• Psythik@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Because my neighbors are assholes.

    Also I want a yard. And an attic. I’ve got nowhere to go to enjoy some sunshine in private, and nowhere to store my shit. Apartment/condo living sucks.

    • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Wow, sunshine and storage. 2 incredible excuses that absolutely justifying utterly destroying the planet.

      Acquire less “shit”. Walk to the local park.

    • Default_Defect
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      The worst six months of my life were spent in an apartment building with people living very loudly on both sides and above me, I got very little sleep that whole time. Couple above either fucked or argued in the early evening, children on one side were up at 3am screaming and the people on the other side were constantly moving shit around.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Most of the parks near me are fairly empty. There are also decent trails that are generally empty. Apartment/condo living is fine.

      • Psythik@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Parks and trails aren’t private. Maybe I just want to drop acid in a safe place anytime I want, and run around the yard naked, okay? Can’t do that in an apartment.

        Also you forgot to assess the issue of shitty neighbors. I need my space to get away from them.

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Many parks are large enough that you can easily find privacy. Nudity is perfectly legal in most decent cities so dropping acid naked in a secluded part of the park would not be much of an issue.

          I didn’t address shitty neighbors because I don’t have a decent solution. Same with shitty neighbors in SFHs. I could see noise being more of an issue especially if insulation is crap.

          I’m not saying apartment living is perfection but I also would not say it sucks. Both apartments/condos and single family homes have their issues.

      • GBU_28@lemm.eeBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Compromise? There are just less of us.

        I’m not taking eugenics or genocide or any kind of policy, I’m just suggesting we allow declining birthrates to persist. Stop bowing to capitalistic urges, stop “keeping up with the Joneses”.

        Reducing the number of humans is the best way to reduce climate impact.

        • Tachanka [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          This is Malthusian nonsense. The United States, for example, is 4% of the World’s population but still uses 25% of the world’s resources annually. The United States outsources their pollution and their production to the third world, where the labor is cheapest due to imperialism, and then says “the third world is responsible for the climate change because of their carbon emissions! We need to cut down on the number of people!”

          You’ve got suburbanites with 5x the carbon footprint of the average citizen of the third world, you’ve got billionaires who own thousands of hectares of land, you’ve got celebrities burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel on 1 minute flights, there are way more ways to cut down on carbon emissions than Epic Meme Thanos Policy. You could start with solar, wind, nuclear, ending fossil fuel consumption, ending wars (which btw, war both reduces the population AND destroys the environment, showing the two aren’t as inversely proportional as you think), walkable cities, apartment blocks and public transit, but the reactionary fear of working class people of different backgrounds congregating with each other and realizing they actually have a lot in common, makes the ruling class scared.

          • GBU_28@lemm.eeBanned from community
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            Nope, no Malthus, no tragedy of the commons. No eugenics or “policy”.

            Allow trends to go unaltered. That’s all.

            Do those other things actively. Energy, design, etc.

            Let population decline. We don’t need billions of humans. I’m not suggesting anyone goes without, or is curtailed. But nothing compares to the absence of a human. You can make every positively eco choice you can, but nothing will compare to you not existing at all.

            • Tachanka [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              There’s no way to passively “let” the population decline as long as the birth rate remains above 2 kids on average. People will simply have kids unless most nations adopt something like China’s 1 child policy, which I just don’t see happening. The population will objectively grow. Even if the birth rate is low in your country, you will get climate refugees from other nations. The population will increase in the imperial core as the region around the equator becomes more unlivable, and the response of the imperial core to those declining conditions is decidedly genocidal violence. Look at ICE. Look at the rafts full of climate refugees being deliberately sunk by fascist coast guards. The message is loud and clear: the imperial core wants to decrease the birth rate of “undesirables” (read: black and brown people from the third world) while maintaining their own standard of living, continuing to wage endless interventions, coups, embargoes, and sanctions, and continuing to exploit the lower cost of labor in “underdeveloped” (colonized) nations. Something’s got to give, and it’s not going to be the population. It’s going to be standard of living.

              • GBU_28@lemm.eeBanned from community
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 years ago

                Population will not forever grow, this is already forecasted by established scientists.

                My point is that countries experiencing lower-than -replacement-birthrate should allow it, with the acknowledgement that climate refugees will come to fill their job positions. Over a longer period, birth rate should continue to be allowed to sink, as future humanity grapples with a post-climate-crisis world.

                A far flung generation can have new opinions, when they’ve survived our sins, mastered technology, and can make a new try

                To repeat: I don’t think any group should be “reduced” via external pressure. Only that groups could be allowed to contract naturally, without policy intervention to “boost” birthrate. Immigration should serve.

                • Tachanka [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Population will not forever grow, this is already forecasted by established scientists.

                  wasn’t suggesting it will. Just suggesting that if the current birth rates are above 2, there’s no way to say that we could passively “let” the population decline if that’s not what it’s actually doing. Globally the population is still growing. It will either decline on its own, eventually, or someone will implement malthusian policies.

  • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    i think that reactionary suburb brain is almost a kind of stockholm syndrome. literally, for all of history the overwhelming majority of people have always congregated in walkable units.

    suburbs were created as a corporate racist policy a vast number of people simply had the most access to, not because there was a fair and weighed decision on everyone’s part. and following that it’s sunk cost & aversion to change. like literally all the nascent suburbanites came from apartments, tenements, and public projects, there wasn’t some groundswell of people demanding, against every civilizational instinct to spread themselves out in isolation that corporate demands “met”, it’s that the availability of newly-built properties the tenant would eventually own shifted almost entirely to suburban development—and lets not forget that early suburbs were much, much better served before neoliberalism began cannibalizing it, you couldn’t very well get all the whites out of the city & into food deserts, they provided all the amenities and created all these suburban municipalities so suburbanites could pretend they still lived in cities, simply with more privacy, segregation, and automobiles.

    tldr, if corporate greed hadn’t created suburban sprawl as a product, we wouldn’t even have people defending it, but they also created a constituency of people whose only capital is tied up in the suburban ponzi scheme who are now vociferous defenders of it

  • mar_k [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    this is actually pretty generous considering those houses are right next to each other. most suburbs are way more spaced out

    • SuperZutsuki [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah, with equivalent density to the majority of suburbs in my area you would only be able to fit 20 houses on that island. Also, the streets are a grid? Fuck that we need weird curvy roads that dead-end in cul-de-sacs.

  • jack [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    But I hate both nature and other people. Were it up to me, the whole of the world would be a closely manicured golf course and the only animals would be in processing centers.

  • Barabas [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I FUCKING LOVE DENSE POPULATIONS WITH NATURE CLOSE spongebob-i-fucking-love

    Bring back the 50s ethos of the complete walkable suburbs. The million programme (showing my Swedish here) is the best period of Swedish architecture actually building habitats. Having a forest 200 meters away from my high density population social housing was the highlight of my childhood.

    • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Because what would happen is you’d end up with all the land used up with giant apartment complexes and massive overpopulation.

      Yes after the 200 homes are built, we’d built more homes that aren’t needed, which would somehow take up more space than if we did the same with houses, as has been illustrated. Maybe we need a system where we don’t build needless homes in addition to good urban planning.

      Nah your idea of just continuing to fuck shit up is probably better.

  • SunsetFruitbat [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Apartments also seem nice since it would mean being surrounded by people and more chances of doing stuff with them and having fun instead of being alone and isolated.

    • IDontHavePantsOn@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I grew up in a rural town of mostly farmland. The biggest store was a gas station owned by my grandfather’s half brother.

      For college and a few years afterwards I lived in a city. I really liked being able to go do something at any point, but I hated the roommates, neighbors, city noise, ordinances, light pollution, traffic, cost of living, high crime rates, and low job prospects.

      I moved back to an adjacent town and while there isn’t much to do, I pay less for my mortgage now than I would have for a studio apartment back in the city. I can see the stars, my neighbors don’t give a shit about me, traffic only exists to slow me down a few minutes a day, I can leave my doors unlocked, and since the pandemic I could change careers at any point.

      It’s all about what people want. The grass is always greener, and the green is always green.

      • Tachanka [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        city noise, ordinances, light pollution, traffic, cost of living, high crime rates, and low job prospects.

        Caused by capitalism, not urbanization

        • raven [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Hate to be the typical 🗾 soypoint-2 guy, however Japan does manage to have far less of these problems in some of the densest cities in the world. You can probably thank an actual commitment to public transit for 80% of it.

      • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        City noise and traffic are a direct product of the suburbs too, because if it weren’t for the suburbs you could actually have everyone commute by mass transit which solves those issues. Or just walk tbh

        • IDontHavePantsOn@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Although I’m not anti urbanization, in my experience, people were always the disruptive factor. Cars didn’t ever bother me, nor did mass transit. People though, people are loud assholes. They think that just because they don’t see other people that they can’t bother people, but they do.

        • SpiderFarmer [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Hex, yeah. Truthfully I still like denser-style suburbs. Having a small garden plot while still being able to bike/bus most places is a dream of mine. Now many I know went with the extreme of McMansions, large tracts of boring lawn, and pricing out the local farmers. Hell, I wouldn’t even mind an apartment if it didn’t cost so damn much, but collective arrangements are near impossible with how capitalists have written the laws to favor landlords.

              • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 years ago

                Also what if the buildings connected all the way around the block and closed in an area the size of a small park? And were strawbale-insulated so you couldn’t hear through the walls? And had each level staggered back for privacy and for those roof/balcony yards? And had continuous porches or awnings that would stretch around the outside?

                It would be totally within our capacity to build.

  • ComRed2 [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    I ain’t sharin’ a fucking building, do I look like some commie?! Also I want the nearest convenience store to be 1000 miles away and I can only get there with my gas guzzling penis compensator! frothingfash frothingfash frothingfash

    • NuraShiny [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yea but that is a function of apartments being poor people housing that is poorly maintained because landlords would rather squeeze every last bit of money out of their property then make living there a good experience.