3 ms·

My apartment in Manhattan houses as many people as a square mile does in Colorado using 1/10,000th the space. At a certain point we have to acknowledge that the

My apartment in Manhattan houses as many people as a square mile does in Colorado using 1/10,000th the space. At a certain point we have to acknowledge that the government would rather you just be poor.

Loughla 3y ago
I don't understand how those two things are connected. Could you please explain?
- orange_joe 3y ago
  The point is that it's absurd for us to ask if it's possible to provide housing for workers in these extremely small towns with vast amounts of open space. The point is that we have the technology, the means and the capital to solve this issue without visibly effecting the landscape of Colorado. A few small apartments would go a long way to helping workers live decently, instead we have chosen privation. If you wanted to double the population of Vail by adding apartments of the size I laid out (a midsized, 5 story building) It would take up .2% of Vail's legal area. I'm not really suggesting that -- but pointing out that the government would rather the working people of these towns to live out of their cars, or live in overcrowded dorms rather than allowing people the basic dignity of an affordable place to live.
pif 3y ago
[flagged]
- gtowey 3y ago
  The name is a reference to the TV show Futurama. I don't think it's declaration of politics.
- orange_joe 3y ago
  it's Futurama, I really really loved the show. ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K7o-bSLCHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K7o-bSLCHk
swasheck 3y ago
it’s unnecessarily reductive to summarize with “government wants you to be poor.” while i agree with the general sentiment that the government has ceased to work in the people’s best interests, there is a whole set of cultural differences between colorado and manhattan that more readily explain this: pioneer/land grab mentality would be my starting point. it’s hard to overcome the decades of expansionist mentality that dominates the area.
blockwriter 3y ago
Interesting, but if you built that much housing in an area far removed from an ocean and without the historical economic, political, and social importance of Manhattan, it would become a ludicrous and near empty ghetto. Colorado may need more slightly more housing, but to use Manhattan as a scale does the present density of Colorado need to increase by 1% Manhattans? 2% Manhattans?
- orange_joe 3y ago
  I don't know about the entire state, but with regards to the ski towns discussed in the article, 8-10 buildings per town would make a significant difference, as that would represent a rough increase of 9-11% of housing. If done efficiently, this would take-up roughly the same amount of space as one home depot. The point is that extremely little is needed to help resolve this situation, but the realistic solutions are illegal.

Loughla 3y ago

I don't understand how those two things are connected. Could you please explain?

orange_joe 3y ago
The point is that it's absurd for us to ask if it's possible to provide housing for workers in these extremely small towns with vast amounts of open space. The point is that we have the technology, the means and the capital to solve this issue without visibly effecting the landscape of Colorado. A few small apartments would go a long way to helping workers live decently, instead we have chosen privation. If you wanted to double the population of Vail by adding apartments of the size I laid out (a midsized, 5 story building) It would take up .2% of Vail's legal area. I'm not really suggesting that -- but pointing out that the government would rather the working people of these towns to live out of their cars, or live in overcrowded dorms rather than allowing people the basic dignity of an affordable place to live.

pif 3y ago

[flagged]

gtowey 3y ago
The name is a reference to the TV show Futurama. I don't think it's declaration of politics.
orange_joe 3y ago
it's Futurama, I really really loved the show. ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K7o-bSLCHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K7o-bSLCHk

swasheck 3y ago

it’s unnecessarily reductive to summarize with “government wants you to be poor.” while i agree with the general sentiment that the government has ceased to work in the people’s best interests, there is a whole set of cultural differences between colorado and manhattan that more readily explain this: pioneer/land grab mentality would be my starting point. it’s hard to overcome the decades of expansionist mentality that dominates the area.

blockwriter 3y ago

Interesting, but if you built that much housing in an area far removed from an ocean and without the historical economic, political, and social importance of Manhattan, it would become a ludicrous and near empty ghetto. Colorado may need more slightly more housing, but to use Manhattan as a scale does the present density of Colorado need to increase by 1% Manhattans? 2% Manhattans?

orange_joe 3y ago
I don't know about the entire state, but with regards to the ski towns discussed in the article, 8-10 buildings per town would make a significant difference, as that would represent a rough increase of 9-11% of housing. If done efficiently, this would take-up roughly the same amount of space as one home depot. The point is that extremely little is needed to help resolve this situation, but the realistic solutions are illegal.