I love this because you can see how cities started out, and there’s major differences between each. It’s not just…trees as far as the eye can see. And it’s a lot easier to spot unique cars from up there too. I’ve managed to spot a couple of imported skylines, a dodge viper, and others. It also kind of puts things into perspective as you witness how similar to ants we all are.
I dont know how are bus in your country but here they are really bigs and not rarely they drive 2/3 together what makes the traffic slowly and by read traffic light everything stops not only in the direction from the read traffic lights but in all directions because the bus blocks everything. If the all people in the bus drives a car the traffic would be more fluid. I accept the bus makes less pollution but not better traffic. When im a little late for work and i see a bus its done … at least 15m stoped in the trafic is guaranteed
Also I noticed people complaining about noise - but my apartment holds noise in really well. I leave my tv on blast and when I stand outside I can’t hear it even though there is a window open.
Also I noticed people complaining about noise - but my apartment holds noise in really well. I leave my tv on blast and when I stand outside I can’t hear it even though there is a window open.
Mine’s the opposite.
I can tell when my neighbor is on his treadmill, or when my other neighbors are having sex (and they’re not even vocalizing much).
Just depends on the property, and how well it was built.
i invite you to use the word “house” or “apartment” or “dwelling” or “land” instead of “property” in these contexts, to stop doing free PR work for exploitative real estate investors
i invite you to use the word “house” or “apartment” or “dwelling” or “land” instead of “property” in these contexts,
I used to word property as a generic term for any of the types of property one could live in, that you listed.
I’m specifically making the point that it doesn’t matter if it’s a house, or a condo, or an apartment, it’s how well the structure is built that depends on the noise you hear from the adjoining spaces that other people live in.
to stop doing free PR work for exploitative real estate investors
how is “property” any more generic than “home” or “dwelling”? and do you not see any additional meanings, beyond “place to live”, highlighted in calling it “property”?
They are all real estate properties. You rent or purchase a property. When that word is used for where a person lives long-term it’s not potentially meant to denote ownership, but just a place of residence that they spend some of their money to do so.
Honestly not purposely trying to stick a finger in someone’s eye over this, that’s just the generic term for a place that people live in/at.
I’ll tell you what though, next time I’ll try to remember the use the word ‘residence’ instead, though that’s not completely accurate either, because somebody could just be living at a friend’s place and not spending any money to do so.
I’m sure in the scheme of the world’s problems it’s a small thing, but I really think it’ll be easier to find stable housing for everyone who wants it if we can stop seeing it as primarily a marketable possession 🙏
I’m sure in the scheme of the world’s problems it’s a small thing, but I really think it’ll be easier to find stable housing for everyone who wants it if we can stop seeing it as primarily a marketable possession
A safe and happy living environment for every human being is no small thing, and a worthy goal to strive for.
I lived in an apartment for 3 months and had to tip toe as quietly as humanly possible after 6pm or the person downstairs would bang on the ceiling. And I’m alreat a really quiet person…
A lot of apartments aren’t exactly modern. And it doesn’t help that people are so eager to call these impractical living spaces “historical”.
I hate “historical” building bullshit. I went to go stay in Seattle for a day and a half so I got a room for the night and then the hotel calls me to let me know it’s a historical building so they don’t have air conditioning.
This was the middle of August so of course I’m like, why did you call me to tell me this instead of listing it on your site you psychos? And the bitch bragged to me about working at a different hotel that charges $600 a room with NO air conditioning.
I couldn’t cancel cause they didn’t tell me until last minute either.
I don’t WANT to own an apartment. I don’t WANT to share walls with my neighbors. I want space to work on my hobby projects like with wood and metal. To make noise without upsetting anyone. To have privacy, and the ability to get away from people. I need a shed, a garage, and some yard space. The only way I can swing it is fewer people and more space. Europe is too crowded for that in many places. It sounds unpleasant.
Shared wood/metal project places are awesome. There’s someone who maintains everything, and you get much better equipment. It’s not terribly expensive (cheaper than owning it all yourself), and can be local if density provides it. Look at places like The Crucible in Oakland (which is more tailored to art) or local trade schools will open their doors
I have a shed. I don’t have a garage. I don’t have any more room for any more tools. Most of my tools are things I’ve used for one or two projects and that’s it.
Personally I’d much rather have a maker space that has a tool library so I stop spending so much money on tools that I need for one project. Like a hardwood floor nailer. I’ve got full hardwoods in my house now. Wtf do I need that for? Every time I find out a friend is going to start installing hardwoods, it turns out that they already bought the nailer by the time I found out.
I’m not opposed to it, but there’s something nice about having your own workshop. Depends on what you’re doing. I also have fewer and worse makerspaces where I am now than places I’ve lived in the past - it’s a crapshoot.
In the US, if you own an apartment it’s typically called a condo or townhouse so an apartment usually does indicate that it’s a rental. Maybe that’s a good indication that these discussions need to change their language when talking to Americans to make sure to include the words condo and townhouse. I live in a condo and the HOA sorta sucks but it has a lot of other advantages and we have a huge yard.
@lagomorphlecture Ah, thanks. That explains a lot in this thread. But still, living in an apartment can be great. Maybe right now in the US it's hell. But it doesn't have to be that way.
The beautiful thing about America is we have enough space so that you could have the big house on the left AND the beautiful nature on the right at the same time.
Well, both of the islands in the picture will be underwater no matter what, but I doubt this will affect the nature where I used to live, the extra CO2 will probably be good for the trees.
The correct answer actually should -and could- be 0 gallons if they simply cycle to work. Granted, that requires them to have the right infrastructure available, but if (once) that existed, the vast majority of the work force could cycle to work happily. Most people don’t live 20 miles or more from where they work
It could also be 0 gallons if the busses are electrified, or if the rail system is expanded, or if we stop pushing office workers to commute every day.
I’m just sayjt that we need to change the way we live. Like you said, people should not be required to work in offices anymore. If they physically need to be at locations, let them walk for short distances, cycle for medium distances and use public transportation for large distances.
Most cities in the world have been redesigned over the past 80 years for cars. It’s insane and it left most cities awful places to live in. Almost all Dutch cities have been redesigned for people. So people walk and cycle because they can, and the cities look and feel amazing and beautiful.
I was being facetious; ambulance fuel use is a silly comparison :)
Listening to all y’all winter cyclists I lament that I live in a city where the bike lanes are where the city piles up the snow it plows off the car lanes on the streets. RIP me. It gives me hope and happiness to know that there are cities that don’t do this!
I especially liked the part around 0:30 where the bike lane that was colored red for better visibility stopped being colored at the conflict point, which is the most important place for the color to be.
It’s… kind of justified: the red lane means “forbidden for cars to enter”, while the yellow slashed means “may enter, but forbidden to obstruct”. The fun part is how bikers have to go straight into the incoming traffic.
There are other funny infrastructures elsewhere, where the “bike lane” is painted in white right in the middle of the road, as in “let’s bikes and cars and buses share the same lane”… and then they put speed bumps on it. What could go wrong, right?
That’s a decent reference. I think, since in this case they’re painting the whole “bikes only” lanes, the conflict areas should use the dashed option.
Looking now through Google Earth, I’ve noticed some other bad places, like where the bike lane crosses some tram rails, with no sign of any kind at all.
Population growth is in fact slowing down and have been doing so for quite some time. But we’ll eventually run into the problem where there won’t be enough working age people to take care of the elders.
Many countries (nearly all of the developed countries) are having too few kids to maintain their population and it can only be increased/maintained through immigration. Most experts believe that we will top out at around 10.5 billion in 2100 and then there will be a decline.
People are having less kids, it’s just that older people also live longer these days, which means it takes longer for the population to decline, still, is happening in a lot of countries, for example, Japan lost 200,000 inhabitants last year due to low fertility rates
I prefer riding on the street with the cars. I feel more visible that way. When I’m on a separate bicycle path separated from the street by parked cars, there’s a risk they won’t see me when turning right. Also, when cycling on the street it’s easier to switch to the lane for turning left with the cars, which is usually much quicker than waiting at two traffic lights consecutively for turning left. Of course, this depends on the density of car traffic and local laws. I’m talking Berlin, Germany.
Sounds to me like the problem isn’t separated bicycle paths, but rather that the engineers in your jurisdiction don’t design the intersections properly.
Ah, well there’s your problem. Ever since the CDU started supplying the transportation commissioner, Berlin city hall has been chugging gasoline and car company copium and is setting back cycling in Germany’s capital for several years.
My suggestion: I’ve heard there are protests going on. Get in on them. Pull a Cave Johnson if you must. “When life gives you lemons, don’t make lemonade! Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn lemons! What am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give @konkonjoja lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man whose gonna burn your house down - with the lemons!”
Same with the bike gutters here in Waterloo, Ontario. They’ve even found a way to make them worse. They put a short curb between the gutter and the car lane that does nothing to stop a car but prevents cyclists from taking the lane when it is safer to do so, like near lanes and intersections.
Empty streets will cause cars to be made much more effective though, so a bike lane to bypass the traffic calming/filter is necessary to keep cars unattractive and prefer bikes. Or something like that
Its not always that black and white. Urban design that promotes cycling and walking applied on smaller scales can still drastically reduce car dependancy and prioiritity on a shared street.
While that’s true, they “solve”* the two issues that are most pressing with ICE cars, air polution and fossil fuel use. I’d rather have EVs over ICEs, and I’d rather have walkable cities and robust public transit than either of the car options.
That was, of course, just a random example of a job that cannot be done from home. A lot of jobs do require physical presence of people, that’s all I was trying to say.
Of course, a milkman would also require to travel to and fro their place of work, dunno why they cannot be on a bus for that.
You do not actually see many milkmen these days. A milkman’s business was ran a bit like McDonalds’s with the milkman buying the as an individual and then selling it door to door. Every single milkman that I have known has worked from home.
So kind of a bad example but I get your point. No not all people can work from home, but those who can should surely be given that option. I have a wife who is a civil servant. She is required to travel to work for 40% of her hours worked. This is for no other reason than going into work by direction of the Tory party. This was not really an issue until they moved the place of work 8 miles away. She literally has to pay for a bus, sit on a bus for an hour each way, while carrying all her PC equipment with her, just so she can do exactly the same job while sitting in an office. All her meetings are done online, even while in the office. So there is a lot to be said regarding this Tory agenda of forcing people to work from the office just to appease their Donors.
When I see the image what came to mind was that experiment where they had an overpopulation of rats in a cage and how all of the rats turned on each other and killed each other.
Too much human density is not good. You have to be sure to get the percentage of humans to a acre of land just right, to prevent the rats situation.
Part of the thing is humans aren’t rats, so we can’t necessarily extrapolate from rat behavior to humans.
And another thing is space is 3-dimensional. If people have spacious apartments and access to good parks and public spaces, we don’t necessarily need as much private acreage.
And a final thing is different people have different preferences. Some people enjoy and prefer those tiny houses. Some people prefer a homestead with acreage. Some people are happy with a condo in a high-rise. Some people want a rowhouse with a little space for a garden in the back.
But – at least in North America – we make it literally illegal to build anything but the houses on the left on the vast majority of urban land.
If we’re going to talk about forcing people into living conditions they don’t want to be in, we should be talking about how we’re systematically shoving most people into sprawling, car-dependent suburbia.
I know that, growing up in suburbia, I felt trapped like in a cage because I couldn’t get anywhere without getting a ride from my parents. The internet was the only escape really.
Their point is that developers are legally forced to build SFH even if demand says otherwise. Detached homes are a major tax burden on cities; their cost should reflect their real cost. If you want one, go ahead and get one (I will be doing the same!), but cities genuinely cannot be built to handle most of its land being single family, detached homes.
I may want a detached home for hobbies and space, but the most fun I’ve had to date was when I lived in a townhouse in the middle of the city and didn’t need a car to get anywhere. Exploration and discovery is impossible in suburbia.
Hell, you can have suburbia, but it should still be walkable. And you do that by increasing the taxes on them (rightfully), adding regular busses, having bike lanes, including businesses in the mix, and having them not be so sprawling so that you are closer to the city itself.
I don’t live in suburbia, I live in a tiny hamlet with cows for neighbours.
I agree that cities cannot be all detached homes, but likewise they cannot be all high-rise either. Where my wife and I come from ( France and UK respectively) high-rise experiments have always ended in poverty and decay.
I could buy a crappy little flat in a city with junkies for neighbours, or I could buy a massive house with space for a pool 40 minutes drive away. Which would any sane person choose? Am I saving the environment driving around in my SUV? Yes, because we hardly use it thanks to the internet and us being fit.
My feeling is the current status quo will continue:
Young people live in flats in town. Kid #1 comes along and it seems fine. Then #2 arrives (plus they start having a bit mor £€$) and things start getting a little tight. Also the downsides of city life start outweighing the upsides (people drinking and shouting at 2am is more annoying when you and your kids have work/school).
Obviously that is a gross generalisation, but I have seen the pattern all over the place.
Part of the thing is humans aren’t rats, so we can’t necessarily extrapolate from rat behavior to humans.
Actually the study was specifically being done to study humans. We are similar enough when it comes to the factors being studied to be able to be used for studying, as the scientists did.
The actual scientist who did the study were confident that the results could be correlated and used for human behavior.
I think it’s safe to say for all of us that we don’t like being crowded in. And when we’re crowded in for a very long time then we get cranky. It’s biological.
And another thing is space is 3-dimensional. If people have spacious apartments and access to good parks and public spaces, we don’t necessarily need as much private acreage.
The experiment actually had the rat cages set up with up and downs areas and small cordoned off areas as well. Some of what they found was just the congestion of moving around from area to area was enough to cause conflict.
And a final thing is different people have different preferences. Some people enjoy and prefer those tiny houses. Some people prefer a homestead with acreage. Some people are happy with a condo in a high-rise. Some people want a rowhouse with a little space for a garden in the back.
I honestly don’t think you can be confident in saying that long-term crowding would only affect a small subset of humans though, because of human nature, that affects, well, all humans.
You crowd us in too much and we don’t like it, and we act upon it. And that tolerance between the two ends on the bell curve of people’s crowding tolerance is not that great.
Right, but the experiment was in an actual, literal cage, right? With no ability to walk outside to get groceries or stroll through the park.
So long as we’re not cramming people into Hong Kong’s cage homes (which only happens because of a thoroughly fucked housing market in Hong Kong), I think our efforts should be spent on making there be abundant housing supply – particularly of dense, walkable urbanism – so that the most economically vulnerable amongst us aren’t left with no other option besides horrible, inhumane conditions.
Essentially, if we unfuck our housing market by legally allowing development denser than ultra low-density sprawl, there’s no reason to think the market can’t decide what level of density people are comfortable with. That is, if the poorest among us have enough money, and there are ample housing options available even at the price level affordable to them, too-dense development will disappear of its own accord from pure market forces. After all, if you feel cramped and miserable, and you have the means to leave for someplace better, you will.
But if we don’t legalize density, people will end up crowding themselves in with too many roommates, with abusive partners or overbearing family, in wholly inadequate quality housing, or just straight-up homeless.
Because if we set out at the onset to dictate what constitutes “too much” density, well, many of the commenters in here are of the opinion that even rowhouses are too dense. If we empower them to decide what constitutes “too much” density for the rest of us, we’ll end up with the laws we currently have on the books. The very laws that cripple the economy and exacerbate inequality. This will just create the conditions we have now, where a housing shortage and widening inequality push people into really sub-par living arrangements.
Because if we set out at the onset to dictate what constitutes “too much” density, well, many of the commenters in here are of the opinion that even rowhouses are too dense.
You’ve nailed the crux of the problem right there. And yeah, like with everything else with human beings, you’ll get a big range of people who have different tolerances for density.
But besides their own individual opinions of what is too much density, there’s a biological/psychological definition as well, that all humans in common have, and that’s what the scientists were studying.
This is EXACTLY the kind of point I’m trying to make. Humans keep packing more and more into the same forever-growing cities and it makes the formerly-pleasant harsh, foreign, and unwelcoming.
There exist nice places that have balance - green spaces, slow pace of life, nice local restaurants, uncrowded trails, minimal traffic and short commutes.
Then they become discovered, become popular, and become overcrowded in a way that ruins what made them special to begin with. But they still look small to people from the big cities, who keep moving there. Now increasingly expensive, congested, and losing their original character, the urban zealots who invaded start screeching about cars, walkability, bikeability, and transit. It was perfectly bikeable, and there was no traffic before everyone tried to pile in.
The enemy is GROWTH, and OVERCROWDING, not single family homes and cars.
It really depends on where in the USA, but for the most part he’s right.
Any growing communities like small towns and cities have the chance to change this, but it usually sounds too high risk for them.
Plus they already have to deal with the insane red tape and overhead in the US like poorly cascaded federal and state laws, lowest bidder stupidity, maximum annual budget spending, scam zoning laws, and slow as hell development time.
Like I would definitely throw in effort to try in the plenty of towns that surround metro areas.
Dearborn for example, which is technically metro Detroit, surprisingly has some walkable neighborhoods because the smallest roads are thinner and businesses are very close to residential areas. It’s definitely not perfect because all the main roads (stroads) are still absolutely huge, but it’s nice to see that it’s not just typical suburbs with strict Zoning.
But after visiting Houston, I would just declare the entire state of Texas a lost cause.
fuckcars
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.