Destroying your public transit infrastructure speedrun.

41 comments

- Buys an SUV because of “safety”
  
  immediately gets into a roll over accident
- Usually it is same, but with six car lanes

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

"envy of the world" lol
- New York was pretty well envied around the world.

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

Don't dense urban cities require landlords?
- 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.

Cities Beautiful Pick one
Cities are noxious tumors on an otherwise beautiful planet.
- 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.
  
  Without cars and suburbs cities would still be filled with soulless concrete and steel monoliths and trash
- You would prefer urban sprawl? Humans gotta live somewhere, density is ecologically the best way to do it.
  
  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.
  
  Never said that suburbs are better, I'm just disagreeing with the sentiment that cities are beautiful. I think they're ugly.
- 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.
  
  If you think cities are beautiful you are entitled to your opinion, I just disagree. I think they're ugly
- 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
  
  I don't disagree, doesn't make them not ugly tho
- Walkable cities produce less pollution per capita than suburban or rural areas due to less pollution from commutes and increased efficiency delivering utilities (due to the population density).
  Suburban sprawl is what truly makes ugly stains on our word - concrete everywhere, destroying the watershed, with no native grass in the medians, and so many cars spewing out fumes, micro plastics, and disrupting migration patterns. They're depressing places to live.
  
  I feel the same could be said about industrial agriculture replacing the smaller family run farms. Nothing is more depressing than driving through hundreds of miles of monoculture fields in the mid west full of corn.
  We need to tons of small permaculture farms to supply our dense cities. Not vast swaths of land devoid of native species to feed us as efficiently as possible with corn, the earth be damned. We need to learn to live in harmony with out stark urban rural divides.
  Permaculture farming also has massive abilities to sequester carbon in the soil, as well as other farming techniques that involve plowing crop yields back into the earth, similar to the rich soils of the Amazon Rainforst which archeologists have determined was artificially made by man, and still holds the carbon they put into it.
  
  Y'all sure like putting words in my mouth. I don't prefer suburbs, I just think cities are ugly

41 comments