Current Events > The future is bleak for major cities.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
uwnim 10/02/19 2:00:57 PM #51:	pls posted... uwnim posted... Uh, yeah, obviously. I wouldn't be able to come up with good ideas if I didn't. I'd be like all the Nimby type folks out there if I stopped thinking. What you said about not seeing any problems with a 40 floor skyscraper being built in a subdivision containing just houses was really stupid, though. The complete opposite of a good idea. If it is actually a bad idea due the the layout of the area, then it won't be built. Still people should be allowed to because restrictive zoning laws don't do anything except make development that people actually need harder. --- I want a pet Lavos Spawn. [Order of the Cetaceans: Phocoena dioptrica] <cite>uwnim posted [p:928238406] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>uwnim posted...</cite> <quote>Uh, yeah, obviously. I wouldn't be able to come up with good ideas if I didn't. I'd be like all the Nimby type folks out there if I stopped thinking.</quote> What you said about not seeing any problems with a 40 floor skyscraper being built in a subdivision containing just houses was really stupid, though. The complete opposite of a good idea.</quote> If it is actually a bad idea due the the layout of the area, then it won't be built. Still people should be allowed to because restrictive zoning laws don't do anything except make development that people actually need harder.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
s0nicfan 10/02/19 2:01:39 PM #52:	As I've said before, people should stop making fun of "flyover states" and insisting they need to live in one of 3 coastal megacities. This isn't a problem everywhere. Just where demand has ballooned far above supply and people insist they have a right to said supply. --- "History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz <cite>s0nicfan posted [p:928238440] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>As I've said before, people should stop making fun of "flyover states" and insisting they need to live in one of 3 coastal megacities. This isn't a problem everywhere. Just where demand has ballooned far above supply and people insist they have a right to said supply. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/02/19 2:03:01 PM #53:	Damn_Underscore posted... pls posted... uwnim posted... Uh, yeah, obviously. I wouldn't be able to come up with good ideas if I didn't. I'd be like all the Nimby type folks out there if I stopped thinking. What you said about not seeing any problems with a 40 floor skyscraper being built in a subdivision containing just houses was really stupid, though. The complete opposite of a good idea. Why? The only "problem" would be that it would be aesthetically weird to see a bunch of houses and then a tall skyscraper. But on the other hand, the cost of housing in that area would go way down in that area and people would have a lot more spending money. I literally already explained this. And you don't need to virtue signal about dense housing by building skyscrapers in regular house subdivisions. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>pls posted [p:928238504] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>uwnim posted...</cite> <quote>Uh, yeah, obviously. I wouldn't be able to come up with good ideas if I didn't. I'd be like all the Nimby type folks out there if I stopped thinking.</quote> What you said about not seeing any problems with a 40 floor skyscraper being built in a subdivision containing just houses was really stupid, though. The complete opposite of a good idea.</quote> Why? The only "problem" would be that it would be aesthetically weird to see a bunch of houses and then a tall skyscraper. But on the other hand, the cost of housing in that area would go way down in that area and people would have a lot more spending money.</quote> I literally already explained this. And you don't need to virtue signal about dense housing by building skyscrapers in regular house subdivisions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/02/19 2:03:44 PM #54:	uwnim posted... If it is actually a bad idea due the the layout of the area, then it won't be built. Still people should be allowed to because restrictive zoning laws don't do anything except make development that people actually need harder. You'd literally have a zoning law for this exact purpose - to codify that building a skyscraper in some subdivision full of homes is a really fucking stupid idea. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>pls posted [p:928238532] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>uwnim posted...</cite> <quote>If it is actually a bad idea due the the layout of the area, then it won't be built. Still people should be allowed to because restrictive zoning laws don't do anything except make development that people actually need harder.</quote> You'd literally have a zoning law for this exact purpose - to codify that building a skyscraper in some subdivision full of homes is a really fucking stupid idea.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unsugarized_Foo 10/02/19 2:04:45 PM #55:	FighterStreet2 posted... TheGreatGeno6 posted... I'd rather live in a tiny, studio apartment in a big city than live in a huge mansion in third world America(also known as rural areas) equating rural america with "Third word" is literal insanity Shhh, don't let them in on the awwesomeness of rural living. I can have 2500sqft of living space with an acre of land that I use to go outside to pee on a tree for $1000 a month. A because im fine driving 20 minutes to the closest shopping center --- "All I have is my balls and my word, and I don't break them for anyone!"-Tony Montana <cite>Unsugarized_Foo posted [p:928238581] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>FighterStreet2 posted...</cite> <quote>TheGreatGeno6 posted...</cite> <quote>I'd rather live in a tiny, studio apartment in a big city than live in a huge mansion in third world America(also known as rural areas)</quote> equating rural america with "Third word" is literal insanity</quote> Shhh, don't let them in on the awwesomeness of rural living. I can have 2500sqft of living space with an acre of land that I use to go outside to pee on a tree for $1000 a month. A because im fine driving 20 minutes to the closest shopping center</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Annihilated 10/02/19 2:05:24 PM #56:	shockthemonkey posted... pls posted... metralo posted... pls posted... Leftists want even larger mega-cities so that we can get rid of "suburban sprawl" and all be one giant happy family living right next to each other all the time. Like sardines in a can. Ridiculous. no one says this You're fucking lying. The left is all about ultra-dense mega cities and getting rid of suburbs. lmao ? <cite>Annihilated posted [p:928238612] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>shockthemonkey posted...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>metralo posted...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>Leftists want even larger mega-cities so that we can get rid of "suburban sprawl" and all be one giant happy family living right next to each other all the time. Like sardines in a can. Ridiculous.</quote> no one says this</quote> You're fucking lying. The left is all about ultra-dense mega cities and getting rid of suburbs.</quote> lmao</quote> ?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/02/19 2:05:55 PM #57:	konokonohamaru posted... pls posted... I mean public housing projects are disgusting and have been torn down in Chicago to great effect. Crime plummeted. yeah true but it depends how you do it. Public housing all concentrated in one place is a bad idea. Spread out over multiple neighborhoods and it would work better. But the fact remains that you're not gonna get public or subsidized housing in single family neighborhoods, but a lot of these neighborhoods refuse to let medium-high density housing to be built And that's why instead of forcing people to accept this, you just provide positive reinforcement by fostering conditions that allow people to move more freely. If people who would otherwise live in shitty concentrated areas had more opportunity (the kind that could definitely be conferred by putting more people to work via some form of Green New Deal) then they'd be able to afford more housing and thus the market becomes wide open to new customers. Far fewer people are going to complain when the development of more dense housing or cheaper single family homes is the result of demand and customers rather than the will of the state. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>pls posted [p:928238631] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>konokonohamaru posted...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>I mean public housing projects are disgusting and have been torn down in Chicago to great effect. Crime plummeted. </quote> yeah true but it depends how you do it. Public housing all concentrated in one place is a bad idea. Spread out over multiple neighborhoods and it would work better. But the fact remains that you're not gonna get public or subsidized housing in single family neighborhoods, but a lot of these neighborhoods refuse to let medium-high density housing to be built</quote> And that's why instead of forcing people to accept this, you just provide positive reinforcement by fostering conditions that allow people to move more freely. If people who would otherwise live in shitty concentrated areas had more opportunity (the kind that could definitely be conferred by putting more people to work via some form of Green New Deal) then they'd be able to afford more housing and thus the market becomes wide open to new customers. Far fewer people are going to complain when the development of more dense housing or cheaper single family homes is the result of demand and customers rather than the will of the state.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 10/02/19 2:09:47 PM #58:	pls posted... Damn_Underscore posted... pls posted... uwnim posted... Uh, yeah, obviously. I wouldn't be able to come up with good ideas if I didn't. I'd be like all the Nimby type folks out there if I stopped thinking. What you said about not seeing any problems with a 40 floor skyscraper being built in a subdivision containing just houses was really stupid, though. The complete opposite of a good idea. Why? The only "problem" would be that it would be aesthetically weird to see a bunch of houses and then a tall skyscraper. But on the other hand, the cost of housing in that area would go way down in that area and people would have a lot more spending money. I literally already explained this. And you don't need to virtue signal about dense housing by building skyscrapers in regular house subdivisions. wut Also your explanation is that the construction would be loud and there would be a lot of foot traffic. Yeah, those are wonderful reasons to not make housing cost hundreds of thousands of dollars less. Should we ban cars in suburbs too? Those are really loud and annoying too. --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:928238790] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>uwnim posted...</cite> <quote>Uh, yeah, obviously. I wouldn't be able to come up with good ideas if I didn't. I'd be like all the Nimby type folks out there if I stopped thinking.</quote> What you said about not seeing any problems with a 40 floor skyscraper being built in a subdivision containing just houses was really stupid, though. The complete opposite of a good idea.</quote> Why? The only "problem" would be that it would be aesthetically weird to see a bunch of houses and then a tall skyscraper. But on the other hand, the cost of housing in that area would go way down in that area and people would have a lot more spending money.</quote> I literally already explained this. And you don't need to virtue signal about dense housing by building skyscrapers in regular house subdivisions.</quote> wut Also your explanation is that the construction would be loud and there would be a lot of foot traffic. Yeah, those are wonderful reasons to not make housing cost hundreds of thousands of dollars less. Should we ban cars in suburbs too? Those are really loud and annoying too.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 10/02/19 2:11:40 PM #59:	Far fewer people are going to complain when the development of more dense housing or cheaper single family homes is the result of demand and customers rather than the will of the state. If a company wants to build a 40 story apartment building in some open area of a suburb, the only "will of the state" involved is the zoning laws stopping them from doing it. --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:928238877] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote><quote>Far fewer people are going to complain when the development of more dense housing or cheaper single family homes is the result of demand and customers rather than the will of the state.</quote> If a company wants to build a 40 story apartment building in some open area of a suburb, the only "will of the state" involved is the zoning laws stopping them from doing it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
uwnim 10/02/19 2:13:29 PM #60:	pls posted... uwnim posted... If it is actually a bad idea due the the layout of the area, then it won't be built. Still people should be allowed to because restrictive zoning laws don't do anything except make development that people actually need harder. You'd literally have a zoning law for this exact purpose - to codify that building a skyscraper in some subdivision full of homes is a really fucking stupid idea. What makes it terrible exactly? Like say there was an area where it was logistically possible and the zoning was changed from single family homes only to any sort of residential and residential/commercial building, would there be a good and compelling reason to block a proposal for such a building? --- I want a pet Lavos Spawn. [Order of the Cetaceans: Phocoena dioptrica] <cite>uwnim posted [p:928238965] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>uwnim posted...</cite> <quote>If it is actually a bad idea due the the layout of the area, then it won't be built. Still people should be allowed to because restrictive zoning laws don't do anything except make development that people actually need harder.</quote> You'd literally have a zoning law for this exact purpose - to codify that building a skyscraper in some subdivision full of homes is a really fucking stupid idea.</quote> What makes it terrible exactly? Like say there was an area where it was logistically possible and the zoning was changed from single family homes only to any sort of residential and residential/commercial building, would there be a good and compelling reason to block a proposal for such a building?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/02/19 2:15:05 PM #61:	Damn_Underscore posted... Also your explanation is that the construction would be loud and there would be a lot of foot traffic. Yeah, those are wonderful reasons to not make housing cost hundreds of thousands of dollars less. Should we ban cars in suburbs too? Those are really loud and annoying too. I'm pretty sure cars in the suburbs use roads most of the time, rather than driving entirely through subdivisions where people live and play. But correct me if I'm wrong. And I'm also sure that it's possible to solve the housing crisis in shitty cities like San Francisco without mandating that people in the midwest tolerate random skyscrapers across the street from their modest family house. But correct me if I'm not being virtuous enough, maybe ultra-dense skyscrapers are really the only solution. In fact maybe this can be our model for how to build the cities of the future! https://rumorsontheinternets.org/2010/10/14/magnasanti-the-largest-and-most-terrifying-simcity/ --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>pls posted [p:928239039] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>Also your explanation is that the construction would be loud and there would be a lot of foot traffic. Yeah, those are wonderful reasons to not make housing cost hundreds of thousands of dollars less. Should we ban cars in suburbs too? Those are really loud and annoying too. </quote> I'm pretty sure cars in the suburbs use roads most of the time, rather than driving entirely through subdivisions where people live and play. But correct me if I'm wrong. And I'm also sure that it's possible to solve the housing crisis in shitty cities like San Francisco without mandating that people in the midwest tolerate random skyscrapers across the street from their modest family house. But correct me if I'm not being virtuous enough, maybe ultra-dense skyscrapers are really the only solution. In fact maybe this can be our model for how to build the cities of the future! https://rumorsontheinternets.org/2010/10/14/magnasanti-the-largest-and-most-terrifying-simcity/</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 10/02/19 2:24:01 PM #62:	The one acting "virtuous" is you, saying how awful it would be to have a skyscraper across from a "modest family home", trying to evoke emotion from that line. What exactly is wrong with having a random skyscraper across from houses, other than the fact that it hasn't been done that way? What about the apartment buildings that already exist, but stop at four or five stories. What exactly would make it so horrible if those same apartment buildings were 40 or 50 stories instead? And, you are very wrong about cars not driving through suburbs. Everyone in suburbs has the road connected to their house in some way, but most people don't live on dead-end streets where cars don't normally go. Most people in suburbs live and play on streets that have thru-traffic, or at least live near a main road that has cars driving on it throughout the day. --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:928239402] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>The one acting "virtuous" is you, saying how awful it would be to have a skyscraper across from a "modest family home", trying to evoke emotion from that line. What exactly is wrong with having a random skyscraper across from houses, other than the fact that it hasn't been done that way? What about the apartment buildings that already exist, but stop at four or five stories. What exactly would make it so horrible if those same apartment buildings were 40 or 50 stories instead? And, you are very wrong about cars not driving through suburbs. Everyone in suburbs has the road connected to their house in some way, but most people don't live on dead-end streets where cars don't normally go. Most people in suburbs live and play on streets that have thru-traffic, or at least live near a main road that has cars driving on it throughout the day.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 10/02/19 2:27:28 PM #63:	Damn_Underscore posted... What exactly is wrong with having a random skyscraper across from houses, other than the fact that it hasn't been done that way? It's detrimental to the pre-existing pig farm or dirt-racing hill, when the people in the new building themselves become NIMBYs. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:928239541] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>What exactly is wrong with having a random skyscraper across from houses, other than the fact that it hasn't been done that way?</quote> It's detrimental to the pre-existing pig farm or dirt-racing hill, when the people in the new building themselves become NIMBYs.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkRoast 10/02/19 2:28:49 PM #64:	In the future we will all live in The Panopticon and all will be revealed --- Well allons-y, Alonso! <cite>DarkRoast posted [p:928239600] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>In the future we will all live in The Panopticon and all will be revealed</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MacadamianNut3 10/02/19 2:30:42 PM #65:	I like how we're pretending that every major city is gonna wind up like San Francisco even though the article doesn't imply that. Or Los Angeles even though its been established for decades that LA is the poster child for urban sprawl gone wrong. But I guess it has to happen because various things can happen in the future just because time passes Not surprised Proudclad is leading the charge since he also gets suckered by Elon Musk's asspull predictions about the future also not based in reality --- Roll Tide & Go Irish <cite>MacadamianNut3 posted [p:928239691] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>I like how we're pretending that every major city is gonna wind up like San Francisco even though the article doesn't imply that. Or Los Angeles even though its been established for decades that LA is the poster child for urban sprawl gone wrong. But I guess it has to happen because various things can happen in the future just because time passes Not surprised Proudclad is leading the charge since he also gets suckered by Elon Musk's asspull predictions about the future also not based in reality</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MedeaLysistrata 10/02/19 2:32:05 PM #66:	Anti urbanism? Why? The middle class promise of every random family getting a moderately sized plot of land that can't really be economised... now that is the real weirdness. Edit: and by moderately I mean enough to fit a single house and lawn --- "Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH [Is this live?][Joyless planet...] <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted [p:928239754] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>Anti urbanism? Why? The middle class promise of every random family getting a moderately sized plot of land that can't really be economised... now that is the real weirdness. Edit: and by moderately I mean enough to fit a single house and lawn</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
emblem boy 10/02/19 2:44:11 PM #67:	Is proudclad a NIMBY? --- Pitter-patter, let's get at 'er <cite>emblem boy posted [p:928240317] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>Is proudclad a NIMBY?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 10/02/19 3:05:15 PM #68:	emblem boy posted... Is proudclad a NIMBY? I haven't seen anything suggesting he's a nimby. If anything, he seems like the type of guy who would welcome shit that nimbys are crying about the whole time. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:928241207] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>emblem boy posted... </cite> <quote>Is proudclad a NIMBY?</quote>I haven't seen anything suggesting he's a nimby. If anything, he seems like the type of guy who would welcome shit that nimbys are crying about the whole time. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/02/19 3:06:51 PM #69:	Having common sense to not allow skyscrapers across the street from Grandma's little house is not the same as being a NIMBY or not wanting development of more housing. I'm not into limiting housing supply for investment purposes or opposing skyscrapers where they make sense. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>pls posted [p:928241269] in The future... [t:78057851]...</cite> <quote>Having common sense to not allow skyscrapers across the street from Grandma's little house is not the same as being a NIMBY or not wanting development of more housing. I'm not into limiting housing supply for investment purposes or opposing skyscrapers where they make sense.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > The future is bleak for major cities. (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > The future is bleak for major cities.