this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
835 points (97.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

9666 readers
70 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
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/16511967

Someone got woken up on Sunday morning 🤣

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Most people suggesting we should densify are targeting suburbs, not rural areas. Suburbs are incredibly expensive and environmentally wasteful per square inch. They have all the utility of a city but spread out with more asphalt, cement, power, sewer, water, gas, cheap inefficient homes that leach heat/ac at an alarming rate, etc.

In rural areas the infrastructure isn't always as expensive because some residents have their own septic and well, live on a dirt road, heat with a wood furnace, etc. A few of those things are also more renewable. Additionally, rural areas are still required for our way of living (farming, logging, mining, fishing), while suburbs have negative societal value (they take more than they put back into the system).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I suspect the suburb issue is one of car centric US suburbs where you can't even get out of it without a car, rather than somewhere like the UK, where I effectively live in what is now a suburb of a larger city (if I drove there, it's about ten miles, through an entirely built up area), but that "suburb" is also a town that's been here since medieval times with it's own shops and workplaces and facilities.

Seems to me the issue is less about low density suburbs, and more about the fact that there's nothing there apart from rows and rows of identikit housing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Absolutely, North America has a special level of stupidity. To clarify yes, the suburbs in the US mostly don't even have a real town center, many are just residential, malls, and big box stores. The average property size and spread is also often much less dense than nearly any suburb in the UK. So the infrastructure and environmental cost is much much higher.