this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
1213 points (86.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

9603 readers
1450 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In this case, the communal space is a forest far from housing. You can avoid people by walking alone through the forest.

I think that's a better experience than walking around your backyard

[–] dojan 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I suppose since my country is very low population but very large I don't really see the problem. Everyone could have a house here and we'd still have plenty of room to space.

Sweden has a population of 10.5 million, ish, and an area of 447k square kilometres. Germany by contrast, has a population of around 80 million, and an area of 357k square kliometres.

That said, I believe low density can work just fine. You don't need highrises to improve population storage efficiency. Simple two-three story buildings work just fine too.

You could also lower the population, something modern society is managing just fine right now anyway. I personally really don't believe overpopulation is going to be a significant problem in the long run.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Everyone could have a house here and we’d still have plenty of room to space.

You may not run out of wildlands, but if everyone is in large enough houses, it becomes difficult to get to the wildlands (or anywhere else you need to go) without using a car. For various reasons, [email protected], is against designing cities around cars.

That said, I believe low density can work just fine. You don’t need highrises to improve population storage efficiency. Simple two-three story buildings work just fine too

I agree. The problem comes when you have large houses with big yards. If you instead have rowhouses, you have plenty of density to avoid car dependency (if the city is designed properly).