Notices by Nel (nelenese@shitposter.club), page 4
-
Embed this notice
Nel (nelenese@shitposter.club)'s status on Friday, 07-Oct-2022 05:20:52 JST 
Nel
@khan :siren: :siren: :siren: :siren: :siren: :siren: :siren: :siren: ALERT THE MARIO IS REAL :siren: :siren: :siren: :siren: :siren: :siren: :siren: :siren: -
Embed this notice
Nel (nelenese@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 20-Aug-2022 00:17:06 JST
Nel
@LoliHat @tk
>Trains can't run everywhere.
Not really, In fact, trains can go places where buses and cars can't. You could place subways on top or below a growing street and barley effect foot traffic there, only thing different is that there's stairs there.
If you wanted a car in the same circumstance, that would include bulldozing entire buildings and building more space for parking lots, completely destroying what benefit trains/subways have. Which has happened before.
There were many such cases of people bulldozing businesses and entire neighborhoods to build more highways, leaving those people homeless.
>It's too cost prohibitive if things are too dense.
Not at all, Infact it's the exact opposite. Dense places are often cheaper to maintain, if not profitable compared spread-out-ones that are a net loss.
Dense places often allow for more stores in a tighter spaces compared to spread-out-ones even within the same space surface area, allowing for more tax revenue as more stores can be taxed than just a few. A dense area can have a dozen or more stores compared to suburb's few. There's also the fact there's more person-per-space ratio in dense places compared to cars, allowing more people to be in a single place and thus more potential revenue for businesses, thus more tax revenue for the state. Doesn't happen in car-centered places.
Also not to mention the maintence, a road of 20 miles hosting a few dozen stores to tax is cheaper and often profitable compred to 60 with just a dozen, which loses money. That's also not counting other massive infrastructure like sewers and electricity that have to spread out those 60 miles, rather than 20.
If anything, Dense cities are what keeps car-dependent suburbs alive. that's right, poor city slickers are quite literally keeping America's bigbox rich or working class suburbs alive due to how unprofitable suburbs are.
>Yes, didn't have the freedom people have now... unless you take into account that well off people could afford horses.
Are we truly freer than the people of the past? They could go by foot and animal-back, donkeys There were streetcars and even canals in some places not too long ago. Our only method of travel today is the car and only the car. Sure we *can* walk, but it's extremely inconvenient and then some. Is this really true freedom then?
"Freedom to drive" is good and all but you forget about the "Freedom to not drive".
>But those cities weren't created from scratch.
What is considered "Scratch"? Anyway. Almost all old town were created by a few opportunistic people building a road, then property next to it and then hoping it brings in revenue and then having a state help make the city to be made around it. It's only very recent modern times in which where the idea of the government is creating the town for its people, rather than people creating it. -
Embed this notice
Nel (nelenese@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 20-Aug-2022 00:16:50 JST
Nel
@LoliHat @tk public transport can be expensive and lucrative in planning and labor but it's still considerably less expensive and more efficient than spending millions on decaying monster multi-lane roads/infrastructure and subsidizing cars and petrol for individual cars that usually carry 1 person, compared to 1 tram carrying dozens of people. -
Embed this notice
Nel (nelenese@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 20-Aug-2022 00:16:48 JST
Nel
@LoliHat @tk >Cars are more efficient
they are if you're talking about pure distance by time, perhaps. but that's not including other factors. The biggest is traffic. A trip that could take 5 to 10 minutes could take 20 or even 30 when you're stuck waiting at intersections or behind a large line. At some point, it's sometimes better to simply take an alternative form of transport, like bike or by tram or even foot. That's also not counting things like interrupts like road constructions, accidents or bad weather.
There's also the fact that cars are completely unnecessary for most in most places as the world, as most cities are built to be walked around. Oh, your car can get you across town in just a few minutes? Well, the nearest grocery store, pub and work is just a stroll down a few blocks and that's all I need for a month And even then I, I could just simply use the tram If I need to go a longer distance. Most people aren't going to spend grands to get a vehicle that they'll only need a few times a year.
>It's a better overall value when you look at both cost
false in almost every metric. the cost of buying a car, registering it, insuring it, maintaining, inspecting it, fueling it and paying tolls/fines that will inevitably occur. Not also counting necessary things like driver's licenses. Also, most of this stuff is subsided. Not only that you're bleeding yourself to buy a car, the government is, too. Now compare that to paying a ticket, at least twice per day, for a monumental $3 bucks. -
Embed this notice
Nel (nelenese@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 20-Aug-2022 00:16:46 JST
Nel
@LoliHat @tk @LoliHat @tk
>And public transportation has its own problems with delays and bad weather.
For buses, of course, as they use the same method as cars with roads. But not with trains. Trains are isolated into a insular railroad network only used by other trains. They don't need to heed to weather to not crash or take a detour for construction as their train rails are pre-designated and can go as faster than cars because of it. Underground transporation, less so.
>Most cities developed when all you could do is walk around. How many purely "walkable" cities have actually been designed and built from scratch?
Every single city before the existence of the mass-produced car with numerous evidence back to roman, greek or baylonian times. The nobles and kings of the past didn't say "Let's fuck ourselves over by making are cities fuck-off long with streets that are ugly and shitty for no reason". This is an extremely recent phenomenon that only existed after WW2, a mere blink of an eye compared to the spanning history of humanity.
If you're talking about after, there was pressure on european cities to adopt america's can-centric view, but that was dialed back heavily after people protested the amount of people getting hit in the street. Now there's a conserted effort to de-car-inized and it's always a net positive.
>Most planned communities in the U.S. are designed for how most people there want to actually live, not now some "walkability" obsessive wants them to live.
Absolutely not. The U.S is designed by arbitrary strict building code that is lobbied by various interest groups to keep things as inefficient and distant for their own interests. Roads that are exceedingly unnecessarily long are made to force consumers to buy a car along with dozens of chain restaurants to the side to purposefully entice consumers to habitually buy something they wouldn't have otherwise. Have you every noticed that the average suburbs has no private small business stores? that's why.
Oh, You want a mom and pop grocery store in the conveniently in the middle of your neighborhood and want to buy ingredients for a nice broth for tonight when you come back from the park? Sorry, bub. That's ILLEGAL in FREEDOMLAND. You WILL go to your corporate lobbied big store, you WILL bulk buy food and necessity like the world's ending and you WILL either come up short or too much because no one can plan their foods a month ahead (nor should they).
Also, funfact jaywalking is a crime literally only in america. It was lobbied into legislature by car companies to shift the blame away from drivers unto pedestrians after the massive surge in death caused by accidets.
No, I guarantee you that if, given the option, literally almost everyone would rather live in nice and beautiful walk able neighborhood (pic 1) to get bread and cheese by walking down the block rather than wait 30 minutes in soul-crushing traffic (pic 2).
>What if you don't want to limit yourself to grocery stores a few minutes walk, or to jobs within a few minutes walk?
Then I walk farther. If I can't walk then I can bike. If I can't bike than I can use the tram. If I can't tram I'll use the train, which is the end-all-be-all for almost everyone.
>The car allows you to go to so many more stores and in bulk with children in tow.
Then I can use a thing called a "Bag" or a bike with a bag on it. Crazy stuff.
On the serious side of things, the best solution that is simply to order it from your local store and they'll bring it to you. It's that easy. -
Embed this notice
Nel (nelenese@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 20-Aug-2022 00:16:42 JST
Nel
@LoliHat @tk
>The building codes are for safety. You are thinking of zoning, which makes sure someone does build a 24/7 factory next to your house.
Are you seriously pulling "It's for your own safety" card?
Yes, zoning laws are needed to keep harmful things away from residential areas, but America's laws are extremely prohibitive to the point where it's a detriment. Literally every other country, even the most greenest and humanitarian, in the world allows for "Mixed-use development", which allows for quiet and benign businesses like cafes and grocery stores to exist within neighborhoods. This allows for small businesses from neighborhoods to easily cater to the needs and desires of their folk along with fostering a community of people breaking bread with each other instead of multiple neighborhoods contorting themselves to a mega-conglomerate bigbox store like walmart or target.
Why is Ren from the Japan able to able to get his neighbors better in his local tea house in his suburb, but not us? Why is Francesco from Italy not be able to grab a quick munch by walking downstairs from his flat to the restaurant on the ground floor, but not us? Why does Cholë from the Netherlands able to buy a few ingredients for a stew for her husband and kids from her grocery store owned by his Neighbor Sven outside her door, but not us? Why is America, the Freest country on earth, forbid something as basic as a fucking store for an entire neighborhood despite it being a staple everywhere around the world? No, That would encourage people to not use their cars and potentially encouraging more dense and convenient infrastructure, destroying car-dependency that America has artificially built artificiality. And I do mean artificially. We have to make walk-ability illegal
Building codes in America are absolute bullshit, too. Part of the reason why America is reliant on cars is because we force everyone either into an tiny apartment/condo in the city or a fuck-off big single-family home in the suburbs. There is ABSOLUTELY no in-between nor any mix matching. This building code is completely absent in most developed countries, or almost all countries, in the world.
Let's say you're student fresh out of college and want a job within a city, an apartment would be a decent fit. After a few years, you're a bit richer and want to live somewhere a bit bigger but still within a city, like a Terraced home or a Duplex. Or maybe you're a suburbanite that wants to live in a city due its economic opportunity but still want a house to yourself. In most countries, neighborhoods often have types of housing that allows people within the same street, catering the needs and wants of people, not to mention nearby businesses that could be walked to. Not in America, you only can live a apartments or a detached home, not because there's no supply or lack of demand, but it is the LAW that prohibits anything else. So if you want to live in a city with a walk-able and yet a nice decently sized-home, Tough luck.
If you live in the suburbs, you're chained to your car that bleeds you and the government dry, to drive down ugly and miserable, rotting roads that are constantly stuck in traffic to get to an eye-sore big-box store to have the privilege to buy food.
Let me Emphasize this, once and for all, America's dependence on Cars is wholly artificial. If lobbied legislature and life-supported tax dollars were to suddenly stop the support the unbelievably expensive life-support of car-centric sprawl, suburbia would be in disrepair. If we simply allowed walkable places to exist and built proper infrastructure, people will come and it'll be extremely lucrative. It's work for every other developed nation in the world, it'll work here.
>You seem upset that people have dining option other than what overpriced crap
Ah, Yes. I love choosing the variety of chain-resturants I've never seen before; Like Mcdonalds, Bugerking and starbucks. Who can forget the never-before-seen Who would want to eat like golden carol and crackerbarrel? What peasant would want to eat a locally owned business with unique foods ha-ha.
>they have to get that is within walking distance.
Yes.
>Nothing is stopping mom n' pop shops. There are plenty in many suburbs and non-dense cities.
There is a lot stopping a small business owner, and that's because of precisely car-centric suburbia. In most of the world, buildings can be changed and are flexible to change at someone will's, A restaurant can become a shop, a shop can be a office or even a house. Not here in car-centric, Almost all buildings along suburban roads are built exclusively for and by big corporation for their design. A big box store by walmart, for walmart, can never be leased and maintained by the average "pull-by-the-bootstraps" joe and are too expensive to renovate into something smaller. Not to mention that there are countless regulations that, to a giant corporation -
Embed this notice
Nel (nelenese@shitposter.club)'s status on Saturday, 13-Aug-2022 06:34:11 JST
Nel
@Moon @shmibs shrimp looks and taste good though
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the