Destroying your public transit infrastructure speedrun. : memes

[–] CowsLookLikeMaps 162 points 11 months ago (2 children)

[–] [email protected] 78 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Buys an SUV because of “safety”

[–] [email protected] 48 points 11 months ago (1 children)

immediately gets into a roll over accident

[–] [email protected] 30 points 11 months ago (1 children)

survives with minor injuries, but kills or hospitalizes five other people

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago

They forgot to tack on "fuck you I got mine"

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago

Usually it is same, but with six car lanes

[–] [email protected] 101 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Minimum parking standards desroyed density in downtown cores and were basically based off of no real numbers or data. The subsidizing of private vehicle ownership fueled the destruction.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You don't love acres of pavement just sitting there taking up space and providing no value??? How can you not appreciate beauty???? /s

[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago

The funny thing is that some guy i worked for complained a lot about not having a lot of parking in the middle of a dense city.
I said yeah maybe but do you want it to look like some american parking city?
And he was like yes, i'm going there next month.

Mmmkay i guess

[–] [email protected] 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Friendly reminder that rowhouses exist and essentially break reality with how they provide the best of both worlds.

[–] CowsLookLikeMaps 6 points 11 months ago

I fucking love rowhouses.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"envy of the world" lol

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago

New York was pretty well envied around the world.

[+] [email protected] -30 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Don't dense urban cities require landlords?

[–] [email protected] 36 points 11 months ago

No, a lot of people own condos. And even if you intentionally destroyed dense, urban areas for the sake of endless suburban sprawl, you would still have people needing or wanting to rent some of those houses. Students, people anticipating moving after a few years, lower-income folks, etc.

[+] [email protected] -49 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Cities Beautiful Pick one

Cities are noxious tumors on an otherwise beautiful planet.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 11 months ago (2 children)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

Why not both? Have proper zoning laws in place and suddenly you'll find the balance. Kyoto for example is just amazing.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The entire point is they don't have to be that way. You are quite literally missing the entire critique. The US's focus on cars and suburbia make it that way.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

You would prefer urban sprawl? Humans gotta live somewhere, density is ecologically the best way to do it.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 11 months ago (2 children)

NIMBYs think if they just ban density that the 8 billion people in the world who need housing will just poof and disappear.

Personally, I prefer dense, walkable, transit-oriented cities so we can preserve as much nature as possible, and so the people living in cities aren't separated from nature by a sea of suburban sprawl.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I was on business in a major US city. I mapped the distance from my hotel to the edge of the wilderness. Including traffic, it would take hours to get there. It's nuts how sprawling and wasteful many of our cities are.

One of the key lines from Strong Towns was roughly "during a time of abundance, any decision you make works out". We've been building out cities during a time of abundance and that abundance has run out. Now we get to see just how badly we did by overbuilding infrastructure and constructing everything around a hugely inefficient car only model for transportation.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

That's a very good way of putting it. We've developed our cities in a fundamentally environmentally, socially, and fiscally unsustainable manner, but we were insulated from feeling the full impacts of it by being in relatively good times. But now those debts are quickly catching up with us with the climate crisis, housing crisis, widening inequality, rapidly degrading infrastructure, and quickly draining municipal budgets.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't want to ban cities, nor do I prefer suburbs, I just don't think they're anything close to beautiful thats all they're dirty and soulless.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

The modern north american cities are. That's the point.

But cities don't have to be the way, other places in the world have rich beautiful cities with amazing urban communities.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Never said that suburbs are better, I'm just disagreeing with the sentiment that cities are beautiful. I think they're ugly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Is there a less ugly way to live?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

I wish brother, I wish.

[–] Ookami38 23 points 11 months ago (1 children)

False dichotomies are fun! There's absolutely a type of beauty to a well-run, upkept city. Should everything be a city? Nope, we need green areas, probably even more green areas than cities. The two can and should coexist in harmony.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you think cities are beautiful you are entitled to your opinion, I just disagree. I think they're ugly

[–] Justas 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I think that your opinion is overly reductive. There are a lot of differences between cities and even parts of cities. There is a lot of variance between

This and This

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Sure, big difference, still less easy on the eyes, in my opinion, than an open field or a forest of trees. Nature will always be more attractive to me.

[–] CowsLookLikeMaps 1 points 11 months ago

Nobody is arguing that cities are more beautiful than the natural world. Rather that cities can also be beautiful in their own right if they're properly built.

We can all agree that poorly planned cities that are filled with concrete and trash look terrible. But there are alternatives if we actually listened to professional city planners and incorporated less car-dependency (concrete roads, parking lots, box stores), more green space, etc.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think I'd rather have very dense population centers with intermixed accessible green spaces would be far preferable to the sprawling suburbs like you see in Texas

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I don't disagree, doesn't make them not ugly tho

Memes

Rules: