Re:SimCity, but with Permits
by alskdfqlkj on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @04:00PM
(#50171853)
That makes no sense. The most expensive property in the world is in high density cities.
Personally I want no traffic but also little parking. Car infrastructure is a general blight on public spaces.
Re:SimCity, but with Permits
by hungryhobbit on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @04:57PM
(#50172571)
Encouraging no parking without a robust public transit system is like punching a disabled person for not walking fast enough.
Re:SimCity, but with Permits
by alskdfqlkj on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @11:29PM
(#50175730)
I also want a robust public transit system. Happy now? :)
Yes. Which is why it's so much cheaper to live in Manhattan than in the suburbs.
High density urban housing, coupled with public transportation, would reduce traffic by removing cars from roads and the distance commuted. I like low density too, but not car culture.
I don't even think (most) proponents of high density are saying low density should be banned, they just want to have both options. Low-density living always comes along with long commutes by geometric necessity, so that's one reason some people would prefer high-density living.
And oil shortage is another way of saying that existing oil owners are earning strong income. Why is either of those things the desired state? (Other than self-interest, if you happen to be sitting on a stockpile of oil.)
The only people who don't like low density are the poor, and this is why most of America is car culture, and owns their own houses. "Housing shortages" is another way of saying that existing home owners are earning strong equity.
Yeah, I do want no traffic and lots of parking, so low density please!