A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don'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 topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do 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.
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:
You're probably not going to save 95% of the trees given the major earthworks likely needed for managing sewage, stormwater, and other utilities. You'll probably save most of them, though.
40k looks pretty optimistic for the size and number of buildings, too.
probably not going to save 95% of the trees
I was wondering that too... maybe they meant: plant new trees, and the total number of new trees would be 95% of the number of old trees?
I’m guessing they’re just not aware of construction impacts on trees. It’s not something most people think about.
I supposed they meant "And this amount of space is still available for greenery" rather than "These, specific, trees will be preserved"
Depends how many floors they have but yeah, that would be quite high density at 60k/km²
I don't know if it's the same in USA but with all these new regulations building houses these days is an environmental disaster
I work at a golf course and I'd rather be doing something meaningful like building homes so this post speaks to me directly.
Unfortunately the big thing lately is we've been dropping a bunch of trees.
Now add in mixed use zoning, and affordable housing units and this could be a winner
That area should hold about 400 people, not 40,000. The trees won't survive unless they can see the sky.
If you just repurpose for housing you just wind up with 40,000 people needing transit and overloading the system you're trying to promote.
We need to think beyond housing and towards having communities that largely provide the needs of the people living with them. Shops, offices, other non-office/shop jobs, and recreational activities need to be considered as well.
The neat part is that businesses can be in the bottom couple of floors. Though often this doesn't seem to be done unless it's the CBD...
BuT wHeRe WouLd i PaRk mY cAr?!?!!?
That's the neat part, you don't.
car
car go
car go bye
cargo bike
if I saw this on a billboard/poster I'd have a new bike
Truly the poet of our generation 🥲
Preach!
In the water hazard on the 14th hole.
Plus you can live in a pentagon! Just not the Pentagon.
When there's no more golf you'll know the rich fucks are gone.
Most suburban streets are 50 feet wide, many suburban front yards are 50 feet deep. That's a wasted space 150 feet wide and however long the street is long. Think of how much housing could be built in that space if you tore up that road, and in its place put a pair of alleyways housing in the middle
I would argue closer to 30, unless you’re including all the easement and sidewalks?
I did some measuring on Google Earth and the distance from sidewalk (or on roads without a sidewalk from the road) to the front of houses in a major city nearish to me and found a few neighborhoods 50 feet to the house was about the standard. They also had 50 foot deep backyards!
Not for nothing, but this wouldn't fly in the USA. You'd need to replace most of those trees with roads.
Or better yet, reduce the number of housing units and keep the trees.
This is Seattle btw, but I think the meme is that it won't fly.
Keeping all of the trees while also building a 40,000 unit apartment building on the same lot is gonna be a bit of a trick. Unless the building is 30 stories high. That might be normal in New York, but that’s not something you’re gonna see very much outside of the city.
I’m all for vertical city building, but keep in mind what is likely to happen in your local community.
I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood the idea here in a couple of ways
No, I get it. I was just trying to make a joke.
Apparently, it wasn’t very funny.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What if we just altered zoning laws so they don't restrict high-density residential buildings?
Oh, they didn't change that, people living there need to get real good at dodging golf balls.
But where would we play golf?
🤤
Yeah but then rich fucks wouldn’t have a place all to themselves to be rich fucks, so that’s a fuck you, poors, just be rich like us, thanks.