this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
1365 points (97.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

10382 readers
2114 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 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FleetingTit@feddit.org 11 points 1 day ago

Now add in mixed use zoning, and affordable housing units and this could be a winner

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 2 days ago

When there's no more golf you'll know the rich fucks are gone.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 13 points 2 days ago

Plus you can live in a pentagon! Just not the Pentagon.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Most suburban streets are 50 feet wide, many suburban front yards are 50 feet deep. That's a wasted space 150 feet wide and however long the street is long. Think of how much housing could be built in that space if you tore up that road, and in its place put a pair of alleyways housing in the middle

[–] admin@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Good luck with the NIMBYs. Or NIMFYs now I guess?

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 3 points 1 day ago

Oh yeah it would never actually happen but a person can dream, right?

[–] ChokingHazard@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I would argue closer to 30, unless you’re including all the easement and sidewalks?

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I did some measuring on Google Earth and the distance from sidewalk (or on roads without a sidewalk from the road) to the front of houses in a major city nearish to me and found a few neighborhoods 50 feet to the house was about the standard. They also had 50 foot deep backyards!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not for nothing, but this wouldn't fly in the USA. You'd need to replace most of those trees with roads.

Or better yet, reduce the number of housing units and keep the trees.

[–] navi@lemmy.tespia.org 6 points 2 days ago

This is Seattle btw, but I think the meme is that it won't fly.

[–] Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What if we just altered zoning laws so they don't restrict high-density residential buildings?

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Oh, they didn't change that, people living there need to get real good at dodging golf balls.

[–] otto@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] don@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days 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.

[–] quoll@lemmy.sdf.org -3 points 1 day ago (1 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I guess that technically counts as a public sex forest then

[–] AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Lovely weather we're having in Minneapolis this weekend!

Edit: Here, for anyone who didn't get the joke. NSFW

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That area should hold about 400 people, not 40,000. The trees won't survive unless they can see the sky.

[–] LaminatedDenim@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In the United States of America, the average lot size for a single-family home is 0.19 acres (which is equivalent to 8,176 square feet). This math means that around 5 average-sized single-family homes can fit into one acre of land.

(Source)

So even if we're talking regular single-family homes you can already build 800.

Many trees do very well in the shade, as long as their crowns get sun part of the day. Leave some room between buildings and you can easily build 4-6 stories tall and still have trees in between. You can easily fit 20 apartments per acre that way. That's about 3200 apartments. With 3 people per household that's close to 10k people.

I agree 40k is optimistic, but 400 is way pessimistic

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Look at me on my .23 acres, essentially a sprawling compound. It's really a perfect size.

I don't think the setup here is at all realistic. ADA would probably have some qualms with it. I have seen golf courses repurposed for residential though, and it's great.

[–] mkhopper@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›