No, absolutely fuck cars, cars are worse than landlords… Might be a hot take but the cars and urban spread that cars allow do more damage than landlords
while i certainly think there are far more cars distributed amongst people than needed, i don’t think they should go alltogether, as they still have their usecases (certainly not a personal everyday mode of transport tho). Housing problem, on the other hand, is more immediate:
if i go to a new city, i won’t give a single smallest flying fuck about cars, if i won’t be able to find myself a place to live.
So yeah, absolutely fuck the landlords and the real estate agencies.
More immediate issue isn’t necessarily a less important or less worse issue. Cars have much greater long term impacts on the ability of a population to be restrained by debt, damage to the environment, and hurt smaller economic ecosystems that are important for robust cities and towns.
I’m not saying don’t fuck the landlords I’m saying they’re a less important issue.
how tf am i supposed to care about cars if i don’t have anywhere to live? A roof above your head is at the literal bottom of the Maslow pyramid, as it’s a basic need. People won’t care about anything unless those are satisfied.
So yes, homes are more important issue even if cars is your priority
This isn’t about a hypothetical where you don’t have x or y, or about you personally in a hypothetical. it’s about what are larger issues at the present.
Having a home is more important. The housing crisis is considerably less of an issue as of yet compared to car centric sprawl, even though they are very related issues.
Housing is also much easier to fix. It doesn’t require decades of infrastructure, it requires changing a few zoning restrictions here and there, and some small encouragement for larger multi family apartments
if it’s such an easy fix, why won’t we fix it first, so that more people would be able to join the anti-car movement? I never said whe should have x or y tho. Just that we should have x before having y.
Because a large portion of the population has a vested interest in not having more housing. Not just the rich. But the upper middle/middle class nimbys as well.
There’s related issues, fixing both together is the most efficient path. Turn parking lots into housing. Take garages out of plots and you have another spot for a house. But people don’t want increased density. People need to have room to not have a car if you want to increase density to better levels.
No, absolutely fuck cars, cars are worse than landlords… Might be a hot take but the cars and urban spread that cars allow do more damage than landlords
while i certainly think there are far more cars distributed amongst people than needed, i don’t think they should go alltogether, as they still have their usecases (certainly not a personal everyday mode of transport tho). Housing problem, on the other hand, is more immediate:
if i go to a new city, i won’t give a single smallest flying fuck about cars, if i won’t be able to find myself a place to live.
So yeah, absolutely fuck the landlords and the real estate agencies.
More immediate issue isn’t necessarily a less important or less worse issue. Cars have much greater long term impacts on the ability of a population to be restrained by debt, damage to the environment, and hurt smaller economic ecosystems that are important for robust cities and towns.
I’m not saying don’t fuck the landlords I’m saying they’re a less important issue.
let’s head back to my example:
how tf am i supposed to care about cars if i don’t have anywhere to live? A roof above your head is at the literal bottom of the Maslow pyramid, as it’s a basic need. People won’t care about anything unless those are satisfied.
So yes, homes are more important issue even if cars is your priority
This isn’t about a hypothetical where you don’t have x or y, or about you personally in a hypothetical. it’s about what are larger issues at the present.
Having a home is more important. The housing crisis is considerably less of an issue as of yet compared to car centric sprawl, even though they are very related issues.
Housing is also much easier to fix. It doesn’t require decades of infrastructure, it requires changing a few zoning restrictions here and there, and some small encouragement for larger multi family apartments
if it’s such an easy fix, why won’t we fix it first, so that more people would be able to join the anti-car movement? I never said whe should have x or y tho. Just that we should have x before having y.
Because a large portion of the population has a vested interest in not having more housing. Not just the rich. But the upper middle/middle class nimbys as well.
There’s related issues, fixing both together is the most efficient path. Turn parking lots into housing. Take garages out of plots and you have another spot for a house. But people don’t want increased density. People need to have room to not have a car if you want to increase density to better levels.