this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
855 points (93.7% liked)

solarpunk memes

2458 readers
580 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

West Coast baby

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 53 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Another fix: remote work for all who can. No more traffic, no more living close to economic centers (expensive housing), leaves a lot of available housing in the cities (no more homelessness).

[–] [email protected] 26 points 10 months ago (3 children)

My biggest worry is that people already have no sense of community. Third places (is it still a third place if we remove going in to work?) can't really exist in suburbia. People sit inside when off work, drive to work isolated from everyone, then sit at work mostly not building a community. Americans have no sense of community, which I would blame for most of our current political issues. People spreading out and not going in to work (I'm not in favor of this, just not looking forward to this one effect of it) can only further degrade any sense of community that currently exists.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Spaceinv8er 41 points 10 months ago (18 children)

I understand what's trying to be said here but I'd pass on that.

I've lived in apartments most my life. Now that I live in a home that has a backyard, a garage, can't hear what my neighbors are saying, don't need to pay for laundry, don't need to go down an elevator to throw away garbage, and don't have to worry about people pissing in the elevator. I'm not going back to an apartment.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 10 months ago (12 children)

All those issues are not intrinsic to apartments. We can have nice apartments too. Sure, cheap ones will cut corners, but it's not required.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I can't hear my neighbors, don't need an elevator, and don't need a garage because I don't need a car. I don't have a back yard but I'm pretty close to a massive city park. This apartment is pretty okay.

Meanwhile the suburbs were just crushing isolation and cultural wasteland. And needing to drive everywhere was awful.

[–] Spaceinv8er 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Other than SF. Where do you live in CA that doesn't require you to need a car?

I know you can make due. I lived without one for a long time, but it was a the biggest pain the ass not having one. Unless I only wanted to stay in my little local bubble.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

You (or whoever) can opt to live in a cute neighborhood, I would. But you cannot opt to live in a cute neighborhood in the middle of a massive city. I think that's the key piece here.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

There is a middle ground between single family housing and high density housing, it's just not less common in the US than either apartments or single family housing.

Medium density housing, duplexes, quadruplexes, and town homes.

And yeah crappy apartments with little to no sound dampening are really common. At my brother's apartment I can hear his neighbor's coffee pot turn on both outside and inside the apartment building. Shit's got tissues for walls I swear.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

You could meet all of your apartment complaints with some decently designed medium density projects. I agree though that not everyone needs to live in a towering skyscraper

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Good for you since you can afford it. Most people cannot. Which means you would still have your house in the suburbs somewhere, but all of these problems would be solved.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Could easily fix "LISA" in the last panel to "USA", and remove California from the first panel, and boom, you got a meme for the whole country

[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 months ago

Yeah, right synae, A single, relevant meme.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yeah it won't really solve it in a single city though. NYC has tons and tons of dense urban housing but still insane housing prices.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

...and insane traffic.

...and homelessness.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'm not american and have never even been there but doesn't New York city have the same problems? And AFAIK NYC is very vertical.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 10 months ago (5 children)

NYC doesn't have as bad of a homeless issue as LA.

But NYC is also an extremely expensive place to live, and built vertically due to a lack of space for outward expansion.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago

Might also be good to point out that NYC has a lot more commercial office and high-end condo development than high-density housing.

But that also has a lot to do with how expensive land is, which is mostly due to it being land-locked as mentioned.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

This is anecdotal from browsing vagabond sources, but there's a lot of reasons NYC might have fewer homeless.

A) The pigs and rules on the east coast are a lot more brutal towards the homeless than the west coast. This both leads to migration away from the east coast and for the homeless that are there to be much more invisible.

B) The west coast has a history of being relatively welcoming to the houseless / a lot of lore built up around it, so people tend to gravitate towards it.

C) The west coast has a much more survivable climate than the east coast - this is the reason I hear the most.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

As a local, I'll add what I think are more meaningful differences.

First, most homeless people in CA are locals who were forced out, not interstate homeless migrants looking for a good place to be homeless.

The main reason is that CA doesn't have nearly as many temporary shelters for people to go to. And as you noted, it's more survivable to live outdoors.

Overall, NYC still has a pretty big population of folks in shelters, but CA has way more folks living in cars, trailers, and tents.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

In addition to the other replies, it can also matter where in NYC you're talking about

https://metropolismoving.com/blog/housing-costs-nyc/

Bronx has a median rent to income ratio of 45%, while Manhattan is 30%. This is primarily due to the fact that median income for Manhattan renters is double what it is in the Bronx, but rent doesn't scale up the same. Against my own expectation, this makes Manhattan a reasonable-ish place to live, at least if we're just talking about rent and income.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago (42 children)

The only thing I don't see is how it would fix people being homeless. Many homeless are unable to be properly housed because they have mental illnesses, trauma, etc. If you put them in an apartment without extensive further help, many will get back on the street and/or destroy the apartment. You can't solve their problems with just providing housing.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago (6 children)

There's multiple groups of homeless people.

There's the long term homeless, who often suffer from issues like mental illness, and short term homeless, who usually don't.

High housing prices absolutely causes people to become homeless when they lose their job, become addicted to drugs, etc.

Being homeless is itself traumatic, and exacerbates most issues homeless people have. Affordable housing and giving homeless people an apartment aren't a panacea, but it does prevent a ton of issues for newly homeless people.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Are you familiar with the "Housing first" model? It posits that even for people who need medical or living assistance, having shelter, a bed, a bathroom, a refrigerator, and a permanent address will allow them and whoever is providing support to deal with compounding factors and receive regular visits, Conversely, attempts to treat something like dementia or substance abuse on the street are next to impossible.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (40 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (13 children)

I don't understand how the high density housing solves traffic. In lieu of an additional solution (public transit) I think it would make traffic worse.

Edit

The argument seems to be: high density housing would naturally result in public transit infrastructure. I don't think that line of reasoning makes sense, it's certainly not an obvious inevitability that public transit will always, naturally appear.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago

With density and admitily mixed development, it is pretty simple to live within walking distance of everything around you. A car just needs much more space then a pedestrian and you do not park your body at the site of the street. Other then that the key to good public transport is high frequency. So for a transit connection the more people want to travel the route, the more high frequency makes sense.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The only reason not to build public transport is not having the density to support it....

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago

You can't have efficient public transport with low density housing. Also high density housing makes it easier to have things like supermarkets within walking distance of everyone.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)

It doesn't solve it, but I can see how it would help to solve it. If everyone lives in super low density suburban neighborhoods, public transportation doesn't make any sense. You can't build a train station that would realistically serve a dozen people tops.

Higher density makes public transportation a viable option, which in turn reduces traffic and pollution.

Also high density mixed used means you don't need the car every time you need to go grocery shopping, or to a bar or even to a park. You can go by foot

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

High density basically makes the case for transit itself.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (4 children)

That could alleviate those problems, but I doubt it'd actually solve them. Not to mention, they could also get worse:

  • Cost of living -> Could actually be driven up. Stuff always tends to be more expensive in dense metropolitan areas. Big corpos and rich assholes would buy up as much real state as possible.
  • Traffic -> Without public transportation, this can actually get worse. The distances might be smaller, but the amount of people wanting to get there increases.
  • Homelessness -> directly related to cost of living. Having lots of places to live in that you simply cannot afford will force you to live elsewhere
[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Cost of living is tied to supply and demand, more than anything else. When supply is constrained, prices tend to rise.

People often want to have short commutes and to live in walkable areas.

However, most cities in the US and Canada have huge swaths of their metro area zoned exclusively for low density single family housing. Upzoning neighborhoods on the edges of cities is politically difficult.

Cities like NY become expensive because people want to move there, but it's really difficult to add a lot of net-new walkable, transit accessible housing due to zoning, permitting, etc.

If we build a lot of net-new housing, prices will fall.

As for traffic, one of the benefits of mixed use development is being able to walk 5 min to buy groceries, eat at a restaurant or go to a pub. Being able to do many daily chores on foot or bike decreases the number of times you need to either drive or take transit.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Look. Clearly I need some education in this area. Why didn't the "projects" in the 80's and 90's effectively provide these benefits?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago (13 children)

Because they were inadequately funded, regulated to low income areas with no jobs and shit schools. They we're just a glorified hole to stick brown ppl

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago

I saw a video that they intentionally made the projects bad to try to "incentivize" people to get out of them. The whole stupid pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

It also centralizes the problem, which intensifies it. What you need is communities of mixed income, which has effects on schools, hospitals, stores nearby, etc.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

This is less about the government building things and more about the government changing zoning so denser communities are built.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

Pfft and not fill our valuable real estate with lawns and parking lots?

load more comments
view more: next ›