I've been seeing this a lot lately. Lots of bandwagoning going on. It is what it is though. People are fallible and often just follow the herd instead of thinking.
I agree
I agree
You agree
We all agree for ice gree
I really like this comment
Like Reddit, Lemmy is full of hive mind individuals who like to confirm their bias.
Most people are emotional and when challenged find it easier to justify their position rather than consider that they are wrong. So yeah, people will argue shit just to argue it.
Damn did you drink a truth serum before writing that?
Yeah. Either way, most people are rationalising and reactive, not rational. If you try to tell someone eating meat is bad because factory farming is abhorrent, many people will defend their actions and avoid direct accountability rather than admit or consider the problems that they support.
Reddit had a lot of problems. Some of them were caused by having people as admins. Some were caused by having people as mods. Some were caused by having people as users.
Lemmy also has people as admins, mods, and users, so it will see many of the same problems.
Though Lemmy won't necessarily turn into Reddit because it's designed to have competition among the admins, so they are less likely to get a sense of "they don't have a choice even if they don't like what we're doing".
I'm looking forward to Lemmy growing and the freedom it provides. Being banned by rogue admins then to be unbanned then 3 months later being banned then unbanned, all with zero explanation was so irksome.
It still happens here, especially on .world.
A circlejerk community where facts are thrown out the window. Doesnt matter where its hosted, social media just going to keep doing what its doing.
It seems like there is at least one down vote for every comment that gets enough attention for a few upvotes. I assume there is someone here who just really likes downvoting.
That and, at least on Memmy mobile, you swipe right to upvote and swipe slightly further right to down vote. Also upvote color is orange and downvote color is blue, which is counter intuitive to me personally. So if I get a few downvotes on a comment I think is awesome, I just figure it was an accident and someone was trying to upvote me. Because I'm awesome and who would down vote me?
ETA: See?! 👇 Thanks for the attempted upvote, kind stranger!
Ugh the swiping... I need to find a different web app cause Voyager is so buggy about how far I need to swipe to do anything and I'm apparently not pixel perfect enough for it.
I’ve def seen it both ways, lots of this person/this thing is bad types of threads on here with tons of people agreeing while spewing out pure nonsense
I think Elon is a fuckwit but come on use some common sense it’s nowhere near treason this person has legitimately no clue what they are talking about and it’s upvoted to shit
On the other hand I’ve commented about stuff on here and if I had said the same things on Reddit I would have gotten downvotes, comments deleted or banned, and instead the comments were upvoted instead.
Idgaf about upvotes or downvotes it’s just interesting to see what the majority of people think is reasonable and that’s the way they show it.
Yea I saw that and thought about commenting but figured it would of been hitting my head on a brick wall. It's funny how people went from loving him to despising him all because they were told to because he brought Twitter
Uhh no I went to not liking him because it became more apparent he was a narcissistic man-child that didn't like being said no to and, despite that being somewhat good in pushing some companies he owns to make incredible products that could have been done by anyone with the right push and access to modern technology, he spent his time wanting people to love him for everything he said even when it was a garbage submarine idea and decided to punish people who didn't agree with him and focused on saving children's lives.
If you are wrapped around twitter as your only comment on him your attention span is too short. There is plenty of other reasons to hate the guy and still reason to respect his investments
People doesn't imply everyone bud, this was my anecdotal observation of Internet sentiments changing on Elon coincided with around the time of his Twitter purchase.
And I'm telling you the ball started rolling down that hill well before that and twitter just was an easy place to pick up more steam.
But there are plenty of people that started to hate on him just because he lied about delivery date on all his car models and the cyber truck. I saw one person swap when he had the intern come out in a spandex suit with a fake robot head on.
You are ascribing to much importance a social media site because it has a vocal community, you said they were told to hate on him and I'm informing you he made it easy to have an anti-audience, and anyone with an actual opinion on him likely cares about more than one dumb purchase
Right as someone who never cared about him as is a casual 30,000 ft observer it appears that it was the catalyst for distain for Elon to be main stream. Nothing about what I'm saying is disagreeing with you. Would you agree that the general consensus is that's when people, "woke up" to Elon?
I think it's when people who never heard of him or cared what he was doing became aware of his presence and it just expanded the size of the crowds that both love him and hate him.
I think it's less than it didn't reveal anything new about him but simply expanded the pool that couldn't avoid hearing about him. I think this is just the result of him attention seeking and it working. But I do agree that people who cared about Twitter and didn't care before likely started hating him. But God I hope it's for more than something petty like that.
You said initially that they were told to hate him for twitter and I disagree that anyone told people to hate him for that but simply people that had plenty of reason to had more people hearing his name than before and we could talk about his actual shittiness
Sorry I was implying that individuals such as yourself were finally being listened to and that the Twitter acquisition is was turned peoples ears on to it thus spreading the message.
Cars bad. Upvotes plz!
square feet must look funny
I can only imagine they meant 60% of the front view of the house. Otherwise that just seems insane.
It's interesting you're proving your point by your own post being upvoted right now.
The initial number of 42% isn't that far off of reality. My own garage/shop is 36% right now. And I will at some point add onto it. Right now it is 25'x32' and I would like another 20' on it. Then it would be 25'x52' and 48%. And I live right in town, on a regular 1/4 acre lot.
There are defintely houses in Wisconsin here that are at 60%. I can go on realtor.com right now and find properties with large pole sheds and garage spaces that account for 60%.
I don't see any claims of majority, just that it can happen. And it definitely does, unless you don't consider steel frame buildings and pole sheds, but why wouldn't you? Here is one example, and another example, and another example, but I could find plenty of others. Just go on realtor.com search Wisconsin and set garage spaces to 3+ and maximum home size to 2250 sq feet and you will see plenty of examples of 60% and even greater.
Another one.Another one. Okay. I'm done now because I'm starting to get garage envy looking at some of these.
I don't know if I'm supposed to upvote you because I like your comment or downvote you for being right.
Use one instance for the upvote, and one instance for the downvote, and then tell everyone Drew Carrie was right, the points don't matter.
They never mattered. Mostly.
Also, I wish votes weren't a thing. I think they miss the point.
unless you don’t consider steel frame buildings and pole sheds, but why wouldn’t you?
You do not, in fact, count those buildings towards your houses square footage. Doing so would open yourself up to all sorts of liability.
Covered, enclosed porches can only be included if heated and using the same system as the rest of the house.
Garages, pool houses, guest houses, or any rooms that require you to leave the finished area of the main house to gain access are not counted in the square footage of a house. source
The only common situations in which the exact size of a home may be legally important would be:
For tax appraisal purposes
For qualifying for a certain mortgage or home equity loan
If a buyer has already bought, or at least has signed a contract on a home, and now claims that fraud was committed because the home is not as large as advertised. source
For further considerations of those that are interested (ANSI Draft, figure 1, page 6, outside source as the real ansi website is just atrocious to navigate and I'm not gonna dox myself by loading up local code.)
As shown, the upper-level plan has an open foyer and a protruding window that does not extend to the floor; neither area contributes to the square footage of the upper level. The calculated finished square footage of the entry level does not include the protruding fireplace, covered patio, garage, or unfinished laundry. The finished area of the basement is counted toward the below- grade finished square footage in its entirety, including the area under the stairs that descend from the entry level. The area of the unfinished utility room is calculated by using the method prescribed in the standard but is not included in the below-grade finished square footage.
All that aside, you're slapping a 25'x52' shed onto your 1/4 acre property? That's almost 20% of your land use not including lot encroachment setback, drainage, and basic driveway/building infrastructure. It's your property so definitely do as you wish, but to think this is a common practice or a desirable thing outside of niche hobbyists or being used for work related activities/storage is nonsense. Neighborhood flooding, no natural green spaces for habitats, it all sounds like a horrible dystopia on your mini-compound.
You do not, in fact, count those buildings towards your houses square footage. Doing so would open yourself up to all sorts of liability.
You don't count garage spaces as square footage of a house either, so what is your point? If he's comparing garage space footage to living quarter footage, then you should also include pole sheds into that equation. Fucking think about it... use the context of this conversation, and attempt to apply a little critical thinking.
All that aside, you’re slapping a 25’x52’ shed onto your 1/4 acre property? That’s almost 20% of your land use not including lot encroachment setback, drainage, and basic driveway/building infrastructure. It’s your property so definitely do as you wish, but to think this is a common practice or a desirable thing outside of niche hobbyists or being used for work related activities/storage is nonsense.
No, not adding a shed, extending my garage/shop. It has steel siding, nice windows, fully insulated 6 inch walls finished with osb on the inside, ceiling with tons of lighting, a ceiling mounted hot dawg furnace that takes it from 20F to 60F in literally 10 minutes, and perfect concrete with a drain.
Neighborhood flooding, no natural green spaces for habitats, it all sounds like a horrible dystopia on your mini-compound.
A lot of people use their garages for other things than just storing vehicles. Feel free to take a look at my YouTube videos to see how nice my garage/shop is setup now. And how nice my fenced in backyard looks, and how the garage doesn't take away from it, nor would adding the 20' onto the back of it. And how nicely this and my house all sit on this property. Then you can stop talking out of your ass, thanks buddy! Again, this OP has really been proving his point in a roundabout way, a lot of people in here like you talking out of their asses and getting upvotes.
Nice to see you showing your ass on a pedantic post like this.
outside of niche hobbyists or being used for work related activities/storage is nonsense
oh look, you fit the exact description I referred to! The context of this conversation is about a mass land development, try to fucking think about it.
No, not adding a shed, extending my garage/shop... perfect concrete with a drain.
perfect concrete?... you do know a drain has to lead somewhere right? Into the surrounding area which if it was all developed like you've done would cause problems. "Slapping" refers to adding on or new but I see I hit a nerve talking about your "bestest shed". Would be interesting to see the videos but I try not to support creators who are assholes and your descriptive reply does nothing for the conversation. Again, you're helping prove the point that a few anecdotal observations isn't the norm or recommended but seems to get upvotes. Continue arguing on though, love to see the hot gas pouring out of more than a hawt dog furnace.
Into the surrounding area which if it was all developed like you’ve done would cause problems.
You just can't help but talk out of your ass about things you know nothing about, huh? Have you ever heard of a dry well or a catch basin? And nothing but snow melt goes down into it anyway. What is with people that quite obviously have no experience on a topic talking so confidently out of their asses? It is the Dunning-Kruger effect on full display with you. I mean, you're the person that came in swinging about living quarter square footage as a counter to pole sheds without realizing it also doesn't apply to garages either... so what more can I actually expect? Just stop embarrassing yourself.
The context of this conversation is about a mass land development, try to fucking think about it.
No, the context of this post is about upvoting incorrect information, and downvoting correct information.
Again, you’re helping prove the point that a few anecdotal observations isn’t the norm
And you're again proving the point that you have horrible reading comprehension. No one made the claim that it is the norm, the claim was, "Sometimes, the garage is more than 60% of the whole house." And that is absolutely true.
You're really latching onto that sometimes bit hard aren't you?
the context of this post is about upvoting incorrect information, and downvoting correct information.
....information about..... come on.... you almost got it. I'm glad you learned about catch basins, unfortunate that you believe it negates any water run-off. You do have an outlet from the basin right? Is this a magical abyss of a basin that catches all the run off from your 3k sq ft structures and you think it'll never fill up?
I see you're already engaging with the OP and admitted to having horrible reading comprehension since you couldn't discern the original intent of the post. But then you continue on with the SoMEtIMEs!! rhetoric. As you've stated, you're a niche land owner who is ACTIVELY adding on to an already oversized shed, your land wasn't originally developed that way nor is that a practice that's done without an active home owner who has stated those needs to the builders. No one is going around developing 60%, sOmETiMeS! people add on as is their right after purchasing. Love your use of picking and choosing through the argument, truly impressive.
You've proven yourself to be a know-nothing blowhard over and over by now... so it should come as no surprise when I tell you this, but... I think you're a fool, and I don't consider your opinion whatsoever. Honestly, you should probably get some help based on how adamantly you refuse to admit wrong when it's been quite obvious. Might be some underlying issues there. In any event, stay mad about being called out or learn from this, grow, and be happy. I have better things to do than argue with a confidently wrong blowhard that is continually arguing tangents to delay the inevitable of facing reality and admitting they are wrong. You've embarrassed yourself enough, you've wasted enough of my time. Deuces!
Be still my heart, apparently it matters because you've lost all words and have gone the typical route of insults. I hope that's how you learn and are happy, to think you actually had any factual knowledge to have a conversation with is my fault. This replies screams of something you're dying to tell yourself in a mirror, you're not even pointing out what I need to admit to so I'm assuming it's a message to yourself. Have fun crying in your shed and make sure to clean your basin often, you can think of me next time you're out there.
Excellent point. The initial intent of my squabble wasn't trying to deny that counter-examples exist, just that when comparing 100 houses to 100 apartments, that there seemed to be losses in living space for the apartment (law of averages and whatnot).
I had made another comment on that /c/FuckCars thread that calculated that if all of the homes had 1-car garages (which is not uncommon for a lot of dense low-density suburbs), then the homes would be 1740 SqFt with the garage / 1500 SqFt Livable, and the apartments would be 1009 SqFt livable. So a 33% loss of livable space in the image with what I would consider a reasonable assumption.
Fair enough, but that is not discernible from the post. You're highlighting what they are saying, and all they are saying is, "Sometimes, the garage is more than 60% of the whole house." And you are implying with this post that it is factually incorrect, when it is in fact true.
Larger garages are more environmentally friendly. My garage is huge compared to my house. It has 2 cars, a laundry, and all of the stuff I don't use every day.
This is an area that is not heated or cooled. By having all the storage in the garage, I can get by with less living space.
Garages are cheaper per square metre than rooms, so you save money there too.
You get all the stuff into the same size house, but with less building materials, less heating and cooling costs, and less clutter in your house.
Wouldn’t it be more environmentally friendly to store your cars outside and not have a garage?
My car is 20 years old and has zero rust. The environmental footprint of manufacturing a car is huge. They last much longer in a garage. It also doesn't need to get washed as often. Washing has an environmental overhead too.
No, because it gets dirty and damaged more often meaning you need to clean and repair it more often.
My car lives outside and I literally don’t do anything to it besides oil changes and occasional tire replacements. If all you have is a daily driver you really don’t need a garage.
Do you live in a place that gets lots of snow? I hear a car is practically immortal in California; unlike Ohio where the salt/brine destroying the car slowly every winter.
Yes but why would my car accumulate road salt while sitting in my driveway and how would storing it in a garage make this less of a problem?
But the brine comes from de-iced roads, so it's irrelevant to whether the car is parked in a garage. Maybe roadside parking could expose it to more brine due to passing traffic.
Downvoting it just for using imperial units✊
If they add in the driveway the area would probably be about the same as the house.
If we also add in the necessary roads and parking lots,it is pretty obvious that cars are creating a self-induced demand.
We need to have cars because we need to drive around space for cars.
Still beats the space and maintenance needs of a horse and buggy.
And the maintenance! I've shoveled horse shit for a living before, and let me tell ya, turning a wrench is much better.
You ain't wrong.
When you accidentally consider your hyperbole to be factual.
This just gets worse when you use what developers call a two car garage now. 24x24 would be awesome, it's more like 18x20 now despite bigger cars.
We are in that bucket and in this stupid country there aren't many smaller cars anymore. We're looking for a decent EV that is small and would fit in our garage. I think we have like, 2 options. Everything out there is some crossover SUV bullshit. I don't want a giant car, I just want something smaller and comfortable for 2 people.
This sort of thing has always happened.
I do find it particularly infuriating when it's a topic I'm knowledgeable in/involves my profession. But then I remember most people are stupid and it doesn't bother me too much.
I've had the "You don't work in X do you?" or the "tell me you don't know about X without telling me you don't work in X". Oh boy my fucking bachelors and masters and years of experience in the field say otherwise FFS!
But then I remember most people are stupid and it doesn’t both me too much.
Great mantra to live by.
r/ELI5 was terrible for this
/r/ArgueLikeYouAre5
Many users vote based on emotions here. I often see well written comments with the sources linked and everything, being downvoted, and some low effort reply with an opinion is upvoted, though factually incorrect.
I see that a lot too. This is the art of rhetoric, politics. Not facts. Voting is a human thing. You have to appeal to the human.
Blame the system. Rating system was a good idea to encourage community self-moderation. But,most people treat upvotes/downvotes as likes/dislikes, even when specifically asked to use them differently. And, because of that, places with rating systems inevitably boil down to circlejerking, infobubbles, and tribalism. Too bad the only alternatives are spamholes, chaotic messes with power-tripping moderators, and AI blackboxes designed to control your mind.
AI blackboxes designed to control your mind.
They aren't designed to control your mind but to make money. The mind thing is a side effect.
They wanna make paperclips. The money is a side effect.
People are people. People like to feel good about themselves. Vanity is still the Devil's favourite sin.
Omg, who fucking cares?
Exactly, who cares about the arrows. Sometimes I vote, sometimes I don't. Sometimes my finger slips and I hit the wrong arrow anyway. I don't bother to change it so I take my place as an arbiter of chaos.
Fuckcars is just a cult anyway, they go REEEE at any suggestion that cars are a necessity for many people, and that no busses nor bikes will ever compensate for it.
I've followed the FuckCars community for a while (started on reddit). Being one of them car fuckers myself I would disagree. There certainly are people there whose thought process doesn't go much further than car = bad, but boiling the whole community down to that does a disservice to their more important points. I think most people there aren't so much advocating for less cars as much as they are advocating for policy and societal change toward a world where we aren't so reliant on cars. Obviously for a massive chunk of the world population (especially in North America) cars are a necessity like you said, but do they need to be? Wouldn't we all be better off if the world was less car dependent? We aren't saying that there should be no more cars, just that we shouldn't continue to design our cities in such a way that you need a car to live.
If you are interested in more about where the fuckcars comunity is coming from I would recommend checking out the youtube channel Not Just Bikes. All of his videos are great but I think this one is a good intro to the channel. I also like this one because it outlines a lot of the specific "first step" type things that could be much better (most applicable to north america). Also, his Strong Towns Video Series is really good if you have the time.
Thank you for your well thought out, non-reactionary response. This is the energy we need on lemmy. Not more knee-jerk outrage.
As a European, its funny watching these guys talk about "Europe" as this pure implementation of their motorphobic utopia.
A lot of us still drive daily yanks!
Still. I live near Mannheim, out of the 8 people in my circle of close friends, 4 either outright do not own a car or share a car with their spouses, because their households can make do with one or less cars. They can absolutely make do with walking, bikes, tram, bus and train for everything in their daily lives. In many american cities of the same size, that would simply not be an option.
Weird how it's literally impossible to ever live without something no one had 100 years ago
People with chronic diseases: yeah, crazy right?
Are you going to be first in line to give up your computer? Your phone? Antibiotics? Vaccines? Electricity?
Innovation is real, even if you don't personally like it. Motor vehicles are a legitimately good invention, arguably only becoming problematic due to increasing population and urbanization.
Some of them are raging right now at the idea that not everyone who hates cars wants to live in an apartment.
Its like liberals screaming when they findout you can be a liberal and a gun owner.
Or conservatives when you express socialistic rights while also limiting government.
I don't think they live in the same reality I do, or maybe they've never seen Texas? Even if my local area was designed for foot traffic, the amount of space between literally everything here would make it impossible not to rely on a car.
In DFW you can sum about any trip to somewhere you want to be to a 30 minute drive. Favorite restaurant that isn't literally right next to you? 30 minutes or an hour without tolls.
Work? That's another 30 minutes.
Wanna go to a store nicer than a Walmart? You guessed it. 30 minutes.
Get home from work around 4:30? We'll now you have a cool 5 hours of time until bed time. Subtract an hour of the gym, an hour of cooking and maybe you've got 3 hours of time to do anything else. Waiting for public transportation or wasting time walking would just cut down even more of the hours in your day.
Maybe I want more out of life than sacrificing my time to public transportation and walking.
Even if my local area was designed for foot traffic, the amount of space between literally everything here would make it impossible not to rely on a car.
If your local area was designed for foot traffic, then things wouldn't be so spread out. One of the many reasons this is so bad in america (and this is the case in DFW) are the awful parking minimum laws that have ruined so many cities. Since the 1950's new business developments have been required to have a minimum amount of parking so that even at max capacity there would be enough spots. In a less car-centric city almost any place you would need to visit regularly -be it a grocery store, a department store, or whatever else- would certainly be within walking distance of (or a short public transit hop away from) your home and work. But the parking minimum laws spread everything so far apart that to walk or bike anywhere is unimaginable, and it also isn't feasible to build up good public transit because you would need stops at every major street corner (rather than in a reasonable city where you would be taking transit hops between dense clusters of businesses and other destinations).
In DFW you can sum about any trip to somewhere you want to be to a 30 minute drive. Favorite restaurant that isn’t literally right next to you? 30 minutes or an hour without tolls. Work? That’s another 30 minutes. Wanna go to a store nicer than a Walmart? You guessed it. 30 minutes.
Get home from work around 4:30? We’ll now you have a cool 5 hours of time until bed time. Subtract an hour of the gym, an hour of cooking and maybe you’ve got 3 hours of time to do anything else. Waiting for public transportation or wasting time walking would just cut down even more of the hours in your day. Maybe I want more out of life than sacrificing my time to public transportation and walking.
You said "I don’t think they live in the same reality I do," but not only is this pretty much exactly the case in the city I live in, but I have given very similar rants when complaining about living in such a car dependent area. Honestly I was confused for a moment because you have some great points on why living in a city designed for cars sucks so much. The reason I consider myself a member of the fuckcars community isn't that I think people should walk/bike more or that I don't like cars. It's that I want our city designs to change. Walking, biking, and even public transit simply doesn't make sense in most North American cities but it doesn't have to be that way. With policy change and redesign projects over time our cities could be so much better.
You keep assuming that the living space is ~1500sq/ft for some reason; the houses I am talking about that are like this are not even half that size, but have 2 or even 3 car garages attached to them. Most of these are living quarters for field workers on the dairies and not even built to code.
Imagine a single 10x10 bedroom that has a kitchenette in it, and a room big enough to fit a shower, toilet and sink, attached to a 2 or sometimes even 3 car garage bay. That's what I see around here.
I mean, I'm not going to ask you to doxx yourself, but I'm extremely curious to know where you're seeing these homes that are, as you describe them, like 150 SqFt of livable area (10x10 studio + 5x8 bathroom) with an attached 3 car garage.
Edit: And to clarify, the 1500 was pulled out of an anecdotal average. My observations while shopping for homes here in the US have been; 2 bed / 1 bath, could be as small as 800 SqFt, but it's cramped. Whereas in middle-class suburbia, it's not uncommon to see 2500+ SqFt homes.
I've seen workers quarters like this in farms, oil fields, rural power plants etc. They're usually supposed to be for temporary or seasonal workers. Just a simple sleeping area + room for vehicles to drive to the jobsite.
I'm in a somewhat rural part of the central valley in California. Lotta dairy farms out here, and they have their own living spaces for the workers that are just absolute shitholes.
I think you're an unreasonable exception
Plenty of homes in rural NE that (while not as small as this) are still well within the 60% mark for garage ratio. They tend to double as workshops or large enough space for farm vehicle maintenance.
Considering the amount of rural settlements and farmlands / ranches around the US, I'd say it's not necessarily unreasonable. Can even find them in suburbia, albeit more rarely (have in-laws with the living space lofted over a full garage, which would put it at ~50% minimum before accounting for interior walls.)
This has the issue of always assuming a household will always live in the most space efficient way possible (2 adults in 1 bedroom with no children or others).
Assume you need 2 bedrooms (2 adults and 1 child): A 800-1,000 sq ft home in the USA is somewhere close to the 10th percentile in terms of size, so going down to ≤750 sq ft puts you near the absolute smallest 2 bedroom houses available.
The first house I lived in after college was 950 sqft. Three bedrooms. No garage. It was also built in the 50’s. It worked for three (and then later four) people splitting rent.
Today developers wouldn’t dare put such a house on the type of lot it was on because it couldn’t be profitable.
same as i have commented in another orange app, people aren't supposed to make sense, so one should spare oneself the frustartion
I don't know the full context of this conversation, but is it normal for homes to have large garages? I live in a 620 sq foot house (way too small, I have only one kid), and no garage. I wouldn't even want a garage, I have a driveway? Some of my neighbors have garages but they are not that large, they certainly don't make up 50% of their space, but some of them 1/3rd, if their house is smaller. Most houses in my neighborhood are bigger than my house but not huge.
Depends where you live; large garages can be normal. Obviously not 60% of the space, but garages can seriously help protect vehicles and you from the elements. They're great if you have severe winters, frequent rain, strong sunshine, and are now helpful for electric car charging.
That's a good point, we do have hail and tornados where I live. But I guess growing up poor we just accepted damage to vehicles. Not that I'm saying it's ideal, just that I hadn't really considered it an avoidable part of life.
Don't forget it helps deter thieves as well. Smash and grabs, catalytic converter thefts, etc. Also if you have other vehicles like bicycles/motorcycles then you'll definitely want them inside a garage vs outside where they're visible and more vulnerable.
My bikes and lawnmower are in a really small shed. I do wish we had a bigger shed though mainly because we have to stack the bikes on top of the lawnmower so it's a big hassle with my wife and I both being disabled to unpack and repack the shed every time the grass needs cut. So a garage would help with that too. I guess I want a small garage now, you've sold me haha. Still can't afford it though.
Our severe weather season includes hail and tornadoes so garages are fairly common.
🤓
But I thought downvotes didn't matter. 🤷
I thought you guys said they're both a necessary tool for community regulation and completely irrelevant to normal conversation on Lemmy.
Yet here we are.
why are you adding the garage area to the home area? wouldn't that deflate the value when comparing the size of the garage to the size of the house?
It is from a discussion about land use for suburban houses vs high-rise.
Ngl my dream house is a 400sq ft loft style apartment with an 8 car garage.
I treat them like AntiWork, it’s fun to visit the zoo but living in one means dealing with a lot of random shit.
This seems very unhealthy. Maybe go take a stroll around the block?
Edit: I’m referring to OP or whoever it was that made this image
I, for one, welcome quality posts
I love how lemmy is divided but coexisting.
I actually hate that about Lemmy
I'm pretty indifferent about it but just lonely.
How exactly is doing the math unhealthy? This is like 60 seconds of math and a few minutes of graphics at most.
I'd rather have someone doing the math and posting it than people becoming misinformed on an important political topic. I think that's what OP was after.
Unhealthy to prove your point by doing the math and helping convince people with an illustration? That's just good practice on critical thinking. Maybe you need to go take a stroll around the block.
That's exactly what came to my mind
Fuck /fuckcars
They actually want to bulldoze so much, just so we can cram more people in closer together. And no, no one wants to be walking around when its 90+ degrees out, or literally freezing.
Ive never seen any calls to bulldoze anything. We do a lot of complaining about how much was bulldozed to fill landscapes with stroads and parking lots. And dont act like we're not calling for buses and trains as well. Have you stopped and thought about why it's too hot to walk around now?
Now? Its been too hot since the dinosaurs walked the planet.
Ill give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean even if it was pre-global warming cooler it'd be too hot to walk. It's still extended those periods where it's too hot and cold to walk. Plus, again, we also call for buses and trains and trams for your air conditioned travel needs.
Benefit of the doubt? What other intepretation is there?
like denying that the earth has been warming
Oh. Yeah, on second read, I can definitely see how you might get that, I shouldve worded it differently.
"We should allow higher density and missing middle housing to be built and promote alternatives to cars" == "We want to bulldoze everything"?
They throw out all nuance and have absolutely no empathy or consideration that others need to live differently than them. Or hell, need to live differently than them in order to support their own lifestyle. I swear 90% of them have never lived outside the city they were born in.
OK so the majority of people has to cut back on so much, especially a safe environment to get places, just so a few people with a car fetish can keep buying bigger and bigger cars. Got it.
We're very quickly moving to a place where the QUANTITY of people is so high, the QUALITY of their lifestyles have to be sacrificed to cut down on human impact. The impoverished/developing world has very low impact, at huge cost to their quality of life. Who wants to volunteer to live like sub-saharan Africans, or Indians in abject poverty to cut down on human impact? I'm certain they don't want that life - and why should they? I'm sure they would like to travel on a jet to a beach vacation like those in more affluent countries do.
I'm calling this eco-austerity. Instead of publicizing overpopulation and promoting low birth rates, we're expected to belt tighten and give up on quality of life. It's bullshit. We should have <1B people living like kings, not 10B people living like peasants.
Who says you have to live like people sub Saharan Africa?
Just rake a look at how much of the pollution in America comes from the richest 10%. Same thing in Germany. Those people need to seriously cut down. And everyone else needs to reconsider if the 300m trip to the supermarket is really necessary to go by car. Or if it's really necessary to have a fucking 3ton monstrosity of a car. Or if a small car like a fiat 500 isn't actually enough.
You're off by a factor of 4 on the grocery distance for the last 3 places I've lived, and those stores were CLOSE. It's like 100cc of petrol to go that far, 200cc round trip, in lieu of 40+ minutes of fast walking (in which you can only carry limited groceries). I know all about it because I've done the walk many times when I didn't have a car, and it fucking sucks.
I'd say freaking out about 200ccs of petrol to get groceries is an insane degree of austerity, and the fact that people like you are proposing that is evidence of either an irrational need to control impact, or (if justified) evidence that the world is grotesquely overpopulated.
Nobody owns 3 ton cars around here. Mine isn't even 2 tons. In fact it's pretty close in weight to a Fiat 500, while being generally more useful in every way. Everything you're presenting is a strawman/caricature of what you imagine typical suburban car owners to live like. And yes, we should all be driving electric cars, but it's not going to happen overnight.
Edit: damn near nobody on earth would drive to get groceries if the store was 300m/1000ft away. Most people will never be able to live that close to the grocery store, work, or any other place that they routinely need to visit. That's why your example is insane.
Did I talk specifically about your situation? No. But sadly enough I know a few people, that actually do exactl those kinds of trips.
And I have no idea where you live, but in most European cities (!) There's a supermarket at most 1km away. Usually closer.
The closest one to me is 300m. Work is 32 km though. But you know what? I don't own a car. Because there's public transport.
And I live in a city with pretty great public transport. And yet people with way way shorter commuting distances still tend to have fucking big SUVs and drive everywhere. Those are the people I mean.
If you don't even fit in that category, why do you even feel the need to actively defend yourself? That doesn't even make any sense?
It's hard to tell the intent of any poster, and there is a vehement anti-car movement here (and on Reddit) that allows for no exceptions to the idea that living should be done at high density, and without personal vehicles. It's hard to read your intent and beliefs because the things you said before are very similar to what I've heard from the zealots.
I'm trying to make the point that public transit easily misses on serving every origin, destination, and timing efficiently. Usually it misses badly, and my average experience with specific commutes is a 3x time penalty for transit vs driving. The penalty gets worse if done at especially early or late hours. Maybe this is exacerbated by car infrastructure and lower density, but the anti car crowd would have you believe it's intrinsic and not a function of history and preference. At any rate I usually disagree with them on almost every premise.
But that mostly just means that you have terrible public transport where you live. Not that it's inherintely bad.
If I would take a car to work, it would take me at least (!) 50 minutes (depending on traffic, usually longer). With public transport plus bike I'm at 65 minutes. So just a bit longer, but delays are pretty uncommon (maybe 3 minutes every now and then). Plus I can relax, read or watch a show. And it's incredibly cheap thanks to the Deutschlandticket (49€, but 14€ of that is payed by my employer). Only for fuel (not counting insurance, tax, repairs etc.) It would cost me at least 180€.
So yeah just this tiny delay is okay in my opinion, considering what I'm saving (money, environment, worries about a car...)
And I never said, it's the ultimate solution. I'm just saying especially those huge as cars are a fucking monstrosity more or less. Because easily 95% of users don't even need such a huge vehicle. They just want it. And don't give a fuck what that entails for the environment and for other people. (especially looking at pedestrian and bike safety).
More people should just really consider if the car they chose is really what they NEED and if every trip they are taking with it is truly necessary.
Maybe you happen to be on a route that runs well from home to work without lots of stops and no need to change lines. Can you find a destination in your city that would require a change of bus or train and incur a larger time penalty? What if your job was located there instead?
I think most people buy sensible vehicles but there are certainly people who have a truck fetish that is not justified. Unfortunately it creates an arms race where all cars get larger because there are very real risks of a collision with a larger vehicle.
I do. But I still live in the south, and my work is outside the city, to the north west of it, to be exact.
The average is 40 minutes commute time (for my city). So I'm already quite a bit off.
And yes, of course, if I lived in the south east of the city it would take me 1,5 hours at least by public transport. 40-60 minutes by car on average. But I wouldn't move there, as that is too far off.
But most of these other possible places would mean, that I would most probably also always have to drive through the city center or take a big detour outside of it. Both possibilities aren't actually preferable. So again I wouldn't live there and at the same time work at the same company.
I just need to look at one of my brothers. Lives relatively close to the center but still a bit south of it. Could take 2 subways in 30 minutes (including walking) but still decides to take the car most days where he has to drive through heavy traffic, that takes him at least the same amount of time.
So no, a lot of people aren't that sensible. They just do what they are used to and often enough even vehemently go against even the possibility of changing that with weird as excuses (smells terrible weird people, always packed, always delayed etc.) Which for most times of day and most routes just isn't true.
Just take a look at the available cars nowadays. You can barely even buy a smal car, as those aren't even produced in such a variety anymore. Because 1. People keep buying the big SUVs, and 2. Manufacturers can make way more money with those than with small cars.
Hell, in Germany they are actively debating making parking spots bigger, because the cars keep getting bigger (btw look at carsized they have a great visualization for this), instead of simply reglementaing how big cars can get, before they are either forbidden or so heavily taxed that it's just not worth to buy something large.
I generally agree with you about fuckcars. They're sanctimonious assholes. But when it comes to housing, suburban sprawl is always bad.
This is exactly the point I've been making to them. I think it's a bunch of people who have never lived outside of a major city, or grew up in new-construction actual suburban hell like Phoenix, DFW, Vegas, most of FL etc. Try old Midwest small city suburbs by comparison. Maybe parts of the northeast.
They probably couldn't afford a car after used car prices spiked sometime between 2000-2010, and never experienced the freedom and autonomy. They can't imagine not being into a downtown club scene - it hasn't dawned on them that they will probably grow up and hate living in a congested apartment world and might want to stretch out in a bigger house in a quiet neighborhood. It's never occurred to them that not everyone works from home and their spouse may need to take a job 20 miles in the opposite direction.
Do you sell your house because your job changed? Get divorced because your partner's job changed? You can't have ALL of the employment in easy reach by public transit from your home. This ideal-city with perfect transit and no commute is a handwave. UNLESS you live in a sufficiently small town that has everything but hasn't blown up yet - and those aren't dense enough for transit, and require personal vehicles.
Public transit is also more inconvenient than convenient even if you give it a maximum advantage in density and stipulate that the trains will run 24/7 and frequently (NYC).
It's just inexperience with life or being an urban loving weirdo who can't imagine that other perspectives exist. I want to spend all of my free time in places you couldn't service with transit. They can't even imagine it.
And no, no one wants to be walking around when its 90+ degrees out
That's why they want shade, goober.
Even with shade, it's hot.
You sound like such a baby.
We're all babies here. Every. Single. One of us. Bebe.
We sure are but I'm not throwing a hissy fit at the thought of being outside.
Yeah, they're pretty much ACAB now but cars instead of cops.
EDIT: Before anyone even says it. Bad cops suck. Cars do not suck. Big lifted trucks are ass. I wish I could make a 4 wheeler street legal.
Cars absolutely do suck.
I make a living out of my car, so in my case, I'll just have to disagree.
If a good amount of drivers walked or took public transit/bikes instead, wouldn't that make your job easier?
Of course, sure. Problem is, I'm in the Detroit Metro area so good luck prying the F150s out of people's hands around here. Second off, with the plans fuck cars has there'd be areas where I'd have to park and walk to deliver stuff. I already have one outdoor mall I deliver to and it fucking blows having to park and walk all that way because 99% of the time I'm marked as late because it takes so long to deliver shit there. I'm not a slow walker either.
So yes, less traffic would be nice. Will that ever happen in this particular city? Hell no.
I've been seeing this a lot lately. Lots of bandwagoning going on. It is what it is though. People are fallible and often just follow the herd instead of thinking.
I agree
I agree
You agree
We all agree for ice gree
I really like this comment
Like Reddit, Lemmy is full of hive mind individuals who like to confirm their bias.
Most people are emotional and when challenged find it easier to justify their position rather than consider that they are wrong. So yeah, people will argue shit just to argue it.
Damn did you drink a truth serum before writing that?
Yeah. Either way, most people are rationalising and reactive, not rational. If you try to tell someone eating meat is bad because factory farming is abhorrent, many people will defend their actions and avoid direct accountability rather than admit or consider the problems that they support.
Reddit had a lot of problems. Some of them were caused by having people as admins. Some were caused by having people as mods. Some were caused by having people as users.
Lemmy also has people as admins, mods, and users, so it will see many of the same problems.
Though Lemmy won't necessarily turn into Reddit because it's designed to have competition among the admins, so they are less likely to get a sense of "they don't have a choice even if they don't like what we're doing".
I'm looking forward to Lemmy growing and the freedom it provides. Being banned by rogue admins then to be unbanned then 3 months later being banned then unbanned, all with zero explanation was so irksome.
It still happens here, especially on .world.
A circlejerk community where facts are thrown out the window. Doesnt matter where its hosted, social media just going to keep doing what its doing.
It seems like there is at least one down vote for every comment that gets enough attention for a few upvotes. I assume there is someone here who just really likes downvoting.
That and, at least on Memmy mobile, you swipe right to upvote and swipe slightly further right to down vote. Also upvote color is orange and downvote color is blue, which is counter intuitive to me personally. So if I get a few downvotes on a comment I think is awesome, I just figure it was an accident and someone was trying to upvote me. Because I'm awesome and who would down vote me?
ETA: See?! 👇 Thanks for the attempted upvote, kind stranger!
Ugh the swiping... I need to find a different web app cause Voyager is so buggy about how far I need to swipe to do anything and I'm apparently not pixel perfect enough for it.
I’ve def seen it both ways, lots of this person/this thing is bad types of threads on here with tons of people agreeing while spewing out pure nonsense
Like this https://lemmy.world/comment/3213143
I think Elon is a fuckwit but come on use some common sense it’s nowhere near treason this person has legitimately no clue what they are talking about and it’s upvoted to shit
On the other hand I’ve commented about stuff on here and if I had said the same things on Reddit I would have gotten downvotes, comments deleted or banned, and instead the comments were upvoted instead.
Idgaf about upvotes or downvotes it’s just interesting to see what the majority of people think is reasonable and that’s the way they show it.
Yea I saw that and thought about commenting but figured it would of been hitting my head on a brick wall. It's funny how people went from loving him to despising him all because they were told to because he brought Twitter
Uhh no I went to not liking him because it became more apparent he was a narcissistic man-child that didn't like being said no to and, despite that being somewhat good in pushing some companies he owns to make incredible products that could have been done by anyone with the right push and access to modern technology, he spent his time wanting people to love him for everything he said even when it was a garbage submarine idea and decided to punish people who didn't agree with him and focused on saving children's lives.
If you are wrapped around twitter as your only comment on him your attention span is too short. There is plenty of other reasons to hate the guy and still reason to respect his investments
People doesn't imply everyone bud, this was my anecdotal observation of Internet sentiments changing on Elon coincided with around the time of his Twitter purchase.
And I'm telling you the ball started rolling down that hill well before that and twitter just was an easy place to pick up more steam.
But there are plenty of people that started to hate on him just because he lied about delivery date on all his car models and the cyber truck. I saw one person swap when he had the intern come out in a spandex suit with a fake robot head on.
You are ascribing to much importance a social media site because it has a vocal community, you said they were told to hate on him and I'm informing you he made it easy to have an anti-audience, and anyone with an actual opinion on him likely cares about more than one dumb purchase
Right as someone who never cared about him as is a casual 30,000 ft observer it appears that it was the catalyst for distain for Elon to be main stream. Nothing about what I'm saying is disagreeing with you. Would you agree that the general consensus is that's when people, "woke up" to Elon?
I think it's when people who never heard of him or cared what he was doing became aware of his presence and it just expanded the size of the crowds that both love him and hate him.
I think it's less than it didn't reveal anything new about him but simply expanded the pool that couldn't avoid hearing about him. I think this is just the result of him attention seeking and it working. But I do agree that people who cared about Twitter and didn't care before likely started hating him. But God I hope it's for more than something petty like that.
You said initially that they were told to hate him for twitter and I disagree that anyone told people to hate him for that but simply people that had plenty of reason to had more people hearing his name than before and we could talk about his actual shittiness
Sorry I was implying that individuals such as yourself were finally being listened to and that the Twitter acquisition is was turned peoples ears on to it thus spreading the message.
Cars bad. Upvotes plz!
square feet must look funny
I can only imagine they meant 60% of the front view of the house. Otherwise that just seems insane.
It's interesting you're proving your point by your own post being upvoted right now.
The initial number of 42% isn't that far off of reality. My own garage/shop is 36% right now. And I will at some point add onto it. Right now it is 25'x32' and I would like another 20' on it. Then it would be 25'x52' and 48%. And I live right in town, on a regular 1/4 acre lot.
There are defintely houses in Wisconsin here that are at 60%. I can go on realtor.com right now and find properties with large pole sheds and garage spaces that account for 60%.
I don't see any claims of majority, just that it can happen. And it definitely does, unless you don't consider steel frame buildings and pole sheds, but why wouldn't you? Here is one example, and another example, and another example, but I could find plenty of others. Just go on realtor.com search Wisconsin and set garage spaces to 3+ and maximum home size to 2250 sq feet and you will see plenty of examples of 60% and even greater.
Another one. Another one. Okay. I'm done now because I'm starting to get garage envy looking at some of these.
I don't know if I'm supposed to upvote you because I like your comment or downvote you for being right.
Use one instance for the upvote, and one instance for the downvote, and then tell everyone Drew Carrie was right, the points don't matter.
They never mattered. Mostly.
Also, I wish votes weren't a thing. I think they miss the point.
You do not, in fact, count those buildings towards your houses square footage. Doing so would open yourself up to all sorts of liability.
For further considerations of those that are interested (ANSI Draft, figure 1, page 6, outside source as the real ansi website is just atrocious to navigate and I'm not gonna dox myself by loading up local code.)
All that aside, you're slapping a 25'x52' shed onto your 1/4 acre property? That's almost 20% of your land use not including lot encroachment setback, drainage, and basic driveway/building infrastructure. It's your property so definitely do as you wish, but to think this is a common practice or a desirable thing outside of niche hobbyists or being used for work related activities/storage is nonsense. Neighborhood flooding, no natural green spaces for habitats, it all sounds like a horrible dystopia on your mini-compound.
You don't count garage spaces as square footage of a house either, so what is your point? If he's comparing garage space footage to living quarter footage, then you should also include pole sheds into that equation. Fucking think about it... use the context of this conversation, and attempt to apply a little critical thinking.
No, not adding a shed, extending my garage/shop. It has steel siding, nice windows, fully insulated 6 inch walls finished with osb on the inside, ceiling with tons of lighting, a ceiling mounted hot dawg furnace that takes it from 20F to 60F in literally 10 minutes, and perfect concrete with a drain.
A lot of people use their garages for other things than just storing vehicles. Feel free to take a look at my YouTube videos to see how nice my garage/shop is setup now. And how nice my fenced in backyard looks, and how the garage doesn't take away from it, nor would adding the 20' onto the back of it. And how nicely this and my house all sit on this property. Then you can stop talking out of your ass, thanks buddy! Again, this OP has really been proving his point in a roundabout way, a lot of people in here like you talking out of their asses and getting upvotes.
Nice to see you showing your ass on a pedantic post like this.
oh look, you fit the exact description I referred to! The context of this conversation is about a mass land development, try to fucking think about it.
perfect concrete?... you do know a drain has to lead somewhere right? Into the surrounding area which if it was all developed like you've done would cause problems. "Slapping" refers to adding on or new but I see I hit a nerve talking about your "bestest shed". Would be interesting to see the videos but I try not to support creators who are assholes and your descriptive reply does nothing for the conversation. Again, you're helping prove the point that a few anecdotal observations isn't the norm or recommended but seems to get upvotes. Continue arguing on though, love to see the hot gas pouring out of more than a hawt dog furnace.
You just can't help but talk out of your ass about things you know nothing about, huh? Have you ever heard of a dry well or a catch basin? And nothing but snow melt goes down into it anyway. What is with people that quite obviously have no experience on a topic talking so confidently out of their asses? It is the Dunning-Kruger effect on full display with you. I mean, you're the person that came in swinging about living quarter square footage as a counter to pole sheds without realizing it also doesn't apply to garages either... so what more can I actually expect? Just stop embarrassing yourself.
No, the context of this post is about upvoting incorrect information, and downvoting correct information.
And you're again proving the point that you have horrible reading comprehension. No one made the claim that it is the norm, the claim was, "Sometimes, the garage is more than 60% of the whole house." And that is absolutely true.
You're really latching onto that sometimes bit hard aren't you?
....information about..... come on.... you almost got it. I'm glad you learned about catch basins, unfortunate that you believe it negates any water run-off. You do have an outlet from the basin right? Is this a magical abyss of a basin that catches all the run off from your 3k sq ft structures and you think it'll never fill up?
I see you're already engaging with the OP and admitted to having horrible reading comprehension since you couldn't discern the original intent of the post. But then you continue on with the SoMEtIMEs!! rhetoric. As you've stated, you're a niche land owner who is ACTIVELY adding on to an already oversized shed, your land wasn't originally developed that way nor is that a practice that's done without an active home owner who has stated those needs to the builders. No one is going around developing 60%, sOmETiMeS! people add on as is their right after purchasing. Love your use of picking and choosing through the argument, truly impressive.
You've proven yourself to be a know-nothing blowhard over and over by now... so it should come as no surprise when I tell you this, but... I think you're a fool, and I don't consider your opinion whatsoever. Honestly, you should probably get some help based on how adamantly you refuse to admit wrong when it's been quite obvious. Might be some underlying issues there. In any event, stay mad about being called out or learn from this, grow, and be happy. I have better things to do than argue with a confidently wrong blowhard that is continually arguing tangents to delay the inevitable of facing reality and admitting they are wrong. You've embarrassed yourself enough, you've wasted enough of my time. Deuces!
Be still my heart, apparently it matters because you've lost all words and have gone the typical route of insults. I hope that's how you learn and are happy, to think you actually had any factual knowledge to have a conversation with is my fault. This replies screams of something you're dying to tell yourself in a mirror, you're not even pointing out what I need to admit to so I'm assuming it's a message to yourself. Have fun crying in your shed and make sure to clean your basin often, you can think of me next time you're out there.
Bye Felicia!
Excellent point. The initial intent of my squabble wasn't trying to deny that counter-examples exist, just that when comparing 100 houses to 100 apartments, that there seemed to be losses in living space for the apartment (law of averages and whatnot).
I had made another comment on that /c/FuckCars thread that calculated that if all of the homes had 1-car garages (which is not uncommon for a lot of dense low-density suburbs), then the homes would be 1740 SqFt with the garage / 1500 SqFt Livable, and the apartments would be 1009 SqFt livable. So a 33% loss of livable space in the image with what I would consider a reasonable assumption.
Fair enough, but that is not discernible from the post. You're highlighting what they are saying, and all they are saying is, "Sometimes, the garage is more than 60% of the whole house." And you are implying with this post that it is factually incorrect, when it is in fact true.
https://www.advancedhouseplans.com/plan/table-rock
Wow, what an awe-inspiring counter-example, lol
Am I not supposed to like that? Cause I really like that house design. Garage for days.
Holy mother of a workshop
Even there the house is a bit too large for me. That carage is nice though
Yeah the climates fucked with all this car worship
Tbf I once looked seriously at a house with a giant garage because I wanted to turn it into a huge hobby and rpg space.
Larger garages are more environmentally friendly. My garage is huge compared to my house. It has 2 cars, a laundry, and all of the stuff I don't use every day.
This is an area that is not heated or cooled. By having all the storage in the garage, I can get by with less living space.
Garages are cheaper per square metre than rooms, so you save money there too.
You get all the stuff into the same size house, but with less building materials, less heating and cooling costs, and less clutter in your house.
Wouldn’t it be more environmentally friendly to store your cars outside and not have a garage?
My car is 20 years old and has zero rust. The environmental footprint of manufacturing a car is huge. They last much longer in a garage. It also doesn't need to get washed as often. Washing has an environmental overhead too.
No, because it gets dirty and damaged more often meaning you need to clean and repair it more often.
My car lives outside and I literally don’t do anything to it besides oil changes and occasional tire replacements. If all you have is a daily driver you really don’t need a garage.
Do you live in a place that gets lots of snow? I hear a car is practically immortal in California; unlike Ohio where the salt/brine destroying the car slowly every winter.
Yes but why would my car accumulate road salt while sitting in my driveway and how would storing it in a garage make this less of a problem?
But the brine comes from de-iced roads, so it's irrelevant to whether the car is parked in a garage. Maybe roadside parking could expose it to more brine due to passing traffic.
Downvoting it just for using imperial units✊
If they add in the driveway the area would probably be about the same as the house.
If we also add in the necessary roads and parking lots,it is pretty obvious that cars are creating a self-induced demand.
We need to have cars because we need to drive around space for cars.
Still beats the space and maintenance needs of a horse and buggy.
And the maintenance! I've shoveled horse shit for a living before, and let me tell ya, turning a wrench is much better.
You ain't wrong.
When you accidentally consider your hyperbole to be factual.
This just gets worse when you use what developers call a two car garage now. 24x24 would be awesome, it's more like 18x20 now despite bigger cars.
We are in that bucket and in this stupid country there aren't many smaller cars anymore. We're looking for a decent EV that is small and would fit in our garage. I think we have like, 2 options. Everything out there is some crossover SUV bullshit. I don't want a giant car, I just want something smaller and comfortable for 2 people.
This sort of thing has always happened.
I do find it particularly infuriating when it's a topic I'm knowledgeable in/involves my profession. But then I remember most people are stupid and it doesn't bother me too much.
I've had the "You don't work in X do you?" or the "tell me you don't know about X without telling me you don't work in X". Oh boy my fucking bachelors and masters and years of experience in the field say otherwise FFS!
Great mantra to live by.
r/ELI5 was terrible for this
/r/ArgueLikeYouAre5
Many users vote based on emotions here. I often see well written comments with the sources linked and everything, being downvoted, and some low effort reply with an opinion is upvoted, though factually incorrect.
I see that a lot too. This is the art of rhetoric, politics. Not facts. Voting is a human thing. You have to appeal to the human.
Blame the system. Rating system was a good idea to encourage community self-moderation. But,most people treat upvotes/downvotes as likes/dislikes, even when specifically asked to use them differently. And, because of that, places with rating systems inevitably boil down to circlejerking, infobubbles, and tribalism. Too bad the only alternatives are spamholes, chaotic messes with power-tripping moderators, and AI blackboxes designed to control your mind.
They aren't designed to control your mind but to make money. The mind thing is a side effect.
They wanna make paperclips. The money is a side effect.
People are people. People like to feel good about themselves. Vanity is still the Devil's favourite sin.
Omg, who fucking cares?
Exactly, who cares about the arrows. Sometimes I vote, sometimes I don't. Sometimes my finger slips and I hit the wrong arrow anyway. I don't bother to change it so I take my place as an arbiter of chaos.
Fuckcars is just a cult anyway, they go REEEE at any suggestion that cars are a necessity for many people, and that no busses nor bikes will ever compensate for it.
I've followed the FuckCars community for a while (started on reddit). Being one of them car fuckers myself I would disagree. There certainly are people there whose thought process doesn't go much further than car = bad, but boiling the whole community down to that does a disservice to their more important points. I think most people there aren't so much advocating for less cars as much as they are advocating for policy and societal change toward a world where we aren't so reliant on cars. Obviously for a massive chunk of the world population (especially in North America) cars are a necessity like you said, but do they need to be? Wouldn't we all be better off if the world was less car dependent? We aren't saying that there should be no more cars, just that we shouldn't continue to design our cities in such a way that you need a car to live.
If you are interested in more about where the fuckcars comunity is coming from I would recommend checking out the youtube channel Not Just Bikes. All of his videos are great but I think this one is a good intro to the channel. I also like this one because it outlines a lot of the specific "first step" type things that could be much better (most applicable to north america). Also, his Strong Towns Video Series is really good if you have the time.
(here are a couple more because I can't help myself: Why it sucks to grow up in car-centric cities, How American cities are ponzie schemes, and His video about Stroads)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=uxykI30fS54
https://piped.video/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k
https://piped.video/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa
https://piped.video/watch?v=oHlpmxLTxpw
https://piped.video/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0
https://piped.video/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Thank you for your well thought out, non-reactionary response. This is the energy we need on lemmy. Not more knee-jerk outrage.
As a European, its funny watching these guys talk about "Europe" as this pure implementation of their motorphobic utopia.
A lot of us still drive daily yanks!
Still. I live near Mannheim, out of the 8 people in my circle of close friends, 4 either outright do not own a car or share a car with their spouses, because their households can make do with one or less cars. They can absolutely make do with walking, bikes, tram, bus and train for everything in their daily lives. In many american cities of the same size, that would simply not be an option.
Weird how it's literally impossible to ever live without something no one had 100 years ago
People with chronic diseases: yeah, crazy right?
Are you going to be first in line to give up your computer? Your phone? Antibiotics? Vaccines? Electricity?
Innovation is real, even if you don't personally like it. Motor vehicles are a legitimately good invention, arguably only becoming problematic due to increasing population and urbanization.
Some of them are raging right now at the idea that not everyone who hates cars wants to live in an apartment.
Its like liberals screaming when they findout you can be a liberal and a gun owner.
Or conservatives when you express socialistic rights while also limiting government.
I don't think they live in the same reality I do, or maybe they've never seen Texas? Even if my local area was designed for foot traffic, the amount of space between literally everything here would make it impossible not to rely on a car.
In DFW you can sum about any trip to somewhere you want to be to a 30 minute drive. Favorite restaurant that isn't literally right next to you? 30 minutes or an hour without tolls. Work? That's another 30 minutes. Wanna go to a store nicer than a Walmart? You guessed it. 30 minutes.
Get home from work around 4:30? We'll now you have a cool 5 hours of time until bed time. Subtract an hour of the gym, an hour of cooking and maybe you've got 3 hours of time to do anything else. Waiting for public transportation or wasting time walking would just cut down even more of the hours in your day. Maybe I want more out of life than sacrificing my time to public transportation and walking.
If your local area was designed for foot traffic, then things wouldn't be so spread out. One of the many reasons this is so bad in america (and this is the case in DFW) are the awful parking minimum laws that have ruined so many cities. Since the 1950's new business developments have been required to have a minimum amount of parking so that even at max capacity there would be enough spots. In a less car-centric city almost any place you would need to visit regularly -be it a grocery store, a department store, or whatever else- would certainly be within walking distance of (or a short public transit hop away from) your home and work. But the parking minimum laws spread everything so far apart that to walk or bike anywhere is unimaginable, and it also isn't feasible to build up good public transit because you would need stops at every major street corner (rather than in a reasonable city where you would be taking transit hops between dense clusters of businesses and other destinations).
You said "I don’t think they live in the same reality I do," but not only is this pretty much exactly the case in the city I live in, but I have given very similar rants when complaining about living in such a car dependent area. Honestly I was confused for a moment because you have some great points on why living in a city designed for cars sucks so much. The reason I consider myself a member of the fuckcars community isn't that I think people should walk/bike more or that I don't like cars. It's that I want our city designs to change. Walking, biking, and even public transit simply doesn't make sense in most North American cities but it doesn't have to be that way. With policy change and redesign projects over time our cities could be so much better.
I applaud your bitterness. Bravo!
It's an island! Who needs a car on an island? At least on one as small as this one.
There is a ferry to the island on which you can take your car to the mainland ;)
Just park in the mainland
Nassau, the capital of the Bahamas, is roughly shaped like an American football a bit under 20 miles long and 6 miles wide at the widest.
Not Just Bikes did a video a while back about how car dependant it is. Car dependency is unfortunately often self-reinforcing because car infrastructure is ugly and dangerous for people who aren't in cars, which pushes more people into cars.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/kdz6FeQLuHQ?si=W0YQlpf5ph6WZrwP
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I'm the blocked out poster in this.
You keep assuming that the living space is ~1500sq/ft for some reason; the houses I am talking about that are like this are not even half that size, but have 2 or even 3 car garages attached to them. Most of these are living quarters for field workers on the dairies and not even built to code.
Imagine a single 10x10 bedroom that has a kitchenette in it, and a room big enough to fit a shower, toilet and sink, attached to a 2 or sometimes even 3 car garage bay. That's what I see around here.
I mean, I'm not going to ask you to doxx yourself, but I'm extremely curious to know where you're seeing these homes that are, as you describe them, like 150 SqFt of livable area (10x10 studio + 5x8 bathroom) with an attached 3 car garage.
Edit: And to clarify, the 1500 was pulled out of an anecdotal average. My observations while shopping for homes here in the US have been; 2 bed / 1 bath, could be as small as 800 SqFt, but it's cramped. Whereas in middle-class suburbia, it's not uncommon to see 2500+ SqFt homes.
I've seen workers quarters like this in farms, oil fields, rural power plants etc. They're usually supposed to be for temporary or seasonal workers. Just a simple sleeping area + room for vehicles to drive to the jobsite.
I'm in a somewhat rural part of the central valley in California. Lotta dairy farms out here, and they have their own living spaces for the workers that are just absolute shitholes.
I think you're an unreasonable exception
Plenty of homes in rural NE that (while not as small as this) are still well within the 60% mark for garage ratio. They tend to double as workshops or large enough space for farm vehicle maintenance.
Considering the amount of rural settlements and farmlands / ranches around the US, I'd say it's not necessarily unreasonable. Can even find them in suburbia, albeit more rarely (have in-laws with the living space lofted over a full garage, which would put it at ~50% minimum before accounting for interior walls.)
This has the issue of always assuming a household will always live in the most space efficient way possible (2 adults in 1 bedroom with no children or others).
Assume you need 2 bedrooms (2 adults and 1 child): A 800-1,000 sq ft home in the USA is somewhere close to the 10th percentile in terms of size, so going down to ≤750 sq ft puts you near the absolute smallest 2 bedroom houses available.
The first house I lived in after college was 950 sqft. Three bedrooms. No garage. It was also built in the 50’s. It worked for three (and then later four) people splitting rent.
Today developers wouldn’t dare put such a house on the type of lot it was on because it couldn’t be profitable.
same as i have commented in another orange app, people aren't supposed to make sense, so one should spare oneself the frustartion
I don't know the full context of this conversation, but is it normal for homes to have large garages? I live in a 620 sq foot house (way too small, I have only one kid), and no garage. I wouldn't even want a garage, I have a driveway? Some of my neighbors have garages but they are not that large, they certainly don't make up 50% of their space, but some of them 1/3rd, if their house is smaller. Most houses in my neighborhood are bigger than my house but not huge.
Depends where you live; large garages can be normal. Obviously not 60% of the space, but garages can seriously help protect vehicles and you from the elements. They're great if you have severe winters, frequent rain, strong sunshine, and are now helpful for electric car charging.
That's a good point, we do have hail and tornados where I live. But I guess growing up poor we just accepted damage to vehicles. Not that I'm saying it's ideal, just that I hadn't really considered it an avoidable part of life.
Don't forget it helps deter thieves as well. Smash and grabs, catalytic converter thefts, etc. Also if you have other vehicles like bicycles/motorcycles then you'll definitely want them inside a garage vs outside where they're visible and more vulnerable.
My bikes and lawnmower are in a really small shed. I do wish we had a bigger shed though mainly because we have to stack the bikes on top of the lawnmower so it's a big hassle with my wife and I both being disabled to unpack and repack the shed every time the grass needs cut. So a garage would help with that too. I guess I want a small garage now, you've sold me haha. Still can't afford it though.
Our severe weather season includes hail and tornadoes so garages are fairly common.
🤓
But I thought downvotes didn't matter. 🤷
I thought you guys said they're both a necessary tool for community regulation and completely irrelevant to normal conversation on Lemmy.
Yet here we are.
why are you adding the garage area to the home area? wouldn't that deflate the value when comparing the size of the garage to the size of the house?
It is from a discussion about land use for suburban houses vs high-rise.
Ngl my dream house is a 400sq ft loft style apartment with an 8 car garage.
I treat them like AntiWork, it’s fun to visit the zoo but living in one means dealing with a lot of random shit.
This seems very unhealthy. Maybe go take a stroll around the block?
Edit: I’m referring to OP or whoever it was that made this image
I, for one, welcome quality posts
I love how lemmy is divided but coexisting.
I actually hate that about Lemmy
I'm pretty indifferent about it but just lonely.
How exactly is doing the math unhealthy? This is like 60 seconds of math and a few minutes of graphics at most.
I'd rather have someone doing the math and posting it than people becoming misinformed on an important political topic. I think that's what OP was after.
Unhealthy to prove your point by doing the math and helping convince people with an illustration? That's just good practice on critical thinking. Maybe you need to go take a stroll around the block.
That's exactly what came to my mind
Fuck /fuckcars
They actually want to bulldoze so much, just so we can cram more people in closer together. And no, no one wants to be walking around when its 90+ degrees out, or literally freezing.
Ive never seen any calls to bulldoze anything. We do a lot of complaining about how much was bulldozed to fill landscapes with stroads and parking lots. And dont act like we're not calling for buses and trains as well. Have you stopped and thought about why it's too hot to walk around now?
Now? Its been too hot since the dinosaurs walked the planet.
Ill give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean even if it was pre-global warming cooler it'd be too hot to walk. It's still extended those periods where it's too hot and cold to walk. Plus, again, we also call for buses and trains and trams for your air conditioned travel needs.
Benefit of the doubt? What other intepretation is there?
like denying that the earth has been warming
Oh. Yeah, on second read, I can definitely see how you might get that, I shouldve worded it differently.
"We should allow higher density and missing middle housing to be built and promote alternatives to cars" == "We want to bulldoze everything"?
They throw out all nuance and have absolutely no empathy or consideration that others need to live differently than them. Or hell, need to live differently than them in order to support their own lifestyle. I swear 90% of them have never lived outside the city they were born in.
OK so the majority of people has to cut back on so much, especially a safe environment to get places, just so a few people with a car fetish can keep buying bigger and bigger cars. Got it.
We're very quickly moving to a place where the QUANTITY of people is so high, the QUALITY of their lifestyles have to be sacrificed to cut down on human impact. The impoverished/developing world has very low impact, at huge cost to their quality of life. Who wants to volunteer to live like sub-saharan Africans, or Indians in abject poverty to cut down on human impact? I'm certain they don't want that life - and why should they? I'm sure they would like to travel on a jet to a beach vacation like those in more affluent countries do.
I'm calling this eco-austerity. Instead of publicizing overpopulation and promoting low birth rates, we're expected to belt tighten and give up on quality of life. It's bullshit. We should have <1B people living like kings, not 10B people living like peasants.
Who says you have to live like people sub Saharan Africa?
Just rake a look at how much of the pollution in America comes from the richest 10%. Same thing in Germany. Those people need to seriously cut down. And everyone else needs to reconsider if the 300m trip to the supermarket is really necessary to go by car. Or if it's really necessary to have a fucking 3ton monstrosity of a car. Or if a small car like a fiat 500 isn't actually enough.
You're off by a factor of 4 on the grocery distance for the last 3 places I've lived, and those stores were CLOSE. It's like 100cc of petrol to go that far, 200cc round trip, in lieu of 40+ minutes of fast walking (in which you can only carry limited groceries). I know all about it because I've done the walk many times when I didn't have a car, and it fucking sucks.
I'd say freaking out about 200ccs of petrol to get groceries is an insane degree of austerity, and the fact that people like you are proposing that is evidence of either an irrational need to control impact, or (if justified) evidence that the world is grotesquely overpopulated.
Nobody owns 3 ton cars around here. Mine isn't even 2 tons. In fact it's pretty close in weight to a Fiat 500, while being generally more useful in every way. Everything you're presenting is a strawman/caricature of what you imagine typical suburban car owners to live like. And yes, we should all be driving electric cars, but it's not going to happen overnight.
Edit: damn near nobody on earth would drive to get groceries if the store was 300m/1000ft away. Most people will never be able to live that close to the grocery store, work, or any other place that they routinely need to visit. That's why your example is insane.
Did I talk specifically about your situation? No. But sadly enough I know a few people, that actually do exactl those kinds of trips.
And I have no idea where you live, but in most European cities (!) There's a supermarket at most 1km away. Usually closer.
The closest one to me is 300m. Work is 32 km though. But you know what? I don't own a car. Because there's public transport.
And I live in a city with pretty great public transport. And yet people with way way shorter commuting distances still tend to have fucking big SUVs and drive everywhere. Those are the people I mean.
If you don't even fit in that category, why do you even feel the need to actively defend yourself? That doesn't even make any sense?
It's hard to tell the intent of any poster, and there is a vehement anti-car movement here (and on Reddit) that allows for no exceptions to the idea that living should be done at high density, and without personal vehicles. It's hard to read your intent and beliefs because the things you said before are very similar to what I've heard from the zealots.
I'm trying to make the point that public transit easily misses on serving every origin, destination, and timing efficiently. Usually it misses badly, and my average experience with specific commutes is a 3x time penalty for transit vs driving. The penalty gets worse if done at especially early or late hours. Maybe this is exacerbated by car infrastructure and lower density, but the anti car crowd would have you believe it's intrinsic and not a function of history and preference. At any rate I usually disagree with them on almost every premise.
But that mostly just means that you have terrible public transport where you live. Not that it's inherintely bad.
If I would take a car to work, it would take me at least (!) 50 minutes (depending on traffic, usually longer). With public transport plus bike I'm at 65 minutes. So just a bit longer, but delays are pretty uncommon (maybe 3 minutes every now and then). Plus I can relax, read or watch a show. And it's incredibly cheap thanks to the Deutschlandticket (49€, but 14€ of that is payed by my employer). Only for fuel (not counting insurance, tax, repairs etc.) It would cost me at least 180€.
So yeah just this tiny delay is okay in my opinion, considering what I'm saving (money, environment, worries about a car...)
And I never said, it's the ultimate solution. I'm just saying especially those huge as cars are a fucking monstrosity more or less. Because easily 95% of users don't even need such a huge vehicle. They just want it. And don't give a fuck what that entails for the environment and for other people. (especially looking at pedestrian and bike safety).
More people should just really consider if the car they chose is really what they NEED and if every trip they are taking with it is truly necessary.
Maybe you happen to be on a route that runs well from home to work without lots of stops and no need to change lines. Can you find a destination in your city that would require a change of bus or train and incur a larger time penalty? What if your job was located there instead?
I think most people buy sensible vehicles but there are certainly people who have a truck fetish that is not justified. Unfortunately it creates an arms race where all cars get larger because there are very real risks of a collision with a larger vehicle.
I do. But I still live in the south, and my work is outside the city, to the north west of it, to be exact.
The average is 40 minutes commute time (for my city). So I'm already quite a bit off.
And yes, of course, if I lived in the south east of the city it would take me 1,5 hours at least by public transport. 40-60 minutes by car on average. But I wouldn't move there, as that is too far off.
But most of these other possible places would mean, that I would most probably also always have to drive through the city center or take a big detour outside of it. Both possibilities aren't actually preferable. So again I wouldn't live there and at the same time work at the same company.
I just need to look at one of my brothers. Lives relatively close to the center but still a bit south of it. Could take 2 subways in 30 minutes (including walking) but still decides to take the car most days where he has to drive through heavy traffic, that takes him at least the same amount of time.
So no, a lot of people aren't that sensible. They just do what they are used to and often enough even vehemently go against even the possibility of changing that with weird as excuses (smells terrible weird people, always packed, always delayed etc.) Which for most times of day and most routes just isn't true.
Just take a look at the available cars nowadays. You can barely even buy a smal car, as those aren't even produced in such a variety anymore. Because 1. People keep buying the big SUVs, and 2. Manufacturers can make way more money with those than with small cars.
Hell, in Germany they are actively debating making parking spots bigger, because the cars keep getting bigger (btw look at carsized they have a great visualization for this), instead of simply reglementaing how big cars can get, before they are either forbidden or so heavily taxed that it's just not worth to buy something large.
I generally agree with you about fuckcars. They're sanctimonious assholes. But when it comes to housing, suburban sprawl is always bad.
This is exactly the point I've been making to them. I think it's a bunch of people who have never lived outside of a major city, or grew up in new-construction actual suburban hell like Phoenix, DFW, Vegas, most of FL etc. Try old Midwest small city suburbs by comparison. Maybe parts of the northeast.
They probably couldn't afford a car after used car prices spiked sometime between 2000-2010, and never experienced the freedom and autonomy. They can't imagine not being into a downtown club scene - it hasn't dawned on them that they will probably grow up and hate living in a congested apartment world and might want to stretch out in a bigger house in a quiet neighborhood. It's never occurred to them that not everyone works from home and their spouse may need to take a job 20 miles in the opposite direction.
Do you sell your house because your job changed? Get divorced because your partner's job changed? You can't have ALL of the employment in easy reach by public transit from your home. This ideal-city with perfect transit and no commute is a handwave. UNLESS you live in a sufficiently small town that has everything but hasn't blown up yet - and those aren't dense enough for transit, and require personal vehicles.
Public transit is also more inconvenient than convenient even if you give it a maximum advantage in density and stipulate that the trains will run 24/7 and frequently (NYC).
It's just inexperience with life or being an urban loving weirdo who can't imagine that other perspectives exist. I want to spend all of my free time in places you couldn't service with transit. They can't even imagine it.
That's why they want shade, goober.
Even with shade, it's hot.
You sound like such a baby.
We're all babies here. Every. Single. One of us. Bebe.
We sure are but I'm not throwing a hissy fit at the thought of being outside.
Yeah, they're pretty much ACAB now but cars instead of cops.
EDIT: Before anyone even says it. Bad cops suck. Cars do not suck. Big lifted trucks are ass. I wish I could make a 4 wheeler street legal.
Cars absolutely do suck.
I make a living out of my car, so in my case, I'll just have to disagree.
If a good amount of drivers walked or took public transit/bikes instead, wouldn't that make your job easier?
Of course, sure. Problem is, I'm in the Detroit Metro area so good luck prying the F150s out of people's hands around here. Second off, with the plans fuck cars has there'd be areas where I'd have to park and walk to deliver stuff. I already have one outdoor mall I deliver to and it fucking blows having to park and walk all that way because 99% of the time I'm marked as late because it takes so long to deliver shit there. I'm not a slow walker either.
So yes, less traffic would be nice. Will that ever happen in this particular city? Hell no.