5 ms·

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying we don't have land? Or that we don't need money? Fitting 100 people in the space of 5 cars sounds a lot worse,

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying we don't have land? Or that we don't need money? Fitting 100 people in the space of 5 cars sounds a lot worse, not better. Everything you've listed sounds horrible to me. Tight shoulder to shoulder walks smelling each other's farts and bad cooking is a step backwards. If you want that, that's fine, there's plenty of land available to do that with. Go do that. It's obviously not popular or we would be doing that.

bagels 3y ago
Worse than angry people living on the sidewalk and the margins of freeways?
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  Tight housing didn't solve that. In fact, everywhere there's a homeless camp happens to be right where there is tight housing. Because the corporations building your dream community of prison block housing is still charging a lot for it. It's not creating more housing for the poor. That's just what the developers' marketing agency told you. Housing shortages have nothing to do with land shortages. They have everything to do with banking and mental healthcare.
- notahacker 3y ago
  The angry people living on the sidewalk aren't there because parking lots are stopping them from building skyscrapers though
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    Depends on how affordable housing would be in those skyscrapers
    - notahacker 3y ago
      If you have an engineering solution that can build skyscrapers on begging income, land prices aren't going to hold you back from being a billionaire...
      - throwaway290 3y ago
        I mean they would move in if prices got lower thanks to abundant housing
        trimethylpurine 3y ago
        The closer the housing the more expensive. That's a stastistical fact that is very inconvenient for your bullshit.
        throwaway290 3y ago
        Read up on supply and demand then welcome back to start making sense :)
        trimethylpurine 3y ago
        Here is a simple write up from someone else, with links to some relevant research about the carbon footprint of high density housing. https://humantransit.org/2010/03/does-highdensity-life-have-a-bigger-ecological-footprint-and-why.html https://humantransit.org/2010/03/does-highdensity-life-have-... Specifically for housing in America, though, more houses don't lower the price. That's because the more housing is owned by an individual builder the more they control appraisal comps. Why do you think they have so much marketing to try to convince you that it's good for the environment? They are able to get zoning exceptions to build high density, high priced living. Pick any skyscraper residence in America. Nearly all, if not all, are far more expensive than surrounding suburbs.
CalRobert 3y ago
You're right, denser living is unpopular. It's so unpopular that we had to make it illegal to stop people from doing that thing they don't like.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  It's obviously not illegal. Everywhere that they try to make it illegal, builders and banks come in and lobby to ensure that they are allowed to further condense housing so that they can squeeze that much more out of every invested dollar and save on building materials in the name of "affordable housing" that none of us can afford.
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    Have you ever tried to convert a single family home in to a quadruplex?
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      I haven't. Let me know what I'm missing. If you're going to say the HOA stopped you, that's not a criminal law issue, that's a civil dispute. Meaning it's not illegal it's agreed upon by society to be annoying and deserving of a monetary disadvantage.
      - CalRobert 3y ago
        It's illegal due to zoning and parking minimums
        trimethylpurine 3y ago
        Not in the US, but possibly in your city. But even then, I bet you can't show me the city code that prevents it. Why? Because it's ABSOLUTELY legal, as long as someone approves it for you. Who? Well, someone who sits on city council and approves it for builders and banks, not chumps like your broke ass trying to turn a fourplex. Of course you can't do it! They wouldn't want your affordable fourplex driving down the price of their bank buddies' loft apartments at a million plus downtown. This is a slam dunk example of why high density is a bullshit marketing front for REIT stock millionaires capitalizing on the destruction of environment, community, civil liberties, and freedom in America. Based on this comment, I must point out that you are your own worst enemy. Stop supporting high density housing if you want to turn a fourplex. That's not high density. Fourplexes have yards dude. Have you been to the city?
throwaway290 3y ago
> Are you saying we don't have land? Are you saying we should pour concrete over land as long as there's land remaining? Let's try to have a more nuanced discussion perhaps > Or that we don't need money? The opposite, dedicating space to park 5 cars some of the time instead of 100 people living is the waste of money here. This doesn't even take into account damage to the planet from spreading people all over it > Fitting 100 people in the space of 5 cars sounds a lot worse, not better Only if you make it bad, I've seen some comfy skyscrapers
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  >Are you saying we should pour concrete over land as long as there's land remaining? Let's try to have a more nuanced discussion perhaps Here's nuance. The entire population of the world could live in Texas with an American quality of life. A back yard and a lawn, a 2 car garage, etc. And that's just Texas. Where are you from? >The opposite, dedicating space to park 5 cars some of the time instead of 100 people living is the waste of money here. This doesn't even take into account damage to the planet from spreading people all over it. This doesn't damage the planet. Building skyscrapers to line pockets of bankers so they can build so close together that trees and crops can't grow in the surrounding area is damaging. >Only if you make it bad, I've seen some comfy skyscrapers. Really? Did they keep chickens and goats in their apartment? Did they plant forests in their balcony?
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    > The entire population of the world could live in Texas with an American quality of life Yeah. Everyone would have sub 90 sq meters of space for everything, and there would be zero space for any sort of forest, park, a shopping mall or any roads for all those 8 billion cars. People would have to have drone deliveries for everything because roads would be gridlocked with all those cars and you won't get anywhere anyway. And better wear PPE mask outside at all times. Is that American lifestyle? > Crops can't grow If you spread 100 families on surface and give everyone 90 sq meters, that's all gone area for crops. Add infrastructure, electricity, piping, roads and junctions to handle private traffic. Add maintenance. But if you stack em vertically in the space of a medium sized parking lot the remaining space is all crops or trees or whatever. > Did they keep chickens and goats in their apartment? Sounds like animal cruelty to me > Did they plant forests in their balcony? No but a forest is available within walking distance. In your ideal world really no one leaves their designated box for a healthy daily walk? Ah right, I forgot about 6 lanes of traffic to cross.

bagels 3y ago

Worse than angry people living on the sidewalk and the margins of freeways?

trimethylpurine 3y ago
Tight housing didn't solve that. In fact, everywhere there's a homeless camp happens to be right where there is tight housing. Because the corporations building your dream community of prison block housing is still charging a lot for it. It's not creating more housing for the poor. That's just what the developers' marketing agency told you. Housing shortages have nothing to do with land shortages. They have everything to do with banking and mental healthcare.
notahacker 3y ago
The angry people living on the sidewalk aren't there because parking lots are stopping them from building skyscrapers though
- throwaway290 3y ago
  Depends on how affordable housing would be in those skyscrapers
  - notahacker 3y ago
    If you have an engineering solution that can build skyscrapers on begging income, land prices aren't going to hold you back from being a billionaire...
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      I mean they would move in if prices got lower thanks to abundant housing
      - trimethylpurine 3y ago
        The closer the housing the more expensive. That's a stastistical fact that is very inconvenient for your bullshit.
        throwaway290 3y ago
        Read up on supply and demand then welcome back to start making sense :)
        trimethylpurine 3y ago
        Here is a simple write up from someone else, with links to some relevant research about the carbon footprint of high density housing. https://humantransit.org/2010/03/does-highdensity-life-have-a-bigger-ecological-footprint-and-why.html https://humantransit.org/2010/03/does-highdensity-life-have-... Specifically for housing in America, though, more houses don't lower the price. That's because the more housing is owned by an individual builder the more they control appraisal comps. Why do you think they have so much marketing to try to convince you that it's good for the environment? They are able to get zoning exceptions to build high density, high priced living. Pick any skyscraper residence in America. Nearly all, if not all, are far more expensive than surrounding suburbs.

CalRobert 3y ago

You're right, denser living is unpopular. It's so unpopular that we had to make it illegal to stop people from doing that thing they don't like.

trimethylpurine 3y ago
It's obviously not illegal. Everywhere that they try to make it illegal, builders and banks come in and lobby to ensure that they are allowed to further condense housing so that they can squeeze that much more out of every invested dollar and save on building materials in the name of "affordable housing" that none of us can afford.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Have you ever tried to convert a single family home in to a quadruplex?
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    I haven't. Let me know what I'm missing. If you're going to say the HOA stopped you, that's not a criminal law issue, that's a civil dispute. Meaning it's not illegal it's agreed upon by society to be annoying and deserving of a monetary disadvantage.
    - CalRobert 3y ago
      It's illegal due to zoning and parking minimums
      - trimethylpurine 3y ago
        Not in the US, but possibly in your city. But even then, I bet you can't show me the city code that prevents it. Why? Because it's ABSOLUTELY legal, as long as someone approves it for you. Who? Well, someone who sits on city council and approves it for builders and banks, not chumps like your broke ass trying to turn a fourplex. Of course you can't do it! They wouldn't want your affordable fourplex driving down the price of their bank buddies' loft apartments at a million plus downtown. This is a slam dunk example of why high density is a bullshit marketing front for REIT stock millionaires capitalizing on the destruction of environment, community, civil liberties, and freedom in America. Based on this comment, I must point out that you are your own worst enemy. Stop supporting high density housing if you want to turn a fourplex. That's not high density. Fourplexes have yards dude. Have you been to the city?

throwaway290 3y ago

> Are you saying we don't have land? Are you saying we should pour concrete over land as long as there's land remaining? Let's try to have a more nuanced discussion perhaps > Or that we don't need money? The opposite, dedicating space to park 5 cars some of the time instead of 100 people living is the waste of money here. This doesn't even take into account damage to the planet from spreading people all over it > Fitting 100 people in the space of 5 cars sounds a lot worse, not better Only if you make it bad, I've seen some comfy skyscrapers

trimethylpurine 3y ago
>Are you saying we should pour concrete over land as long as there's land remaining? Let's try to have a more nuanced discussion perhaps Here's nuance. The entire population of the world could live in Texas with an American quality of life. A back yard and a lawn, a 2 car garage, etc. And that's just Texas. Where are you from? >The opposite, dedicating space to park 5 cars some of the time instead of 100 people living is the waste of money here. This doesn't even take into account damage to the planet from spreading people all over it. This doesn't damage the planet. Building skyscrapers to line pockets of bankers so they can build so close together that trees and crops can't grow in the surrounding area is damaging. >Only if you make it bad, I've seen some comfy skyscrapers. Really? Did they keep chickens and goats in their apartment? Did they plant forests in their balcony?
- throwaway290 3y ago
  > The entire population of the world could live in Texas with an American quality of life Yeah. Everyone would have sub 90 sq meters of space for everything, and there would be zero space for any sort of forest, park, a shopping mall or any roads for all those 8 billion cars. People would have to have drone deliveries for everything because roads would be gridlocked with all those cars and you won't get anywhere anyway. And better wear PPE mask outside at all times. Is that American lifestyle? > Crops can't grow If you spread 100 families on surface and give everyone 90 sq meters, that's all gone area for crops. Add infrastructure, electricity, piping, roads and junctions to handle private traffic. Add maintenance. But if you stack em vertically in the space of a medium sized parking lot the remaining space is all crops or trees or whatever. > Did they keep chickens and goats in their apartment? Sounds like animal cruelty to me > Did they plant forests in their balcony? No but a forest is available within walking distance. In your ideal world really no one leaves their designated box for a healthy daily walk? Ah right, I forgot about 6 lanes of traffic to cross.