by Forever Indomitable » Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:29 am
by The Holy Therns » Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:30 am
Gallade wrote:Love, cake, wine and banter. No greater meaning to life (〜^∇^)〜
Ethel mermania wrote:to therns is to transend the pettiness of the field of play into the field of dreams.
by Grenartia » Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:35 am
by Forever Indomitable » Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:38 am
Grenartia wrote:Not enough mention of nuclear power, nor of grass and other plants incorporated into the cityscape (and I don't just mean parks, although those are important, too). Also, while I'm onboard with doing away with the capitalist mode of ownership, what would you propose the alternative form of ownership be?
by Nue Cascadia » Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:41 am
I don’t use NS Stats. Everything is dictated via the factbooks or told here.
CascadiaNow! BREAKING: As the “Day of endless cheer” raises 600,000 Cascades, Government announces the biggest present of all: CASCADIA HAS OFFICIALLY REPORTED NET ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS IN ITS ECONOMY! WE ARE OFFICIALLY CARBON NEUTRAL!| With the help of Charities and businesses, 64% of Cascadia's forests are now restored, announces Salem | The Pacifica Free Trade Agreement, an FTA between Cascadia, California and other Asian Nations, announces new members: Singapore and South Korea. Rumors speculate Malaysia and Thailand might join.
by Forever Indomitable » Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:50 am
Nue Cascadia wrote:Private property is based and better than urbanization tbh.
by Dimetrodon Empire » Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:58 am
George Orwell wrote:Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.
by Forever Indomitable » Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:12 am
Dimetrodon Empire wrote:I'm not that fond of urbanization as I think living so densely in cities is inherently unhealthy, especially when the population density is extreme, like NYC.
While I'm not in favor of a Thanos snap or anything like that, I'm not fond of our current population growth either.
by Dimetrodon Empire » Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:20 am
Forever Indomitable wrote:Dimetrodon Empire wrote:I'm not that fond of urbanization as I think living so densely in cities is inherently unhealthy, especially when the population density is extreme, like NYC.
While I'm not in favor of a Thanos snap or anything like that, I'm not fond of our current population growth either.
I agree with you to a degree. We certainly shouldn't continue our population growth and urbanism does have its detriments. That being said, I think everyone wanting to live rurally or in small city environments would also be ecologically destructive. You have to lay down more roads, which destroys the environment and disconnects habitats and green spaces. You also have to do more shipping all over due to the spatial inefficiency and specialized services would be costlier. This warrants research.
Alright, I'll stop replying, now. I don't want to monopolize the thread.
George Orwell wrote:Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.
by Forever Indomitable » Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:27 am
Dimetrodon Empire wrote:Forever Indomitable wrote:I agree with you to a degree. We certainly shouldn't continue our population growth and urbanism does have its detriments. That being said, I think everyone wanting to live rurally or in small city environments would also be ecologically destructive. You have to lay down more roads, which destroys the environment and disconnects habitats and green spaces. You also have to do more shipping all over due to the spatial inefficiency and specialized services would be costlier. This warrants research.
Alright, I'll stop replying, now. I don't want to monopolize the thread.
You're not monopolizing the thread. You're just having discussions with people who have replied to it.
Honestly, while it is true that not everyone can live ruraly or in only small cities, nor would everyone even want to, I think there are a lot more ecologically destructive things we can do. In fact, we're actually doomed ecologically due to climate change, and that has more do with powerful industries than anything else.
by Ethel mermania » Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:37 am
by Forever Indomitable » Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:43 am
Ethel mermania wrote:I have no interest in living under the conditions you propose. A government that forces a people to live a certain way had no business standing
by Ethel mermania » Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:45 am
Forever Indomitable wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:I have no interest in living under the conditions you propose. A government that forces a people to live a certain way had no business standing
Government? Force? This is just hypothetical and could apply to any political system, including an anarchist city.
by Forever Indomitable » Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:54 am
by Ethel mermania » Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:04 pm
Forever Indomitable wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:How would removing private property function under any political system?
Well, this could be a socialist city, or it could hypothetically be in a city with private property, but a city government that enacts compulsory purchase on abandoned property. Or, it could be an AnCap city with a very civic minded cartel in charge, or even a Communist one. At the end of the day, though, if you just let business build ad hoc, inefficiency of design will follow. If they all partner and form a city development council, that would be different. So, I suppose I was partially incorrect. It's possible with private property, but more unlikely. I think I jumped the gun because I'm still trying to figure out where I'm at on the private/public/personal issue. I may edit the OP in light of this in the future after further consideration, but I do understand your complaint and it is one I sympathize with, so I will incorporate that going forward.
by Juansonia » Thu Nov 03, 2022 3:21 pm
I will assume that you are counting bikes, e-bikes, and e-scooters as pedestrians.Forever Indomitable wrote:-The purpose of urbanization is to concentrate people and resources for the sake of efficiency. Therefore, I see no justification for design that facilitates private automobile usage. Urban sprawl, noise, light and air pollution, & traffic congestion are all issues that would be seemingly cured by pedestrian and public transport exclusivity.
Street lights should still be present along throughfares likely to be used constantly(downtowns, tourism centres, etc).-I think we should abolish urban street lights. Ambient lighting would be sufficient and would save on energy cost and light pollution.
The monstrosities of stroads, strip malls, and parking garafes are a result of automobile dependancy and prevelance moreso than they are a result of capitalism. It is arguable that good urban design(density, pedestrianisation, etc) are better from both a socialist and an ancap perspective, but subsidies are the reason that sprawl and car dependancy are common. Organisations like Strong Towns and the CATO institute support urbanism from a libright perspective.-On the topic of private property, I do not believe the highest levels of healthy urban design can ever be achieved with the protection and perpetuation of private property. It is private property that facilitates urban blight and the prioritization of monstrosities like stroads, strip malls and parking garages.
The park space being at the top would make public access more inconvenient and make it impossible to use as a throughfare(unless the stadiums were underground). Also, stacking stadium-size open rooms is difficult and expensive.-Also on the subject of parking garages, I would like to see multi-level parks, especially for sports. For example, 1 level could be basketball courts, the next is a soccer field and so on until you reach a traditional park at the top. This is also beneficial for athletics because you would have shade from the heat and the sun would be out of your eyes.
Did you know that tunnel boring is very expensive compared to other construction? Elon Musk is only able to claim low costs because The Boring Company digs smaller tunnels, which involve moving less material. If you use cut-and-cover excavation, which is basically digging a big trench and adding a roof, you need to get rid of anything at surface level, and it isn't useful for deep structures(which would be necessary to avoid foundation in the way). Expanding basements faces the same problem.-Whilst subterranean living is undesirable, it's also efficient and potentially cost effective for low income individuals. Like, we already have subway tunnels, why not expand into free homeless shelters and low cost housing for individuals? I see this as advantageous for students and single individuals who will spend the majority of their time above ground working towards progressing towards starting careers and families.
True, as the land supply would be greater.-And since urban land usage would be optimized, this should also create more availability and affordability for family housing.
In terms of urban agriculture, it's kind of simple - If you have a lot of rural land an hour by train from downtown, farm there and have trains bring farm products to stations in the city, where they can be sold either in the stations or nearby. Alan Fischer did a video which discussed this.So please give your input on all related subjects and I am especially interested in how to increase privacy, access to nature, urban agriculture and public transportation.
Why not both?Nue Cascadia wrote:Private property is based and better than urbanization tbh.
Space Squid wrote:Each sin should get it's own month.
Right now, Pride gets June, and Greed, Envy, and Gluttony have to share Thanksgiving/Black Friday through Christmas, Sloth gets one day in September, and Lust gets one day in February.
It's not equitable at all
Gandoor wrote:Cliché: A mod making a reply that's full of swearing after someone asks if you're allowed to swear on this site.
It makes me chuckle every time it happens.
by Cannot think of a name » Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:34 pm
by Australian rePublic » Fri Nov 04, 2022 1:05 am
by Cannot think of a name » Fri Nov 04, 2022 1:40 am
Australian rePublic wrote:What are you talking about? You can't combine urban and rural areas,
by Australian rePublic » Fri Nov 04, 2022 1:45 am
As someone who simultaneously appreciates all that rural & urban life have to offer, I've never seen anything substantially that reconciles the 2. Obviously, you can't have your cake and eat it in every circumstance, but I think we can combine the 2 worlds far more than what we currently have and that's something I'd like to explore, especially in the domains of pollution, personal privacy and affordable, equitable access to nature.
by Cannot think of a name » Fri Nov 04, 2022 1:50 am
Australian rePublic wrote:Cannot think of a name wrote:I'm just gonna stop you there because...who said anything about rural areas?
It's literally in the OP:As someone who simultaneously appreciates all that rural & urban life have to offer, I've never seen anything substantially that reconciles the 2. Obviously, you can't have your cake and eat it in every circumstance, but I think we can combine the 2 worlds far more than what we currently have and that's something I'd like to explore, especially in the domains of pollution, personal privacy and affordable, equitable access to nature.
by Nilokeras » Fri Nov 04, 2022 2:15 am
Cannot think of a name wrote:The biggest problem with the carless advocates is not that we 'need' cars, cars are a shackle around the neck of the working poor and middle class that I'm sure they'd like to be free of, but the carless society folks focus on grrr cars bad people who like cars stupid and don't seem to have a plan to transition in a way that doesn't fuck poor working people right up the ass. The landscaper, the plumber, the carpenters...all the people who use their trucks as they're business can't exactly push a big ol' box of tools and materials on the light rail train.
Cannot think of a name wrote:Taking away parking doesn't make people go 'golly, I don't need this car after all', no. It means 'fuck the car I didn't want but have to have is now an extra expense and hassle because some self righteous dill hole decided we had too much of that." Instead of punishing people who have cars they don't want but need, the focus should be on making them not necessary, not inconvenient.
by Cannot think of a name » Fri Nov 04, 2022 2:40 am
Nilokeras wrote:Cannot think of a name wrote:The biggest problem with the carless advocates is not that we 'need' cars, cars are a shackle around the neck of the working poor and middle class that I'm sure they'd like to be free of, but the carless society folks focus on grrr cars bad people who like cars stupid and don't seem to have a plan to transition in a way that doesn't fuck poor working people right up the ass. The landscaper, the plumber, the carpenters...all the people who use their trucks as they're business can't exactly push a big ol' box of tools and materials on the light rail train.
I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that work vehicles should somehow be banned.Cannot think of a name wrote:Taking away parking doesn't make people go 'golly, I don't need this car after all', no. It means 'fuck the car I didn't want but have to have is now an extra expense and hassle because some self righteous dill hole decided we had too much of that." Instead of punishing people who have cars they don't want but need, the focus should be on making them not necessary, not inconvenient.
Peoples' cars are already an extra expense, it's just a sunk cost because our cities are designed in a way that requires them. The one-two punch of removing parking requirements and requiring higher density and transit connection for redevelopment means that it no longer becomes convenient to have a car, but you also don't need to have one in the first place. The average American household owns roughly 2 cars. Assuming two working members of the household, those cars spend a couple of hours every day driving to and from work, and the rest of the time sitting at home or in the parking lot at work, completely idle. In that developmental mode, you don't need to make those trips to and from work, and therefore the main justification for having that vehicle erodes away and it becomes an expense. At that point it becomes cheaper and much more effective to dip into a car sharing app if you ever need to buy a couch or do some renovations or whatnot. Without that incentive, otherwise 'free' parking in new development will continue and it will be incredibly difficult to get people to give up those extraneous vehicles, even with good transit.
by Washington Resistance Army » Fri Nov 04, 2022 2:52 am
Ethel mermania wrote:I have no interest in living under the conditions you propose. A government that forces a people to live a certain way had no business standing
by Juansonia » Fri Nov 04, 2022 4:08 pm
Nobody is seriously arguing for the banning of work trucks and work vans. However, there is a point that chimney sweepers, for example, can carry their equipment on a modified bicycle with relative ease.Cannot think of a name wrote:The biggest problem with the carless advocates is not that we 'need' cars, cars are a shackle around the neck of the working poor and middle class that I'm sure they'd like to be free of, but the carless society folks focus on grrr cars bad people who like cars stupid and don't seem to have a plan to transition in a way that doesn't fuck poor working people right up the ass. The landscaper, the plumber, the carpenters...all the people who use their trucks as they're business can't exactly push a big ol' box of tools and materials on the light rail train.
Removing parking allows that land to be used for other uses, and inconveniencing already-subsidised car use is necessary to reduce the amount of driving by those who can switch to alternatives, freeing up car infrastructure for those who need it.Taking away parking doesn't make people go 'golly, I don't need this car after all', no. It means 'fuck the car I didn't want but have to have is now an extra expense and hassle because some self righteous dill hole decided we had too much of that." Instead of punishing people who have cars they don't want but need, the focus should be on making them not necessary, not inconvenient.
How frequent were your grocery trips at this time? Going to a shop on your route daily reduces the load you have to worry about, and carrying your own basket reduces the hassle.I am all aboard getting people out of cars they never wanted and providing a walkable space. But even in San Francisco before I moved down south it's a car inconvenient city but shit like grocery shopping just by itself was a pain in the ass. Enough that I finally gave up and drove into the city to get groceries because I'd had enough of trying to drag seven plastic bags full of groceries onto a crowded MUNI bus.
Not to mention strawmen.Not to mention emergency services.
And it's not them that we do worry about either. The problem is the politicians and those who, despite the alternatives, drive as a matter of status or false necessity.It's not hobbiest and gearheads you have to worry about.
To be honest, it's kind of hard to have a plan when simply asking for good bike lanes gets you labeled a public menace. We daydream about a utopia without an implementation plan because the American political-economic environment makes even the slightest of victories improbable to achieve.And look, I'm rooting for you honestly. The fact that I have to hop in my car to do just about anything is a fucking hassle. I love a good road trip but to get basic shit done, that's not a fun road trip. I would love to live in a walkable neighborhood, have a sense of community, not have to pay $50 every few days just for the privilege of movement. But anytime I think I can throw in with that lot I hear a lot of derision and not a lot of ways to make the transition without fucking over poor people, they just sit in circle jerks going "cars bad, car people suck" Cool. Fuck off then. Come back with an actual plan.
It's less of a one-two punch and more like cutting away at automobile prevelance from both sides - make it less convenient to drive, little by little, as you make it easier to get around without driving, little by little. This results in change being gradual, thereby softening the "1-2 punch" while still landing the hits necessary. Making driving less convenient draws people to the alternatives, and improving the alternatives makes it less harmful and less difficult to inconvenience drivers. There will always be measures that do both(such as pedestrianising a stretch of street), and such changes are only viable because they aren't done to the entire city overnight.Cannot think of a name wrote:Yeah dude, I've heard the pitch. But you lost it when you said "make it inconvenient"Nilokeras wrote:Peoples' cars are already an extra expense, it's just a sunk cost because our cities are designed in a way that requires them. The one-two punch of removing parking requirements and requiring higher density and transit connection for redevelopment means that it no longer becomes convenient to have a car, but you also don't need to have one in the first place. The average American household owns roughly 2 cars. Assuming two working members of the household, those cars spend a couple of hours every day driving to and from work, and the rest of the time sitting at home or in the parking lot at work, completely idle. In that developmental mode, you don't need to make those trips to and from work, and therefore the main justification for having that vehicle erodes away and it becomes an expense. At that point it becomes cheaper and much more effective to dip into a car sharing app if you ever need to buy a couch or do some renovations or whatnot. Without that incentive, otherwise 'free' parking in new development will continue and it will be incredibly difficult to get people to give up those extraneous vehicles, even with good transit.
That's just 'fuck the poor' with a self righteous attitude. You make the infrastructure first, you make it possible for them to not have a car first, then you can start getting rid of parking. Because I see a lot of energy reducing parking but not a lot of energy on the infrastructure to provide an alternative.
So yeah. Your plan is 'fuck poor people.' You can pat yourself on the back about it, but that's what it is. Make it possible first, don't make it hard on the people who have to wait for you to get through your fucking 1 2 punch plan. Solve people's problems, don't make them worst because you found a pet sticking point in urban design. Unless you're doing that, pass.
I think he's an ancap.
Space Squid wrote:Each sin should get it's own month.
Right now, Pride gets June, and Greed, Envy, and Gluttony have to share Thanksgiving/Black Friday through Christmas, Sloth gets one day in September, and Lust gets one day in February.
It's not equitable at all
Gandoor wrote:Cliché: A mod making a reply that's full of swearing after someone asks if you're allowed to swear on this site.
It makes me chuckle every time it happens.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cannot think of a name, Cyptopir, Sarduri, Shrillland, Tungstan, Victorious Decepticons
Advertisement