this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
11 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

9363 readers
134 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

A lot of people are pro-apartmemt before living in one, so here are some fun facts:

  1. Apartments usually have a maintenance cost, that covers as little as possible while still costing a lot. You never really own the flat, the building company does.

  2. You often have a communal garden; it's looked after by the lowest bidding contractor. Not all flats have balconies, so you are unlikely to have your own.

  3. Fear of fire and flooding - if someone else messes up, your stuff is toast/soaked. Insurance companies love that extra risk, it gives them an excuse to charge more.

  4. No flat has good sound proofing - the baby screaming downstairs at 5am and the thunder of the morbidly obese person upstairs going to the bathroom at 1am will denote your new sleep schedule (i.e. disturbed)

  5. I hope you're in for deliveries - apartments have no safe spots to leave things.

  6. You will not be able to afford a flat with the same floor space as a house. I'm sorry, welcome to your new coffin.

  7. Good luck drying your laundry (spoiler, your living room is going to have a laundry rack).

  8. Good luck owning a bike (it's either the bike or your laundry, take your pick).

  9. Vocal intimacy becomes a community event.

Living in a flat is a pile of little miseries grouped together.

[–] agarorn@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Apartments works very different in your country. For me it's like this:

  1. Building companies build apartments, usually they are owned by whoever paided them. That can be a private company, it can also be state owned, a cooperative, or a collection of privates. It's not uncommen to buy single apartments here. Depending on the constellation you have a say in what is what done in what way. However: cost like garbage collection, tax,... Are always there. No matter if you live in an apartment or single home.

  2. Same as 1. Depends on the constellation. Many people living in apartments have a garden plot somewhere else. There are places (close to nature, away from streets) where you can rent a garden and have a place of piece. Quieter than your lawn next to the next house.

  3. If apartments are that more dangerous then insurance companies will want more money, sure. As far as I looked for my neighborhood the cost seems to be related to the living area, I. E. Same size same price. So it does not has to be more expensive.

  4. Of course can you have sound proofness. Usually here walls are massive and not made out of paper.

  5. And houses do? Isn't it a thing that people steel packages from your doorway/garden in the US? But nevertheless: usually I was friends with other people in the house who could get my parcels for me, like the elderly lady on the ground floor. It does not get safer than that.

  6. Yes? Flats are obviously cheaper for the same size as a house. You will not find 500m^2+ appartements, but >200m^2 can be found. How big are your houses usually?

  7. Dryer? Balcony? A lot of apartments have an extra room in the basement, or a sun roof.

  8. Bike or laundry? What are you on about? A lot of places have an extra bike room. Most of the time you have also your own compartment in the cellar. Bigger apartment complexes here are also required to have room for cars, I.e.you can rent a garage if you really want more space.

  9. Same as 4.

I am really not sure if you are trolling or houses work differently in your area.

[–] Sodis@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Probably an American, that hears 15min cities and runs away screaming.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When I see the image what came to mind was that experiment where they had an overpopulation of rats in a cage and how all of the rats turned on each other and killed each other.

Too much human density is not good. You have to be sure to get the percentage of humans to a acre of land just right, to prevent the rats situation.

Nature is important, but Humanity moreso.

[–] rexxit@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is EXACTLY the kind of point I'm trying to make. Humans keep packing more and more into the same forever-growing cities and it makes the formerly-pleasant harsh, foreign, and unwelcoming.

There exist nice places that have balance - green spaces, slow pace of life, nice local restaurants, uncrowded trails, minimal traffic and short commutes.

Then they become discovered, become popular, and become overcrowded in a way that ruins what made them special to begin with. But they still look small to people from the big cities, who keep moving there. Now increasingly expensive, congested, and losing their original character, the urban zealots who invaded start screeching about cars, walkability, bikeability, and transit. It was perfectly bikeable, and there was no traffic before everyone tried to pile in.

The enemy is GROWTH, and OVERCROWDING, not single family homes and cars.

[–] akulium@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Both pictures are equally overcrowded though. And just getting rid of people is not really an option.

[–] The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In this image I can't help but notice how much infrastructure cost there is here. Consider need for water treatment pipes run to and from each house for water and sewage as well as sewage treatment infrastructure. Keep in mind that failure rate increases with each house and by length of these runs that you are adding and fire hydrants being added every so many feet, shut off valves. Don't forget that we now have significantly bigger demand for water as we now have a lot more vegetation to manage and a higher reliance on emergency services as we are spread out over a larger area so we now have to increase ems, fire, and police spending. Then you add the costs for electrical infrastructure with your sub stations and transformers and all the costs set to maintain that especially since these are underground lines apparently and ofcourse we have increased risk of failure again per service and foot run and higher demand on those services which will require more workers which turns into money being spent outside of the community. You then add the cost of data lines and phone lines including the costs associated with maintaining and upgrading those which are also apparently underground which means your upgrades may be significantly more expensive and will take much longer to deploy. Now that we have all these houses separated we will now have a population that will be more dependent on vehicles so now we have to factor in all of our road maintenance costs and our public services will not require far more vehicles as well which means we will also need mechanics to repair and maintain these vehicles. Now with roads alone when we consider the costs involved things get rather expensive quickly. Cost to maintain roads, even roads that are seldom used, is surprisingly expensive and require a lot of workers to build and maintain as well as vehicles, machinery, and land to store, recycle, and create materials needed to repair and build the roads. On top of that there is also an often missed statistic of vehicles which is public safety as they are a leading cause for injury which is another stressor on our little community.

This is far from all the possibly missed costs of our suburban/rural neighborhood but I feel these are some of the important ones people live to overlook.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Consider need for water treatment pipes run to and from each house for water and sewage as well as sewage treatment infrastructure.

Someone has never heard of "well and septic".

Out in the country, you have enough biological diversity around you that sewage is just fertilizer for your lawn. You don't need the extensive network of sewers to concentrate it, the chemicals to treat it, and the sufficiently large body of water necessary to dilute it back down to something that nature can tolerate.

Much the same with potable water: there's no need for an extensive system of water treatment plants, chlorination, the network of underground piping when you are just pulling water up out of the aquifer. It has been filtered through hundreds of feet of sand and gravel, in the absence of oxygen. All the biological material has been filtered out, leaving just water and some trace minerals.

Electrical infrastructure is moving away from centralized fossil fuel plants to distributed solar and wind power. Spreading the load out allows generation to be moved closer to the point of consumption, which reduces the total load at any point on the grid, and increases redundancy and resiliency.

Spreading homes apart introduces a natural firebreak between them, reducing the demand on fire services. A single kitchen fire in an apartment complex can put hundreds of people out of their homes. High-rise fires are especially dangerous. It's much easier to attack a house fire than an apartment fire.

Roads are not reduced: food and raw materials used by humanity come from the countryside. Transportation infrastructure must stretch out to the farms and mines. Housing farmers and miners in the cities just increases their commutes on top of their long work days.

Wireless data can be much more feasible in the country than the city. Less building interference; less RF interference.

No, I'm afraid you've overblown the cost difference considerably.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I started to respond to this but it's so full of obvious bullshit it's not worth the time. Dump raw sewage into the ground in suburbia? What the fuck kind of capitalism hellscape do you live in?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Dump raw sewage into the ground in suburbia?

Well and septic are viable options down to as little as half-acre lots, yes. Raw sewage is dumped into the first of 2-3 tanks, where it is biologically processed with virtually no intervention, before the nutrient-rich effluent eventually flows into a leach field and soaks into the topsoil.

Municipal sewage processing does it much the same way. The problem is that the cities don't have sufficient biomass, so they have to discharge their effluent over a very large area. A city typically converts a nearby river into a massive leachfield.

You have a problem with individuals processing their own sewage and discharge it to vegetation on their own lands, but you support massively upscaling that process and dumping the effluent directly into waterways.

"Capitalism hellscape" accurately describes one of these scenarios, but not the one you're thinking of.

[–] uint8_t@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

you obviously need to come up with misinfo to justify your "correct" way of living

[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Diversity is good. Different types of homes and zoning. Mix of nature and buildings

[–] uint8_t@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

abolish zoning

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like a literal nightmare to me. No garden to enjoy. No vegetables. No privacy. No ability to get solar panels.

No room for improvement. Basement second levels. Changing plumbing windows etc. No ability to charge your ev.

Fuck is this some corporate bullshit

[–] Krachsterben@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

As someone who's lived in apartments since birth:

A lot of apartments in Europe have a communal garden, or you can simply rent a plot of garden nearby for larger projects, or use your balcony for small things like herbs.

Idk what you mean with plumbing windows/basement second levels but there would be an underground garage where you can charge your EV

You also don't rely as much on solar panels because apartments are already so much more energy efficient. They are cooler in summer and warmer in winter

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So buy more land and it's potentially a distance from your house. Communal gardens are good in theory but in practice they are far harder than just having a garden with a nice wee raised bed. Need some lettuce pop outside and get it. Unlikely you'll bus/walk drive to the communal to grab a few leaves of something.

There wouldn't be no. Maybe in more modern builds but all the flats I've rented have been 100s of years old. No ability to change interior and no luxury parking garage. Barely any parking.

If you own a house you can do what you want with it. Want to build a basement, crack on. Want to get double glazing, put in grey water. Sure. Can't do shit in a building without building getting involved.

Fuck knows where you've live but no. Maybe modern ones are but old ones are freezing in winter, poorly insulated and hod awful in summer.

[–] Krachsterben@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'd rather live in a city or town with mixed use development, walkable neighbourhoods and functional public transport instead of suburbian nightmare pictured in #1.

There's also townhouses that are a good compromise between urban density and home ownership/garden usage while still being more energy efficient than standard family homes.

[–] 3l3s3@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your username clearly indicates it is completely pointless for you (or me for that matter) to argue with this guy.

[–] Krachsterben@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hä was hat mein Username damit zu tun? :D Aber ja der Typ ist komplett durchgeknallt:D

[–] 3l3s3@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Du bist offenbar aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum und damit fast sicher aus einer zivilisierten Gegend.

[–] And009@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or everyone could plant trees instead of just grass?

[–] garden_boi@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, this is important, too (see !nolawns@slrpnk.net). But no-lawns doesn't reduce car traffic, neither does it single-handedly create more walkable and public-transport-friendly communities. But you're right to notice that OP's meme doesn't make a compelling argument in itself.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A truth most people don't want to hear is that densely populated cities are overall better for nature and resources. You need less roads and tracks, fewer concrete overall, compact cities are much easier to make walkable, etc.

Really the only argument against tight packed cities is "I don't like people". That shouldn't really be a priority.

For nature to recover we need to give back space. The worst you can do is build rural homes or spread out suburbs.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Really the only argument against tight packed cities is “I don’t like people”. That shouldn’t really be a priority.

There's also: "I want to have nature around me" - and there's "I have pets that need to go out" - and there's "In a big city it can be dirty, smelly and loud" and "People neglected by society hang around big cities" and "Big real estate firms crank up housing prizes".

What we really need is better city planning, to reduce traffic & roads, and make areas pedestrian only - at that point, quality of life in a city improves. Also, we need to kill big real estate corps and regulate housing prizes. And there needs to be a will in politics to actually address social issues, including but not limited to violent crimes.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are right, this is of course argumented from an ideal perspective. Building and managing cities like they are now, just denser, wouldn't work.

In an utopian world that really put the environment first there would be no greedy investors and greedy landlords, no one would feel left behind and instead of using farms we'd have some kind of ultra efficient vertical hydroponics stuff going on.

It would be amazing having sci-fi mega cities, perhaps connected via underground railroads and between them just nature undisturbed. It feels like we are so close from a technological standpoint to make that happen. At least it's not completely unimaginable.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It would be amazing having sci-fi mega cities, perhaps connected via underground railroads and between them just nature undisturbed. It feels like we are so close from a technological standpoint to make that happen.

I wholeheartedly agree. And I believe we have everything needed to make that happen - but if everyone has good living conditions, that just isn't profitable / exploitable for the corporate world. Happy people means it's harder / impossible to scare them or make them angry at some perceived threat / enemy, and exploit their dividedness. All megacorporations without exception and a lot of mid- to large size businesses thrive on exploiting workers who are too divided to unite and demand a fair share of work and profits and acceptable working conditions.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago
[–] Skates@feddit.nl 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The US has about 10 million square kilometers

That's 10 million x 1 million square meters (10^13 )

There will soon be (source: people like sex) 10 billion people on earth (10^10 )

This would give you 10^13 / 10^10 = 10^3 square meters (10700 square feet) of land for everyone on earth to live on. EVERY SINGLE PERSON. Not families, individual fucking people.

All of them contained within the US.

10700 square feet to build a house, have a small garden etc. Okay, not a lot. But that's one country that could house everyone. An extreme example of course - you're not gonna be able to use all that land, some of it is uninhabitable (red states lol). But just imagine it for a second, everyone living in one country would still be comfortable. And look how much is left of the rest of the world.

1000 square meters isn't enough space? Make your house have 4 stories, who gives a shit, make your own wizard tower. In a relationship? That's 21400 square feet for the couple. Have a couple of kids? 42800 square feet. That's a decent enough house+yard for 4 people, especially if you add one or two floors.

The problem is not that there isn't enough space. The problem is that some motherfuckers want and get more than their share of square feet. And then they charge you money to live in their share of land without owning it.

[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your premise is wrong. You need to start with total buildable area, not the boundary size. And when you evaluate for buildable area take into account critical areas such as wetlands, flood zones etc.

[–] agarorn@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

And you need places for other things, such really unimportant ones, as growing food for example.

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I live in an apartment. I want to live in a house.

Cunt upstairs neighbour smoking cancer sticks on the balcony, making my room smell like shit when he does it, dumbass neighbour to my right who phones some other dumbass at 6 in the morning, screaming into his phone, waking me up. No garden, can't have a cat or a dog.

I don't want to live in a suburb where I am forced to use a car, but you can live in a house and still be able to get anywhere you want without a car.

[–] Sodis@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

But that's only because other people live in apartments. If everyone gets the privilege of living in their own house, than it won't be economical to have everything you need in walking distance. And you can have shitty house neighbors as well.

[–] restingboredface@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My concern with multi unit living is that your home is now dependent on the actions of others. You could lose everything because some dumbass next to you dropped cigarette burning on their floor, or overflowed their tub.

It also just gets messy having that many people try to manage a property together. I lived in a high rise for a year. There was constant bickering over who put the wrong thing down the trash chute or who was using the elevator to move furniture without checking it out first. Everyone had to all agree to building repairs, which was a nightmare, and getting them them done took forever. From my understanding our building was pretty well run, but it didn't feel like it. I loved the idea of high rise life when I moved in but by the time we got out house I was ready to be done with it.

[–] Sodis@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

What the hell is going on in your apartments, that an overflown tub destroys everything? Is the floor in your bathroom not waterproof? In Europe water damage typically happens with bursting tubes and that can happen in your own home as well. You are typically insured against this.

[–] skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What is going on in this comments section? Building dense is massively better for the environment than SFH, both in the construction phase and for the life of the units as far more residents can be served with less infrastructure sprawl. It also doesn't mean that detached housing will suddenly stop existing if we let developers build densely packed housing. Doesn't even need to be high rises, it can be townhomes, duplexes, five-over-ones, etc. You'll still be able to get a white picket fence suburban home or a farmhouse on some acreage if you want. In fact, it will become cheaper because all the people who want to live in cities will actually be able to move there and not take up space in that low density area you want to live in.

[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's the same attitutes that cause drivers to oppose public transit, despite the fact that public transit means less traffic. More dense housing options mean fewer people competing for the same low-density sprawl and farmland. Everybody wins by allowing more density to be built, instead of continuing our current model of government-mandated sprawl for all.

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From an ecological POV I'm not so sure on the word density. More dense buildings, yes, but even more dense urban areas (read: than Paris/London) can lead to sealing of soils, UHI, recreational under-supply.

Sprawl is awful, too, and SFH is a luxury.

[–] Sodis@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

There is a sweet spot in population density for cities. I am not sure about the exact number, but you get it, when building houses, that have four or five stories.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know how computers were supposed to make life so easy we'd only have to work a few hours a week, and how that never happened.

This is the same thing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›