Fuck Cars
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 Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don'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 topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do 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:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
There are absolutely 1br apartments in the US that are < 600sqft, because I lived in one.
Also, implying that a large living space is a bad thing is kind of a weird take.
I didn't say large living spaces are bad. I just said that most things in the US are designed to be larger than they should be. Also, my comment pertains to high density living in urban megacity areas, which is what I lived in back home. Obviously there are cases like that in the US, most notably NY or SF, but a lot of them leave more to be desired. Small doesn't have to be cramped or uncomfortable.
A lot of this is because dense housing is for the wealthy in the US. You listed NYC and SF but almost every single big city has a dense center it's just expensive. Generally expensive apartments are designed to be more spacious.
Large living spaces are bad, they take up extra space and cost more to heat and maintain.
40m^2 is plenty of space for two people to live together comfortably, provided it's well laid out.
The problem is that everything is large. Couches, appliances, wardrobes. Microwaves and dishwashers and washer and dryer and then how am I supposed to have a table big enough to do a puzzle on? What if I want to do a puzzle and my partner wants to take out the sewing machine and start a project at the same time?
I had a 45m^2 single bedroom apartment which had a lot of wasted space (like, there was room in the bathroom for another bath, amongst other things), we had a full compliment of white goods, and there was enough space that when my then girlfriend/* could rebuild a motorbike in the living room without having to move any furniture or even park either of the bicycles outside.
/* Now wife, for obvious reasons.
I think there is a cultural tendency for larger spaces, but ultimately these lead to a lot of unused room or arbitrary stuff collecting. People can have a very fulfilling life on much less junk than they assume. The sheer volume of storage units in the US should tell us all we need to know about our lives of excess.
Very well put!
Not if you have any hobbies.
As mentioned in another comment, when my other half was rebuilding a motorbike in the living room of our old flat, I didn't even have to move any furniture. She would tinker away pulling the engine out while I practiced guitar.
Are the hobbies that you have things like indoor rock climbing at home?
Well I was in a pretty well laid out 590 sq. ft. with my girlfriend, and we had a queen bed, two computer desks, a piano, an L-couch coffee table, entertainment stand, dining table, guitar amp, and kitchen. That and 3 cats and a gecko terrarium.
So no, I could not bring my motorcycle up into the condo and work on it without moving any furniture. And hobby-wise I ran out of space for my 3D printers and CNC set-up, and she was incredibly cramped with her piano and desk against each other.
And how much of that did you actually need? Why have two desks and a dining table when you can put a laptop on the table? Why have an L shaped sofa and not a compact 2 person sofa? Why have a grand piano (I'm assuming since you had a lot of space) rather than a compact electric piano?
In our first apartment we had a king size bed BTW, the space under it was great for storage and good sleep is important!
Our desktops aren't exactly easy to move onto and off a dining table, and there is no way I'm settling for a laptop. We have an L-couch because we like to host people, and have parties. We have a full length electric keyboard, because that's what there is space for.
You sound very condescending by the way, you should lighten up your tone.
Ah, ok. You want to consume more, have more stuff, bigger and better and newer and faster.
Well, good luck with that if that's what it takes to make you happy.
No, I want a computer powerful enough to actually do my job and laptops don't cut it.
Why are you still being so condescending?
Because the world is on fire, while the richest humans want to consume more. Your replies are typical of that mindset, you could hardly contain your consumerism while living in an area which in much of the world would be considered large and luxurious.
Yeah, I barely contribute to climate change and have a vastly below average carbon footprint.
So kindly fuck you cunt.
Thank you for your beautifully worded reply.
Agreed, I want to downsize, to reduce my carbon footprint and declutter/simplify my life. My plan is for an external workshop structure to hold all the things that I work on but don't require expensive, continuous climate control. That and building a sustainable ecofriendly home with renewable energy, geothermal would be really cool.
Yeah, several times when I was younger I had to move house with only what I could fit in my car or what I could carry. It forced me to really think about what possessions actually matter, and feel the benefits of how having less stuff helps free oneself from the consumerist mindset.
On another note, geothermal energy isn't feasible for most places, and building from scratch is harder than it looks ... the best thing is to repurpose what already exists to your needs and use it in the best way you can. I bought a house that had been abandoned, and it's gradually coming into shape with improvements like insulation and double glazing ... eventually I hope to have heating from a heat pump, but that's out of my price range for the moment.
Why is it that your definition of "plenty" is right and others are wrong? Plenty is however much each individual thinks it is.
When most of the world can live in comfort with less space, then it would be good if everyone would. It would save energy, resources, and leave more room for nature.
Many humans are greedy and want more of everything, including space. Do you think that people who live in mansions do so against their will? Do you think that owning a mansion is good for the planet?
My definition of plenty can be flexible, and thinking about it we could be happy with less space. I lived in a caravan with an ex-boyfriend for a while which was about 20m^2, and space was not the main factor in wanting to move out.
That's great, and good for you. But, that doesn't mean that I, or others, "should" emulate you. We should do what's right for ourselves. We all have limited time on this rock, and I don't necessarily want to live your life.
I never said you should emulate my life, what I said is that taking up less space would be good for the planet ... you get limited time on this rock, it's going to be a lot more limited for your kids if the food chain collapses.
There is no point in individuals trying to fix the planet. As long as the large corporations are allowed to operate unchecked, the result is a forgone conclusion. We may as well live the best life we can, in the time we have left.
Both are needed, corporations must be held account able and individuals need to make changes to how they live ... I don't believe either will actually happen, but that doesn't mean that the morality of choices over resource use suddenly get inverted just because of a bad case of nihilism.
The corporation thing MUST happen if anything is to be changed. If that doesn't happen, individuals are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Since the corporations won't change anything, there's no point in individual change.
If individuals changed, corporations would be forced to change (or would die) since they would no longer be profitable. It needs to be both at the same time.
That doesn't negate the positive moral implication of making a pleasant comfortable life while consuming less.
Business as usual for individuals means business as usual for corporations.
@Iamdanno @7of9 Your rights end where someone else’s begin. If your house, yard, or car are so big that they interfere with your community’s ability to provide adequate housing and safe transport for everyone, you are infringing on other people’s rights and imposing excessive costs on society as a whole.
It's not infringement if the city zoning and building offices approve it. If it's legal, you can fuck right off. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't mean you get to dictate your beliefs on anyone else. Your rights end where other's begin as well.