this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
1204 points (86.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

9697 readers
1390 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
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (4 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.

[–] adriaan 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think not having sprawling cities means you can have nature nearby a lot moreso than in endless suburbia though. Unless you count lawns as nature.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nearby is relative to the quality of public transportation though, as not everyone can afford a car, and even if they can, it kills the environment and quality of living in the city to have traffic. And public transportation infrastructure is sadly still next to non-existent in many metropolitan areas in the world.

[–] adriaan 7 points 1 year ago

Public transport is cheaper too when cities are not sprawling. We are talking about the benefits new dense development, where public transport should be a core consideration and not an afterthought.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't forget "We've had a pandemic going for over 3 years, I'd like to not be around a bunch of sneezing and coughing people" at this point, particularly because public transit is objectively better for cities than driving, but also a better place to catch COVID than your car.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 5 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More people. More problems. Crimes happen where people are.

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

Ain't nobody commuting from a high rise to the farm field where that city gets its food.