• FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Pickle_Jr@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • BruceTwarzen@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year 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

  • Illegal_Prime@dmv.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Sunforged@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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

      • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • azimir@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year 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.

        • Entropy@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year 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.

      • Entropy@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

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

    • Ookami38
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Entropy@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • Justas🇱🇹
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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

          • Entropy@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Cows Look Like Maps
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year 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.

    • Kalkaline @leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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