• Ian@Cambio
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    This would just become a 100 apartment buildings.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well if that much housing is needed then the idea of not providing it is kind of… monstrous? evil?

      • kier@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nah mate, there should be laws to how much people can live in some area. It’s inhumane to compress so many people in one place. I don’t want every city to be Hong Kong.

    • HidingCat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sadly, that’s more likely to happen. I like apartments more than houses, but it’s not just about building apartments alone.

    • rexxit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. People who advocate for densification are basically advocating for everywhere to be Amsterdam or NYC with continuous human habitation and maybe small concessions in the form of city parks (a joke compared to real natural areas, IMO).

      I’m not sure if they’re aware that this will be the logical conclusion of those policies.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d rather have a few cities and a lot of unspoilt nature than no cities and no nature, just suburban sprawl everywhere

        • rexxit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          25
          ·
          1 year ago

          How about nice green suburbs with single family homes and a lot fewer people?

          • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, im good on suburbia, it’s inherently damaging to both our mental health and the natural ecosystems of the planet. You cannot have a sustainable single family suburb.

            • rexxit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              21
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Ok, well surely you recognize that there are lots of people who agree with me - who feel single family homes are nice and living elbow to elbow with your neighbors in maximum density is not in any way desirable.

              Unfortunately, ultra-urbanist zealots are very loud online. I suspect many of them will change their tunes with age.

              Edit: what’s damaging to the ecosystems of our planet is PEOPLE! There’s no law of nature that states a suburban density isn’t sustainable, just that it’s unsustainable for 8b people. You’re proposing eco-austerity because human population is out of control

                • rexxit@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  12
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Let the population contract to <<1b as it was for thousands of years of civilization before industrial agriculture caused a very recent explosion in population the past 2 centuries (predominantly the 20th century)

              • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Do you have an example of a sustainable single family suburb that exists currently, or ways in which to offset the inherent inefficiency present in such structures?

                Why is not living in a suburb austerity? Is all of every city and rural population living in austerity?

                • rexxit@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Have you ever been to a small city? I can’t find a logical way in which a small city surrounded by undeveloped land would be unsustainable.

                  • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    13
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Do you have to drive to the grocery store? Do you have to commute to work? Do you grow monoculture grass lawns? Are the roads winding instead of straight? Do private lawns create circumstances where to get to the nearest store you have to go multiple times the actual distance to get there? These are all ways in which suburbs are unsustainable.

              • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldOPM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                just that it’s unsustainable for 8b people

                So is your solution global mass genocide just so you can enjoy your sprawling suburbs?

                • rexxit@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What part of “naturally contract” implies genocide? I swear, the resistance to understanding is willful.

                  • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That will take well over a century, if not multiple centuries. We need actual plans for living sustainably now, not hundreds of years in the future.

                  • SolarNialamide
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The ‘under 1 billion’ part implies genocide, because that is literally never gonna happen - in a time frame where we wouldn’t have to rethink housing and nature right now and the next few decades - otherwise without a major worldwide catastrophe. Sure, climate change might take care of it (again, decades away and people need housing now, also, these solutions actually help with climate change) but then we won’t have to worry about silly things like housing ever again.

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

                there are lots of people who agree with me - who feel single family homes are nice

                Lots of people believe in “drill baby drill”

                Fuck em.

          • barsoap
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No such thing as suburbia doesn’t have the density necessary to allow for public transit (with sane frequencies) or to be walkable. Living in there will always mean taking a car to fetch groceries, to get to school, to get to kindergarten, to go to the doctor, to go to the hair stylist, to go anywhere.

            Meanwhile you’re forcing people to live in accommodations which are absurdly large and expensive because batshit zoning codes make building anything that’s not a gigantic house on a humongous plot illegal. I don’t want to fucking upkeep a house.

            …and I also don’t want to finance the sky-high per-inhabitant infrastructure costs that suburbs bring with them. They’re the leading cause of municipal bankruptcies in North America.

            • rexxit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              “forcing”, yes that’s it. These people hate living in the suburbs and we are “forcing” it on them. Did you ever stop to wonder why suburban houses sell for 2-3x or more of the cost of condos? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not because people hate single family homes. The anti-car urban zealots don’t have a clue that there are people out there that live in pleasant green communities, and yes, have to take the car to the grocery store.

              I lived in NYC - an ultra-dense city with incredible transit. I had to walk or take transit to get groceries. Now I live in a suburb, the store is the same distance away, and it takes 1/4 the amount of time to get groceries. Someone save me from these awful car-centric troubles.

              • barsoap
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You know that there’s options besides concrete box in the sky and suburbia, don’t you?

                With a couple of row houses, multiplexes and small apartment buildings – think three, maximally five storeys suburbia could be densed up to support public transit. It could support supermarkets in walkable distance, schools, the whole shebang.

                But that’s illegal in the US.

                And guess what? The rare places in the US that have that style of mixed development, places that pre-date the suburbia zoning codes, are the ones with the absolutely highest home prices. Because they’re legitimately nice places to live, not because they’d be expensive to build, they’re actually very economical.

                • rexxit@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ve lived in multiplexes and small apartment buildings. For decades at this point. I fucking hate it and I know this is not an uncommon viewpoint. If people hated suburban homes, they would be selling at a discount, which is clearly not the case. You have to pay a premium to live in a less densely populated place and the lack of density is what makes those places expensive and desirable

                  • barsoap
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    They’d be even more expensive if not cross-financed by inner city taxes.

                    But that’s not really the point I want to make: You might hate living in a multiplex and really want your detached home. There’s nothing wrong with that. Noone’s stopping you. Maybe you want space for a shed so you can set up a hobby machine shop or whatever, you do you. What people are pissed about is that it’s either that, or the box in the sky. And now be honest: Would you NIMBY a couple of multiplexes three-story apartment complex flanked by some commercial space and a tram stop in your suburb? A plaza, cafes, restaurants, bars, doctors, no car parking, it’s serving your suburb, you can bike there, there’s ample of bike parking. Would you support repealing laws that make such developments illegal.

                    From what I heard from the states such places are very popular – modulo the no car parking thing. They’re called open air malls, you have to drive to them and walk through an asphalt desert of a gigantic parking lot and can’t, if you so choose, live in an apartment above a store because that’s illegal… why?

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            More suburbia does not reduce the number of people. It just spreads them out…into what was formerly nature.

      • Ian@Cambio
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Man so true. I live in Dallas Tx home of suburban sprawl. I just spent a month in North Carolina and I had no idea what I was missing. The unspoiled nature in the Appalachians just blew me away. Hard to come back to miles of concrete.

        I agree that if we could build a few wall label buildings, and leave the rest untouched that would be the best way. But I’ve seen how hard it is to stop development once money starts being thrown around.