Capitalism always wastes precious resources for the sake of profit.
Can you explain the photos? Is it the same place before and after or something?
this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
FuckCars
427 readers
1 users here now
A community for discussions of how cars have ruined many cities across the globe, as well as alternatives to them.
Cars are deeply tied to capitalism, and in resisting capitalism, it is worthwhile to reconsider personal automobiles place in transportation.
Rules: (wip: message me if I’m missing something)
Be nice to people: This is fuck cars, not fuck drivers. Yes some drivers are car-brained maniacs, no that doesn’t mean they’re evil (usually).
No hate or bigotry: No racism, homophobia, sexism, terfs, ableism, etc. Not the move generally. Cars have already destroyed enough marginalised communities, no need for us to help them.
No traffic violence: Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.
No misinformation: Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.
No harassment: Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.
Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
About the per square foot prices, in American cities, the city governments are funded through property taxes. Meaning that the right developments pay higher taxes, which then go to subsidise the developments on the left, which don't pay enough property taxes to financially sustain themselves. Oh, and the federal government also subsidises development of the left type, meaning that the American tax payers put even more money into maldevelopment.
Not just for you, but for anyone else (coming in after some other comments, so trying to add more thoughts to the convo):
I think the image demonstrates two problems that feed on each other.
The first is to notice how much land is used for cars and parking lots, when it could be used for housing or something useful. Presumably that red line shows the same amount of distance in both photos.
But then on top of that, it's literally cheaper to live in the sparser area. So the area on the right not only has more housing but has four times the cost of that housing.
Since free parking is literally a cost put on society as a whole, and because things like plumbing and electricity cost less on a per household basis in denser environments, this means that the image on the right is subsidizing the image on the left, heavily in fact, if they were in the same city.
It literally costs less to live in a denser neighborhood on a per person/hosehold basis, but the costs there are higher anyway.
Wait, wouldn't commieblocks be the perfect solution to this though?
Then again; they're considered the affordable, walkable and family-friendly options in most post-bloc countries.
Commi blocks are definitely the like premiere reference point for dense living with amenities.
But of course the USSR at the time was doing what it needed to do to house as many people as it could. It's not that literally every single home has to be in that style. But it is true that big single-family homes on big lots are subsidized, So, in a better world, houses like that would certainly still cost a lot.
One represents a conventional commercial corridor that features strip malls and ample parking; the other is a historical downtown street (both in Portland, ME).
The comparison between both is that property taxes greatly subsidize having a parking lot rather than having developments that could be used for housing or anything else that could benefit the community. In other words, it is way more costly to actually produce value for people in general than producing a gigantic parking lot that only benefit car drivers.
I think they are trying to convey that the space the parking lot takes up could have been used for houses?
Oh, I see. I was confused because of the price tags, suggesting the problem with cars is that they lower land prices.