Public Transportation, free travel, and the Cult of the Urbanite - Or: Ferdie refuses to give up his car

  • We've gotten t.me/kiwifarms set up for downtime announcements since Twitter doesn't allow us to have one.

Deadwaste

no longer evil. im now horny
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 28, 2015
Then every apartment complex must be worth way more than anywhere else, right? They are incredibly dense compared to single homes.

I was off on the date but here's a key example.


Dense, walkable, it must have been amazing? Oh it was a total shithole that had to be torn down.
tbf high rise public housing was a bad idea to begin with, especially when the architecture for it looks unsafe and hostile to begin with. most public housing projects now in the us are lower density and are no higher than 5 floors, but they can still get away with duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, or just small apartment buildings so are moderately dense anyway. even some of the shittier looking ones look more inviting than those high rises

edit: i should probably add the only place i know of that really pulled off high rise public housing is singapore, and thats because they generally look nice and i'd probably live there
1659681719780.png
like cmon this has some advantages compared to those other houses posted and looks livable
 
Last edited:

RandomFaggot

Prancing La la Homo Man
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
So some density is good and other density is bad? How the goalposts move.

The point I'm making is that density doesn't intrinsically increase value. It's that value and density increase in a well corolated fashion. People move to places where natural beauty, jobs, safety, etc are combined into a metric that they find suitable.

Single young people love living in cities, since they care less about space or convenience as long as they have stuff to do and people to meet. Married people with kids pretty much always leave for places more suburban, it's safer, there is more space and less hassle, the schools tend to be better.

Roads enable massive economic increases over public transit. The USA has the most extensive rail network for cargo in the world. We still ship a shitload of stuff using trucks.

You point out that walking on the side of the road is too much of a hassle, it sounds like you want everyone else to subsidize your convenience, since you don't want to deal with shit yourself.

So maybe either get richer or be less of a pussy, either way I don't care.
Lol your absolutely a fucking dipshit.

I didn't move any goal posts pointing out it isn't just ONE thing that determines home value.Being near the water makes your property more valuable . Does that mean I can't find some land locked property that is more valuable than water side property? of course not. Doesn't make the previous statement untrue.

Alot of the car dependency of the US started in the 30's when we started to make historical zoning illegal to PUSH people into car ownership.

Walk-ability / transit is in no way contradictory to single family homing or small towns. You can have BOTH. You can have safe suburbs with good schools AND decent walk-ability.

Also, if you claim me wanting sidewalks is someone having to subsidize my convenience, then every American who relies on the Federal Government to give them funding for their highways are even MORE entitled.

A guy who will continue to use cars and will never make any proposition of public transportation to his city continues to argue pretending he is doing something important because doing something actually important is just too hard :(.

I never argued I want to go on some holy crusade. I do plan on making some personal decisions that would allow me to live the life style I find more appealing. Doesn't mean I can't come into a relevant thread to discuss it with you dipshits.

Just another anon screeching into the void. :biggrin:
 

Chuck McGill

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 26, 2021
Japan is a country that is every easily navigable by public transit , and they still have a booming car culture.

Also, I do own a car BTW.I live in an area where I practically have to.
Yeah, and Japan is also a culturally homogenous, high-trust country. If our government didn't force the melanin-enriched on us every minute of every day at gunpoint if necessary it might be feasible in the US. If you really want shit like public transit you should be advocating closing the borders and enforcing the laws rather than trot out your same tired arguments that boil down to "SUBURBS BAD"
 

RandomFaggot

Prancing La la Homo Man
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
So if we can have both, why do you keep asking for "restrictive" zoning laws (that enforce single-family housing) to be repealed?
Im not asking to "repeal" single family zoning. Single family zoning ONLY allows single family homes. We shouldn't artificially restrict people to have to have single family housing.
Yeah, and Japan is also a culturally homogenous, high-trust country. If our government didn't force the melanin-enriched on us every minute of every day at gunpoint if necessary it might be feasible in the US. If you really want shit like public transit you should be advocating closing the borders and enforcing the laws rather than trot out your same tired arguments that boil down to "SUBURBS BAD"
Never said suburbs were bad, car DEPENDENT suburbs are bad.
 

Bonesjones

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
edit: i should probably add the only place i know of that really pulled off high rise public housing is singapore, and thats because they generally look nice and i'd probably live there
Its also a small island country, so the expectations are entirely different. Not physically being able to sprawl out is entirely different than not wanting to.
cmon this has some advantages compared to those other houses posted and looks livable
Yeah that looks nice from 200 feet up but what is the boots on the ground experience?
Being near the water makes your property more valuable . Does that mean I can't find some land locked property that is more valuable than water side property? of course not. Doesn't make the previous statement untrue.
I live in a house approximately 100 feet from a river, it is barely worth 6 figures. You constantly make causation/correlation errors.
Alot of the car dependency of the US started in the 30's when we started to make historical zoning illegal to PUSH people into car ownership.
Or mass transit brought crime into formally peaceful neighborhoods, so they did the needful thing and cut off access the best they could.
Walk-ability / transit is in no way contradictory to single family homing or small towns. You can have BOTH. You can have safe suburbs with good schools AND decent walk-ability.
You can have both when you live in an affluent area. Since the key issue isn't places being walkable, it's having people who actually want to walk. Your Stroudsburg picture is literally just a row of bars and restaurants.
Also, if you claim me wanting sidewalks is someone having to subsidize my convenience, then every American who relies on the Federal Government to give them funding for their highways are even MORE entitled.
Most roads are paid for by gas taxes, most sidewalks are paid for by gas taxes, gas taxes subsidize mass transit. The economic gain of roads far outpaces any money they cost. Do you understand this? Trains are shit for moving people long distances unless they are express trains, since stopping every mile for another train station kills any time savings you might gain. The only benefit is you can do something while you ride compared to a car, but lots of people use their cellphones illegally any way.
 

Yuhbwoynadia

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 13, 2022
People don't want dense housing in the middle of a neighborhood because it just ends up a bunch of people renting and having no attachment to the neighborhood. So you bring in more crime and problems due to the extra population density, with the added benefit of subsidizing it with your taxes
dense housing do not make crime whatsoever lmao

Public housing project in San Francisco vs a single family housing neighborhood in Victorville CA


which place you think has more crime, drugs, and gangs .......


NorthBeach_06.jpg

Sell-Your-House-Fast-in-Victorville-CA.jpg
 

Bonesjones

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
dense housing do not make crime whatsoever lmao

Public housing project in San Francisco vs a single family housing neighborhood in Victorville CA


which place you think has more crime, drugs, and gangs .......


View attachment 3567395
View attachment 3567396
Considering one is in San Fran and the other is an LA suburb, they are both crime ridden hellholes covered in homeless people's shit.
View attachment 3567379
looks pretty nice with the park there admittedly.
Do you think realtor's pictures of a home reflect genuine reality as well? What does the neighborhood look like? What's it look like in the afternoon or after dark? You can hide things while pretending to show a lot.
 

quaawaa

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 12, 2021
Public housing project in San Francisco vs a single family housing neighborhood in Victorville CA


which place you think has more crime, drugs, and gangs .......

dense houses do not make crime whatsoever lmao
View attachment 3567395
View attachment 3567396
The place in the top pic, North Beach Place in San Francisco has very restrictive residency requirements and only allows families and seniors:
1659732272933.png
San Francisco’s definition of low income is $90,000 a year if you are single and the cutoff goes up even higher for every additional household member. A family of four can earn $130k before becoming ineligible for subsidized housing. That place isn’t servicing a high crime demographic; all areas where rich and middle class people live tend to be nice.
 

Chuck McGill

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 26, 2021
Im not asking to "repeal" single family zoning. Single family zoning ONLY allows single family homes. We shouldn't artificially restrict people to have to have single family housing.

Never said suburbs were bad, car DEPENDENT suburbs are bad.
The point stands. Why are you hemming around acknowledging my core argument? People do not want to use public services in general because public trust has been eroded. Partially due to diversity, partially due to the lack of mental institutions that keep dangerous crazies off the street. Until you acknowledge these real problems people have, you're no better than Klaus and his globohomo buddies demanding we suffer endless cutbacks to our lifestyle because climate change or Ukraine or whatever.
 

Xarpho

You are never truly alone.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
tbf high rise public housing was a bad idea to begin with, especially when the architecture for it looks unsafe and hostile to begin with. most public housing projects now in the us are lower density and are no higher than 5 floors, but they can still get away with duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, or just small apartment buildings so are moderately dense anyway. even some of the shittier looking ones look more inviting than those high rises

edit: i should probably add the only place i know of that really pulled off high rise public housing is singapore, and thats because they generally look nice and i'd probably live there
View attachment 3565554
like cmon this has some advantages compared to those other houses posted and looks livable
"Public housing is ugly and too tall"
"Except Singapore is an exception for some reason"

This is like a real life version of the "Place / Place, Japan" memes.
 

Deadwaste

no longer evil. im now horny
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 28, 2015
"Public housing is ugly and too tall"
"Except Singapore is an exception for some reason"

This is like a real life version of the "Place / Place, Japan" memes.
to be fair, it is a small island country like that one dude said so its a bit more understandable to build tall than wide so they can use their land more wisely. after all, this is the entirety of singapore compared to just los angeles, which has a smaller population than singapore
1659744863880.png
i also never said that high rise public housing is bad because it's tall. just that the architecture was hostile and unsafe as seen with the Pruitt–Igoe example or the robert taylor homes. perhaps they couldve been improved with better planning and funding and definitely better policing. after all, no one wants to live in or around a miserable looking building surrounded by more miserable looking buildings, especially with crime in said buildings. least the singapore example they had that park and i believe the nearby area has shops and such around it since they gotta make due with their space issue. plus, it's singapore, they have little crime since they actually police their shit. alas, this is america with american politicians we're dealing with. they arent exactly the brightest of minds as you all know
 

Yuhbwoynadia

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 13, 2022
That place isn’t servicing a high crime demographic; all areas where rich and middle class people live tend to be nice
Those apartments are full of niggas I been all over the city but those high dense low income apartments are not more dangerous than a neighborhood full of home owners in single family homes
 

Otterly

Primark Primarch
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 6, 2019
Transport needs differ depending on where you are and how you live. I didn’t even own a car until my late twenties because I was a student, skint and living in cities to be a student. I walked or biked everywhere close and if it was further I’d get a bus or a train. Worked fine. I did sometimes wish I had a car to get out hiking more but friends had them and we used to share petrol costs for longer trips.
Once I got married and had kids and moved to the outer rural area, I needed a car. I can’t get a load of kids and shopping in a bike, it’s neither safe nor convenient. We have one car for the family, it’s a stereotypical station wagon job, not massive but big enough to haul kids, tents, bikes, groceries, and all the stuff families cart around. You’d take it from my cold dead hands.
Banning cars is retarded. People need them. They are freedom. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have public transport. Cities and their fringes SHOULD have good bus and train and tram links. But they shouldn’t exclude cars totally.
European cities often are far older than cars so they arent designed around them but the burbs are. Edinburgh for example has a great bus network (don’t mention the trams, you’ll make people angry) it has smaller areas within the city that are walkable, and good bus links (please don’t mention the fucking tram) to outer suburbs and villages. It has a main rail line down south.
Is it perfect? No. Getting over to Glasgow is still a pain, the ring road is hellish in a morning. But it’s not bad. The place it fails is that City to rural linkup. You can’t really drive into the city centre and park easily, so you’re stuck with public transit and that’s sparse to rural areas
It’s not hard to design a city around decent transport - you HAVE to have vehicle access for deliveries and infrastructure there if nothing else. What’s harder is retrofitting stuff. And of course no one is going to use it if it’s infested with junkies.
Europe in general is Ok for transport. The Uk fails badly for public transport to and from towns to rural areas - lots of outlying villages have one or two buses a day but there’s nowhere to park in town, which is an issue.
I really hate this ‘all engines are evil’ shit. Cars are freedom, and I am wary of the idea of cars being tracked, controlled and short range. We’ve already seen with covid how our governments were just salivating over the thought of being able to geofence us.
 

Flaming Insignias

RIP Billy Kametz, 1987-2022
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 17, 2019
everyones favorite bike man is back with a bike that has storage in it and can be used to transport people if need be
what do we do now carbros
That is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever seen. That stupid thing cannot possibly go anywhere further than 5 miles in a bughive, and you'd still have to ride around in the conditions, not to mention the exhaustion factor. I'll stick with my car.