3 ms·
I would tell the same story, but the root issue is cars. Housing density would have remained high if not for car dominance.
by Apreche 2y ago
I would tell the same story, but the root issue is cars. Housing density would have remained high if not for car dominance.
- tptacek 2y agoBy necessity, perhaps. But really, cars enabled communities to more cost-effectively express preferences that would have been too expensive without them; cars are an indirect driver of this problem.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tmnvix 2y agoI think you could replace 'cars' here with a lot of technological innovations that have made certain aspects of our lifestyles attainable at a potentially greater externalised cost. Much of it is simply making things more convenient - not necessarily better. There are two things that I am becoming more and more willing to believe: 1. We live in an age of entitlement (I can afford it, it is possible, it is legal, I want it, therefore I will do it). There is a good chance that this is how we will be remembered. 2. Convenience is killing us and robbing us of the activities that actually provide satisfaction. We fall for this because we think we desire happiness and that hedonism will provide it, when in reality satisfaction/contentment is what we truly desire.
- willis936 2y agoAre you suggesting that railway megaprojects are being done to service communities with no people? I have a hard time finding dense communities with good rail systems.
- occz 2y agoWhile I agree with the general anti-car sentiment, we have expensive housing in less car-dependent areas as well (case in point: various cities in Europe), leading to a broad range of social issues. Hence, I have to disagree with this point in particular.
- mperham 2y agoTokyo proves that dense cities can maintain access to reasonably priced housing.
- Tade0 2y agoTokyo of today. During the Japanese asset bubble that wasn't the case. Also properties in Japan generally depreciate like cars because it's a seismic area and newer buildings are typically better equipped to deal with that, so it makes sense to tear it all down every 30 years or so.
- Schiendelman 2y agoThis is also the case in Seattle or San Francisco - it is not significantly predictive.