon and the fire brigade to arrive quickly when they set their WLAN-enabled fridges on fire. Obviously, they don't understand how these things relate to each other, but they moan about it nevertheless.
- beambot 9y agoParks? You could eliminate half of roads and still have ample room for emergency services.
- ctdonath 9y agoJust because you don't understand doesn't mean they're wrong.
- chc 9y agoBecause for the majority of people, that ugly, dead cement is eminently useful. You essentially seem to be expressing confusion at why people who are different from you should be allowed to exist.
- beambot 9y agoThat's a total strawman. Suggesting that there might be a better way than today's status quo is different than saying that certain people don't deserve to exist.
- chc 9y agoThe entirety of your comment was about how much cars and their associated infrastructure suck and how you wish we didn't devote space to them. That's a hell of a lot more specific than "there might be a better way," and those specifics are entirely negative toward cars. If you actually think something more nuanced, I'm glad to hear it, but I have no idea how anyone is supposed to glean that from the comment you actually wrote
- beambot 9y agoI would encourage you to read this Wikipedia article about how today's road culture came about -- in particular the section on the road lobby. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_city https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_city
- closeparen 9y agoThe reason is very simple: dense urban cores are currently for everyone, not just those with enough disposable income to pay the premium rent. As you get your way and the richest drivers lose their transport options, pressure on rents in walking distance from offices will skyrocket. Middle and working class suburbanites, who don't have that option, are simply screwed. You propose to make cities exclusively for their urban residents, fuck anyone who needs a car to keep their travel time reasonable. Maybe some middle class people will be willing to suffer through on buses to visit occasionally. (Good public transit like rail just becomes an extension of the city, and living near it becomes as unaffordable as living in the city center. Only shitty transit is accessible from affordable housing). Raise height limits. We can address those who are drivers by choice (rather than economic necessity) once a below-median family can comfortably afford 3 bedrooms in a high-rise near transit.
- icebraining 9y agoWhich height limits are there in Oslo?
- closeparen 9y agoI'm talking about bringing the same thing to American cities, as many in this thread advocate. Outside of a few, a building over 5-10 stories is seen as a big deal and neighbors will fight it tooth and nail.
- rayiner 9y agoThis rant isn't true at all. Philly is a good example of a city where there are tons of affordable neighborhoods along extensive commuter train lines.