this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
1082 points (94.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

9699 readers
1736 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] 4 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Lawns are better than concrete

[–] olutukko 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

lawns are shit and they were actually a tool for colonialism. they quite literally came in fashion because rich people in europe were flexin with their wealth because they could spend their land and work force for lawn that looked pretty and contributed for nothing. they even took those same lawn species for america so keeo that same flexing going on.

fuck lawns. Go actually diverse meadow plants that bugs need!

also lawns are insanely unecofriendly despite being plants.

https://youtu.be/ciz8NwjurZU

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

Except in europe we have trees, flowers, vegetables, plants. Real gardens.

Not just an ugly lawn like this, you never see just a lawn with nothing on it.

Are americans allergic to trees or something ?

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

These days, you'll lose your homeowners insurance for having trees anywhere near your house. They're legit taking drone pictures on that now.

[–] FLX 2 points 7 months ago

I guess it could be because of big storms in some areas, but losing it really ? Why not just more expensive for vulnerables/dangerous trees ?

This is nonsense

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

@FLX @olutukko Yes. They’re afraid of damaging their cars on them because they insist on driving so fast they sometimes just randomly fly off the road.

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

Read the title, your argument shouldn’t be things better than lawns

It should be that concrete is better or no argument at all

[–] olutukko 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I never said they were worse than concrete. just stated that lawns are shit and shouldn't existed

edit: I do understand your comment though and I just wanted to rant aboutnit

[–] grue 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Lawns beget concrete elsewhere (in the form of parking lots) by being too low-density for walkability.

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

Bus, Cable Car, Train, Bicycle

You would think people in this community wouldn’t say something so foolish

[–] grue 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, what you're saying is foolish.

It's an issue of low density. Having single-family houses spread apart with lawns necessarily lowers the viability of methods other than driving because e.g. you have to walk farther to get to destinations, there are fewer riders per mile along the transit line, etc.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Look you don’t know what you’re talking about and it’s fine

The roads do way more for spreading people apart than the lawns do

Whether you have grass or trees on people’s property does not impact density

[–] grue 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Whether you build a single-family house with a yard or an apartment building on a lot absolutely impacts density. Hell, even among single-family houses, whether the minimum lot size is 9000 square feet or two acres (real zoning categories on my city, BTW) absolutely impacts density.

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

An apartment with a lawn vs an apartment without doesn’t impact density

Nor does a two hectare lot with one vs a two hectare lot without

[–] grue 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

You just keep insisting on missing the point, don't you? This thread is not actually about grass vs. other plants with density held equal, and never was.

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

name a more wasteful use of land

Me: concrete

You: you’re missing the point

[–] apocalypticat 2 points 7 months ago

You say that like those are the only two options.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] Nurgle 3 points 7 months ago

Lawns are 100000% better than an impermeable hardscape like concrete.