this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024

843 points (91.4% liked)

solarpunk memes

3761 readers

53 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

843

Density saves nature (i.imgur.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

399 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 5) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (8 children)

While I'm all for this, the problem I see with high-density buildings is that it's easy to put them up, but it's hard to then build the services that this many people need. You can put an apartment block with hundreds of new residents, sure, but where are the doctors, the schools, the hospitals, the public transport routes, etc?

All very solvable problems, but one that high-density living often fails to cater for, because some rich developer cunt is happy to throw a high rise up and forget the rest.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

This is where city planning comes in.

As city gvt gives out permits to build high rises, they need to build the other infra around it.

Also, said rich developer cunts want to maximize their profit. People will pay more to be near where they need to be, be that public transport stops or schools, so they're already incentivized to build where there's good infra. As they start building more where there's no infra, the city will develop infra there.

The high-density buildings attract more people, which increases the tax base of the city, so there's more budget for infra.

If looking at American examples, look at NYC vs... Any big city in the south or mid-west, I guess? Idk, I'm not American. NYC is one of the very few cities in the US with actual good public transport. There's plenty of schools and hospitals too.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago

You could say the same for suburban development. Public transport? lmao

In fact it is also cheaper to build/maintain plumbing and electricity and internet delivery for high density than low density housing, simply because you need less of it.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's impossible to not hear your neighbours in an apartment. There are ways to reduce that, but almost no apartment is built like that. Not to mention that often you want to open windows for fresh air and get to breathe in smoke from cigarettes. It's a different kind of hell to live in one. I agree that it looks nicer from outside. There can even be parks nearby. But never venture there after dark, because you'll get your vallet stolen. Due to that every street must be light up during the night, and now you can't see the stars...

Anyhow. People fucking suck

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I currently live in a (honestly pretty run down) commie block in eastern Germany. The walls are solid concrete. For me to hear my neighbor, they need to be hammering on wall.

My flatmate has horrible gamerrage, but I only really hear him through the two doors connecting our rooms with the hall, or through the windows if both are open. You can absolutely soundproof apartments

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Take a look at the UK on Google Maps.

Pretty green, right? Plenty of space to expand those towns and cities.

Zoom in. It's pretty much all farmland. There's precious little nature in that.

Density isn't going to save nature. Having fewer people and sustainable farming will save nature. Density is useful for having things like efficient public transport, and reducing the need to have a car. It also localises noise, and I feel we don't value quiet enough.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago (4 children)

You think the corporate apartment developer is going to let all that stay green? That many people in apartments, you need a few parking lots, shopping malls, corporate centers, and then some more apartments once the rent goes up.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (4 children)

I think you missed the point. If you build all of those things you mentioned in a similar compact fashion you still have lots of room for nature and more efficiency when compared to sprawl.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

If the building is mixed function, like commerce on the floor level and offices on the first floors, and residential on the rest, you don't need as much parking and car infrastructure.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps in some parts of suburban north america. However, well-designed walkable, bikeable cities with proper transit don't require mega big box stores all in one zoned area that you drive to from a sprawling suburb.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

But you're describing a city. The graphic does not show a city, it shows one apartment building. The rest of the city you've described would swallow the rest of the green space. That's what sprawl is, when the desirable land becomes more valuable so nearby land is further developed and becomes more valuable becomes more developed becomes more valuable.

It's an inperfect metaphor anyway, because island development works under its own constraints. An island can only support so many people, regardless of whether they live in an apartment or a single family home. There are limits, and growing beyond those limits will result in feedback loop which can cause systemic collapse. See: San Francisco, where retailers must raise prices because they cannot afford to hire someone who can afford to live there because everything is so expensive.

I'm with you that we need more walkable cities. But car-dependent development is a result of regulatory capture by land developers. Zoning and public transit spending are the battles we need to win. And if we can tax corporate landlords out of existence, that would go a long way, too.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments