this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
5 points (100.0% liked)

solarpunk memes

6132 readers
45 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The picture on the left is just an argument against lawns.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 years ago

Partially, even if you got rid of the lawns the houses would still take up significantly more space for both the road infrastructure as well as the houses themselves.

[–] radicalautonomy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Right? And also...who needs space between two homes if there are no lawns? Just moosh all the outer walls together.

Come to think of it...that's gonna result in a ridiculously long line of houses. Maybe we could moosh roofs and bottom floors and stack 'em up a bit to make the line of houses only a half to a third as long, and then leave a little space between Consecutive House Stacks™️ - y'know, so that there'll room for more windows.

[–] Takumidesh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Lawns aren't the reason people want to have space from their neighbors.

[–] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

It's amazing what insulation and proper sound proofing can do. Never lived in thicker walls than here in Germany. Other than the blasted church bells, it'd be hard to convince me I was living next to people if the windows were opaque.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

And why don't we stick the whole thing underground to further minimize damage to the landscape. Besides it's way cooler to be called a vault dweller than a condo resident.

[–] aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

If the island were 100 times larger, the houses would take 1% of the land area, leaving 99%. The apartment complex would take up .04%, leaving 99.96%, which isn't much of an improvement. The proportions of our planet are much closer to my scenario than this made up island. That's a reason why we might not "prefer apartments in our own town."

There are good reasons you might want density, this just isn't one of them.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, but most people don't live in that other 90% . Most people live in urban and suburban areas where most if not all of the land is privately owned. Because of this the problem shown of fitting 100 households into 25 acres is way more common than your scenario of fitting 100 households on 2500 acres

[–] ChilledPeppers@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

And having trees and nature near urban venters is very much desirable, to help with air pollution (tho really not a lot), heat concentration and humidity.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 2 years ago

I'll go with 99 apartments and one house on the other side so I can be as far from them as possible.

[–] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Renting sucks and relying on a landlord is awful. I bought a small house and keep my yard wild.

[–] toaster@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Co-operative run housing largely eliminates those problems.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sounds like the other hell on earth .. an hoa

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago

housing co-ops are basically the standard here in sweden and it's perfectly fine, just because america makes things suck doesn't mean they have to inherently be bad. Obviously if you execute a concept in the worst way imaginable it's going to suck, that's not rocket science.

[–] Bosht@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

Logic here is broken because we don't make these decisions anyway. A developer will instead put 30 apartment buildings while chopping down anything that gets in the way, then charge more for rent than you'd be charged for the mortgage on the house. There's also the fact that this picture assumes every family on the left pic doesn't give a fuck about free scaping, preserving trees, or planting new ones? Idk, whole thing is jacked.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

For those complaining about noise in apartments: in my experience apartment dwellers are quite considerate and when living in an apartment I never had any major noise problems.

Now that I live in a single home let me tell you about the noise of neighbours mowing their lawns, constant noisy renovations etc. and in general a lot more car noise.

Quite honestly, it was more quiet in the apartments that I lived before.

Edit: and besides, I think people are confusing apartments with the real cause: housing areas with low socio-economic status tend to be more noisy. Correlation is not causation and all that...

[–] Linktank@lemmy.today -1 points 2 years ago

Now imagine apartment buildings taking up 100% of the island and that's what you get under the current system.

[–] Kiwi_fella@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

You see one apartment building. A property developer sees room for 100 apartment buildings.