3 ms·
So the solution is to tear down our cities, abandon our homes, and rebuild everything somewhere else. Gotcha. I mean that's probably environmentally friendly, r
by freehunter 9y ago
So the solution is to tear down our cities, abandon our homes, and rebuild everything somewhere else. Gotcha. I mean that's probably environmentally friendly, right?
- Apocryphon 9y agoUrban renewal is a policy which exists, yes.
- freehunter 9y agoYeah that Empire State Building is almost 90 years old, time to tear it down and build a new one closer to the streetcar line. Jesus you are absolutely insane.
- Apocryphon 9y agoThanks for your input. It's rare to meet an anti-development NIMBY on Hacker News, it's always welcome to have different points of view on this website.
- dang 9y agoThis kind of name-calling will get you banned here, so please just don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lmm 9y agoCities and homes should not be expected to last forever; while we shouldn't be rebuilding them every year, doing so every few decades is probably more environmentally friendly than not.
- freehunter 9y agoI'm not sure I'm understanding... my home was built in 1953 and is standing just fine. It's got new windows, new insulation, and a new roof. Are you saying I should abandon it and go build a new one? There's a brick building in town that's been there since 1842, you're saying we should rip it down just because it's old? Has everyone in this entire thread lost their damn minds? First meth-head farmers are "living in luxury", then "street cars will replace every road in the nation", and now "buildings should be torn down and rebuilt every 30 years". Are you people listening to yourselves?
- Apocryphon 9y agoI hope you can take a step back and realize how rude your comment is.
- freehunter 9y agoNice try.