this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
999 points (98.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

12813 readers
1853 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago (21 children)

Tracks are cool but kinda difficult to cover the suburbs with them!

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 12 points 18 hours ago (13 children)

You know what, you're right.

We should knock down the suburbs and use that land for sustainable energy generation, food production, or let it re-wild to support conservation efforts!

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world -1 points 18 hours ago (10 children)

I'd be with ya except for one tiny issue, living in high density housing sucks ass

Could we/should we condense suburbia down? Absolutely. Should we get rid of it entirely in favor of high density? Fuck no

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

High density housing comes in many forms, and all of them suck way less ass than suburbia.

Suburbs ditch all the convenience of a walkable, urban environment and replace that with all the transportation woes of living out in the boonies.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

High density isn’t the only alternative to suburbia. Walkable villages — the way people lived pretty much everywhere in Europe outside of Paris, London, Berlin etc. — are not suburbs but they’re also not high density apartment blocks.

The difference between a village and suburbia is specialization. Suburbia is specialized to housing only whereas a village is a self-contained community with both housing, small businesses, an industry or two, and surrounding wilderness as well as agricultural land.

Villages are not sprawling, they’re fairly small, and they’re connected into a network of other villages as well as larger towns and cities. In the past, this connection was via a road network (usually unpaved dirt roads for walking or horses, but some cobblestone roads too). Today this connection could be via train and even high speed train.

The real problem though is that we can’t just start over. We’re stuck with the infrastructure and planning choices we already made.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

"High density" doesn't just mean high rise apartments. Your example of a small, walkable village with combined/mixed-use space necessarily has high density housing. High density housing just means housing options that reduce sprawl and make public services easily accessible, usually by foot.

So we agree that sprawl and specialization are the problems, which is the important bit. I was being hyperbolic when I suggested we knock down all the suburbs, but I do think that suburbs are a terrible way to plan a community, and we should stop building them now and convert the ones we have into denser, more walkable communities.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)