1503
Murica (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
522 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Anons argue in comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

You mean not dense enough (as in high concentration of people).

Commutes need to be short enough that bikes are a reasonable alternate mode of transportation. That means you have to get to work and shopping within 30 minutes or it isn't feasible for most folks.

That can only work if they get rid of a lot of residential suburbs and instead build condos and apartments close to places that offer a lot of jobs. Then it'll work out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    no I mean too low in population. it is not reasonable or feasible to make anything other than a large city bike-friendly, and suburbs are large cities in comparison to the majority of cities. also replacing real homes with apartments is a bad idea because it takes away true personal ownership of your home. you seem to be unaware that small towns exist and that a lot of people do not want to live in a big, dense, concrete slab of a city. you should leave your city sometimes and remind yourself that the people outside of it do exist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I live in a small town of just 20k people in an apartment. It's perfectly fine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    cool but just because you are fine living in a concrete box does not mean everyone else does or that trying to get everyone to will solve anything. you are out of touch with the people around you. there's these things called 'privacy' and 'property' that normal people aspire to have and that apartments are the polar opposite of. it makes much more sense to phase out the idea of having the whole company work in one place than to force everybody into apartment complexes so they can always be at their master's beck and call. it's crazy that you are on the fediverse and yet you want to have your real life situation be exactly as centralized as the platforms you are here to escape.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You have a somewhat weird assumption of what I'm trying to tell you.

    I don't want everyone to live in an apartment. But they are needed for a healthy city. The residential suburbs made of of single family homes that the US is building everywhere are not sustainable. The infrastructure costs far outweigh the tax revenue they'll every generate. The people living there have to have a car to get around because everything is too far away. This just can't work in the long run.

    there’s these things called ‘privacy’ and ‘property’ that normal people aspire to have and that apartments are the polar opposite of.

    That's plain wrong. My neighbors have no idea about what I do in my apartment. I never let them inside and there is no need to do that. Heck I don't even know their names Even my landlord was never inside since I rented it.
    And why do I need to own it? What advantage is there? I would be stuck to this place as property isn't that easy to sell.
    My parents are trying selling the family house they built themselves for almost 2 years now. They are now too old to maintain it and none of the children wants it. We all have our own lives. That's the reality for most of the people that own property: You are stuck with it whether you like it or not.

    at their master’s beck and call

    Do you have some kind of delusion?

    it’s crazy that you are on the fediverse and yet you want to have your real life situation be exactly as centralized as the platforms you are here to escape.

    Those two don't compare. At all. You'll always need to have some kind of central 'power' to coordinate efforts and resources. Here the instance is the center that's doing that, much like a city does. And if I don't like the instance I switch to another one like if I don't like a city I'll move.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    tl;dr: elaborated, sorry if misrepresented you.

    the solution is not to make apartments instead of single family homes, the solution is to not allow massive housing developments with no businesses around them and to not make massive residential zones where none are allowed. the lack of businesses such as stores or regular sized offices in the vicinity of residential areas is the problem, not people having their own homes. what you said was to build apartments closer to where people work instead of houses. you may not have intended it this way (and to be honest, I was more hostile here than was deserved) but what that sounds like you are saying is that people should be living in apartments right by their offices instead of having their own houses. if the entirety of a company's workforce (or at least the entirety of any particular office) lived in an apartment building right by the office, the company would exploit that to restrict people's ability to not be working. I communicated this poorly but the fact is that many companies already get as close to doing this as they can manage even when they can't exploit your housing, and if they could this would immediately be a genuine threat. what I meant by the fediverse comment was also based on what i thought you meant, because it sounded like you were saying all of someone's work and housing should be as close to one big block as possible. this is why i made the comparison to centralized social media as it would all be one big block unilaterally controlled by just about anyone but the consumer. if this were to become the case there would be no better place to move to because every city would be like that. the privacy and property comment doesn't make that much sense to me either, so i'm going to take it as a sign that that's enough internet for tonight. If my interpretation of what you were saying was incorrect (and having slept a little between when i made my last reply and when i made this one, i'm pretty sure it was) then I'm sorry I misrepresented what you said. I still stand by what I said but it probably shouldn't have been directed at you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    I think I didn't describe well what I wanted to say. English isn't my native tongue.

    The solution I propose is to increase population density. If you increase the population density the infrastructure costs per capita will go down fast. You can see the results in the USA, almost all cities have a lot of debt just because the residential areas are so large and thinly populated.

    but what that sounds like you are saying is that people should be living in apartments right by their offices instead of having their own houses

    No, please no! I don't think anyone would want that. A healthy 2-3 miles distance between home and work should be enough. Some people might like to live close to their workplace but I'm not one of them. Some might want to live in an apartment or condo, some might to live in a house (especially those with large families).

    I still stand by what I said

    That's perfectly fine. I don't mind. Everyone has the right to their own opinion. I have 10 of them. Nine tell me I'm not crazy and the tenth one is humming the melody of tetris.🤪

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •