You raise good points, but they're specific to American urban design, and the long-term solution is probably to redesign and rebuild our cities to move away from those designs.
So the solution is to tear down our cities, abandon our homes, and rebuild everything somewhere else. Gotcha. I mean that's probably environmentally friendly, right?
Thanks for your input. It's rare to meet an anti-development NIMBY on Hacker News, it's always welcome to have different points of view on this website.
Cities and homes should not be expected to last forever; while we shouldn't be rebuilding them every year, doing so every few decades is probably more environmentally friendly than not.
I'm not sure I'm understanding... my home was built in 1953 and is standing just fine. It's got new windows, new insulation, and a new roof. Are you saying I should abandon it and go build a new one? There's a brick building in town that's been there since 1842, you're saying we should rip it down just because it's old?
Has everyone in this entire thread lost their damn minds? First meth-head farmers are "living in luxury", then "street cars will replace every road in the nation", and now "buildings should be torn down and rebuilt every 30 years".
