this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
1213 points (86.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

9375 readers
1017 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
[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'd be curious what the population density numbers are. There's a world of difference in density between, say, single-family rowhouses and classic American suburbia.

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My math is here: https://lemmy.world/comment/3165486

But essentially, for the same cost as cars, the lowest density possible before becoming rural 106 households / sq mi (6 acres per household) can have a bus pass every 6 minutes, 24/7/365. You can double frequency by adding a second stop on the way to a transit spine.

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The idea that an American city might have a housing area A) without roads and B) with a bus stop and C) one that shows up every 6 minutes instead of once an hour makes me want to cry

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

You'd still want roads. Deliveries, emergency services, maintenance. But the roads can be just wider than a car.

Here's a north american proof of concept of a car free neighborhood: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VWDFgzAjr1k

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Yeah, I think it's mostly rowhouses.

Also the entire suburb spreads along through a valley, so it's like long and thin, which makes it very easy to run a central tramline through it.

But it still should be possible anywhere with good public transport.

[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ah, there's your answer. I love rowhouses and think they and other "missing middle" are a great compromise for getting denser, more walkable, more transit-oriented communities while still avoiding being like Manhattan. True low-density sprawl (as seen in so much of the US and Canada) is detached single-family homes with large setback requirements, large parking minimums, and typically large lot size minimums. It's purposefully designed to essentially enforce car-dependent sprawl.

The style of development you describe is what we call streetcar suburbs, as they were generally developed along streetcar lines in the days of yore.

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 5 points 1 year ago

The style of development you describe is what we call streetcar suburbs, as they were generally developed along streetcar lines in the days of yore.

Yeah, you need to build these, they are great. During the busy hours, mine is like a 150m walk away and there is tram or streetcar every 3.5 minutes. It's amazing.

[–] Iamdanno@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Rowhouses: "let's turn your house into an apartment!"

Why anyone would want to have their house attached to someone else's is beyond me.

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But unlike in an apartment, you have the whole height of the building, so nobody above or below you. And the walls seperating the houses are really thick, so noise is much better than in an appartment block.

I guess you give up mostly garden space. I don't think people specifically "want" that, but it's still usually cheaper and much better situated than a proper free-standing house.

[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And most people don't use front or side yards for much anyways, just decoration. I'd much rather have backyard than those, especially if it means I get the amenities that come with density, such as transit and walkability.

Plus, rowhouses just look so aesthetically pleasing. I don't understand how anyone hates rowhouses.

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A college of mine owns a rowhouse around here, fully paid for and all. It's worth like a quarter million .. in CHF on the market. Housing prices are just insane. Compared to me he is super rich, even though he earns less than me.

Though, we're quite far off the topic of cars now. But you are OP and Mod, so what do I know.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

But unlike in an apartment, you have the whole height of the building, so nobody above or below you. And the walls seperating the houses are really thick, so noise is much better than in an appartment block.

That entirely depends on the construction. When I lived in a row home the duct work for the master bedrooms on either side shared a space with no sound insulation, so each side could hear just about everything in the other.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I live in a house attached to someone else's and it's pretty great

We have big open spaces in front and behind us instead of each house having their own big lawn. We have separate, fenced backyards but behind that is just a big open field with some benches and tables and trees scattered about.