this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
1208 points (86.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

9660 readers
80 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not really true though, most people are much happier in a house and have far fewer sources of stress in their life. Also high density housing is an awfull place to bring up kids, that's the exact reason London is knocking down all the old tower blocks like elephant and castle, all the studies showed it was a horrible place to live for everyone there.

I know you want this solution to work because no one likes American suburbia but it doesn't have to be a choice between two types of hell, there are actually good options like European suburbs with local shops, bus and cycle routes to pedestrianised shopping areas and lots of green spaces.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Studies actually show that medium density low rises allow for more housing and are more ecologically efficient than supposedly high-density high rises. I was surprised, but the models are irrefutable. It's mainly due to the structural footprint of large buildings.

So that's my ideal. Paris, not Manhattan. Side benefit is it just looks nicer and feels better.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You mean the rich areas of Paris? Not banlieue 93

I'm sure New York has areas similar to Montmartre where only rich people can afford to live, and areas like Seine Saint Denis where they cram all the poor people in awful environments which result in criminality and cyclical poverty

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Um...yes? Idk much about Paris geography but who gives a fuck, you understand what I'm saying.