• Diplomjodler@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    110
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let me guess what kind of people predominantly lived in the neighborhoods that were bulldozed.

  • Square Singer@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sure the designers of this monstrosity thought, “There are only black people living there, so it’s a win-win” -.-

  • biofaust@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Am I the only one who finds the 1950s version also not nice from an urban planning perspective? I mean, it is a car-centered design anyway.

    • Atemu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Still, do you see how many trees there are? That place must’ve still looked nice and was certainly transformable into a really nice place without unreasonable effort.

      Now, it’s basically a wasteland.

      • biofaust@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah not really, such low population density requires cars to be used. If you think tearing that down would be simple, then yes. But I think that even in Atlanta that would be difficult. The reason why those highways are there is that more people wanted to live in that kind of neighborhood.

        • Atemu@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          such low population density requires cars to be used

          As someone living in a much less dense area, I wholeheartedly disagree. Even just a single tram stop with >=bi-hourly frequency near the center could make that entire area car-free if the people weren’t car-brained. That area looks like it’d be bikable in <10min side-to-side, so most people could probably even walk to such a tram stop.

          (That tram would actually need to go somewhere but that’s part of a larger system’s problem, not of this hypothetical neighbourhood.)

          • biofaust@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            There are a lot of assumptions there.

            First of all, I am sure that is part of something much larger and it is a real neighborhood, not something hypothetical.

            Second, I don’t see people giving up their car brains just because you put a tram. I myself would still be using a car if it wasn’t made completely superfluous and fatiguing where I live and work.

            • Atemu@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are a lot of assumptions there.

              Absolutely.

              I am sure that is part of something much larger and it is a real neighborhood, not something hypothetical.

              I’d agree but I don’t see how that makes a difference. My point was that the visible part could be served by even just one tram station. If there are more such parts, you’d obviously need tram stops for those aswell. (More tram stops would realistically be necessary anyways.)

              I don’t see people giving up their car brains just because you put a tram.

              Me neither. Point was that it’d be possible for those people to reasonably get where they need to go without any cars involved with as little infrastructure as a single tram stop.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The former streetcars aren’t an “assumption;” they’re historical fact. Here’s the damn map!

              • biofaust@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That was not the assumption. Also, that map is either 20something years too early or too late to be proof of much of what was going on in the 1950s.

        • WetBeardHairs@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The reason why those highways are there is that more people wanted to live in that kind of neighborhood.

          No, those highways are there because white men got together and intentionally chose to put the highway there with complete disregard (or quite possibly, with malice) for the people who lived there.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, the 1950s version (actually more like 1900s; those houses were already decades old at the time they were photographed) was good. It was a traditional street grid with small blocks, and there were streetcars going all over the place. Sure it was mostly single-family (probably with more than a few duplexes sprinkled in), but it had great bones for densifying later when demand justified it.

      I live only a few miles from the area pictured, in a neighborhood with the same development pattern. Even though it’s been damaged by the removal of the old streetcars and having zoning superimposed upon it after the fact (which causes problems by mandating things like too-large setbacks and minimum parking requirements, as well as outlawing corner stores within residential areas), it’s still mostly fine.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s what I was thinking. Neither solve the problem. The 1950s one just resulted in bigger traffic jams. What solves the problem is robust public transportation.

  • Smk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    JUST ONE MORE LAME,I SWEAR TO GOD, JUST ONE MORE LANE AND WE’RE DONE. ONE MOAR LANE. MOAAAAR

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A little lane of asphalt please,

      More pollution if I freeze,

      Running over children these,

      A fresh bouquet of cancers.

      (Parody of Glass of Water)

  • EthicalAI@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Trains Are Too Expensive And Would Take Years To Build“ - guy who remembers the interstate being built.

  • Zellith@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve been playing cities skyline and I’ll be honest, when my city gets like that I just restart.

    • jettrscga@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And in Cities Skyline you can just pause time, delete and fix a bunch of shit, and continue. Instant and nobody complains that you just bulldozed their house.

      I think highways would look nicer if real city planners had the ability to redesign everything vs add on pieces over time.

      • Facebones@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I like to think that people who get relocated in my skylines games get compensated appropriately and receive decent support in their relocation.

        Because video games are supposed to be a form of escapism and it doesn’t get more escapism than that :/

        • fadingembers@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          When you bulldoze houses in skylines and unpause you’ll notice your population goes down. Because they were inside the houses. That you bulldozed. Have a good day!

          • Facebones@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nope, they’re temporarily not counted as residents because they’re enjoying an all expenses stay in the swankiest spot in town as they await their new construction!

            Nice try!

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      And Cities Skylines massively fudges things by treating cars Jetsons-style (take up negligible space when sims get to their destination). If the game accurately modeled parking, it would be way worse (and no longer fun to play, which is why the developers didn’t do it).

      • usrtrv@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Cities Skylines 2 fixes this a little, there’re actual parking lots built into businesses and extra parking lots you can build. The scale is still a little funky, but it’s more in line with the general scale of the game now.

  • arc@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cities should be built around people, not motor vehicles.

  • notannpc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a good thing removing all those homes definitely didn’t cause or contribute to any way more serious problems in society. Right?

    /s

  • Grass@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    How do roads even end up like this? The cloverleaf is as extreme as I’m willing to drive through. If anything like this came up in Google maps for my drive I would just nope on home.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Engineer answer: being a stack interchange, it’s actually easier to navigate than a cloverleaf because there’s only one exit in each direction instead of separate “A” and “B” exits with an entrance ramp and weaving in between. The complexity in this case simply comes from the fact that it’s superimposed on top of what used to be a street grid, so they added a bunch of exits to local streets.

      Big-picture answer: the desire to put freeways there in the first place is the product of mental illness.

      • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah they only seem complicated from the air, on the ground you just read the signs and it’s always clear, or if you’re using your phone - just go in the lane it tells you

  • Pixelphoria@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    “What do you mean, why’s it got to be built?” he said. “It’s a bypass. You’ve got to build bypasses.” Bypasses are devices that allow some people to dash from point A to point B very fast while other people dash from point B to point A very fast.