this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
1427 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

11039 readers
623 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Yeah but then rich fucks wouldn’t have a place all to themselves to be rich fucks, so that’s a fuck you, poors, just be rich like us, thanks.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Keeping all of the trees while also building a 40,000 unit apartment building on the same lot is gonna be a bit of a trick. Unless the building is 30 stories high. That might be normal in New York, but that’s not something you’re gonna see very much outside of the city.

I’m all for vertical city building, but keep in mind what is likely to happen in your local community.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood the idea here in a couple of ways

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

No, I get it. I was just trying to make a joke.

Apparently, it wasn’t very funny.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

But where would we play golf?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

There isn’t any context on where this is, but:

  • there aren’t enough golf courses to really impact housing supply
  • parks and recreational facilities also serve a societal good assuming they’re accessible and serve the community as a whole
  • golf courses aren’t usually located along transit
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

There are enough to reduce housing supply issues.

Private golf courses provide little to no benefit to anyone especially after we factor in the environmental costs.

Golf courses not being on pubic transit is the only part I agree with.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Cause no way in crap would that many people living that close together not cause issues

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I guess that technically counts as a public sex forest then

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

or we could not sacrifice our very limited green space to property developers overlords?!

i'm not saying don't use green space better.. but keep it green.

ps: i live in a very high density area and love it... but build up not out.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Public park > private golf course

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

What are all those stupid shapes, and why does it look like there about 3 feet between each one?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There's no reason cities have to be boring squares. And those shapes could preserve the most trees.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There's a reason houses aren't shaped really oddly. Also a reason there's more space between them.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Compare the space between them to the space between the blocks that exist. There's way more space.

Also, do tell what the reason is besides it just being cheaper to build on empty land? If this isn't meant to be a car centric neighbourhood, you really don't need everything to be straight.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Looks like normal European four-story buildings. I live in one with some strange corners. No Problem with them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›