Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TwilitFox t1_jby72hf wrote

NYC was nice back then. Now it's a capitalist hellscape with no green space. Fun fact, great cities around the world take great pride in designing cities that are nice to live in, except NYC. NYC sucks. I love it, but it's an embarrassment to humans who still have souls.

−59

chareth_cutestory66 t1_jbyedb3 wrote

Lmao bro if you’re yearning for 17th century Manhattan vibes why on earth are you still here

57

TwilitFox t1_jbyeze8 wrote

That's not my yearning dude, I'm just randomly pointing out that NYC should try to be a healthy, beautiful place to exist, and cater to humans instead of solely working for rich people. And, this would also benefit rich people as well, because, despite their calloused souls they're still technically human and would benefit from living in harmony instead of vehicle exhaust.

−18

chareth_cutestory66 t1_jbyhfh2 wrote

That’s valid, honestly just found it funny that people arguing this tack usually look back to like the 1950s and not uhhh New Amsterdam

18

ZestyItalian2 t1_jbys7jx wrote

New York has more walkable neighborhoods, more mixed use zoning, more parks and green space per capita than literally city in America.

12

TwilitFox t1_jbyzdtd wrote

Well sure, if that's how you cherry pick your definition of reality. But the vast majority of NYC neighborhoods are nothing like you describe.

−7

ZestyItalian2 t1_jbz2emx wrote

Completely untrue. You sound like somebody who’s only seen New York in movies.

10

TwilitFox t1_jbz5gin wrote

Born here, Ma'am. I'm quite familiar with the pollution and lack of gardens and nature predominating most parts of the city. Apparently someone advocating for quality of life is triggering for you.

−1

ZestyItalian2 t1_jbz6khz wrote

Nah just peeved and skeptical of anyone who trashes my city while ludicrously yearning for an imaginary pre-capitalist 17th century utopia under the auspices of the colonial Dutch, who literally invented capitalism, largely in New Amsterdam and at that exact moment in history, and also claims NYC has no green space when it has over 7,000 square feet of parks and green space per capita, the most for any North American city with over 3 million people.

I’m sorry you hate it here to much. Leave.

9

TwilitFox t1_jbz8vvz wrote

No I love NY. It's ok to be realisticly critical about a place you love. Your logical fallacies are showing btw. Someone got a solid B+ in statistical manipulation, kudos. I could point to a neighborhood with zero green space and you would say, with a straight face, that per capita it's actually very green despite the lack of green. Nice lying, you have a real gift.

−1

ZestyItalian2 t1_jbz9n4v wrote

You’re not being realistically critical and I’ve told you why. You’re suggesting that you can rebut empiric evidence with your opinion, and I’m afraid that’s not how it works.

You’re a disgruntled Marxist with an axe to grind and you’re annoyed when your sweepingly hyperbolic, ahistorical, and entirely made-up statements are challenged. There are plenty of places where you can get away with that kind of thing but this isn’t one of them.

4

[deleted] t1_jbzzqxa wrote

[removed]

−1

ZestyItalian2 t1_jc00jne wrote

Yeah enjoy fighting against the character you made up.

I’m just here to tell you you’re objectively wrong about green space nyc and that you have some frankly hilariously deranged ideas about the way Dutch colonies were run.

3

Jonas_Venture_Sr t1_jbyg38z wrote

This is so incorrect, it's wrong at almost every level. NYC was always a capitalist hellscape, it's quite literally the reason for its existence as a modern city. The singular point of this little Dutch colony was to make money, so capitalist needs trumped all others. When the English sailed its warships into the harbor, the city quickly capitulated, because it didn't matter who ran the city, as long as people made money.

Cities are a living and breathing expression of the needs of the time, and NYC is no different. NYC was exploding in growth at the turn of the 19th century, and the 1811 Commissioners map sought to rectify the housing shortage problem. New York is what it is because of the needs of the people before us. These "great cities" may look great today, but they had massive problems before the 20th century, and these problems contributed to our grid style streets. For example, a tax collector in 17th century London probably doesn't know every spot, so many Londoners don't get taxes and some get taxed twice or three times. The Grid makes it easy to conduct governmental business and commerce.

Look at how Paris changed their streets in the 19th century to address their problems of housing and societal control. Paris looks the way it does today because of the societal problems in France at that time. French troops needed to be able to get to any part of the city quickly to put down revolts, so Paris changed its infrastructure to do this. New York is no different, in that changed how it looked to address problems of the time.

21

TwilitFox t1_jbz0p97 wrote

That's interesting, truly. But in this modern world with unprecedented technology it seems rather chimplike to not fix the unnatural monstrosity that is NYC. Plus, cars were given far too much dominion, vastly more than actual human residents. Gee, I wonder if oligarchs got rich off of these decisions at the sake of society and the planet and all around safe, pleasant neighborhoods.

3

Jonas_Venture_Sr t1_jbz1ubp wrote

Believe it or not, the personnel vehicle was essentially decided as the main method of transportation, because people were sick of dealing with the railroad oligarchs.

I think the US gets too much shit for its reliance on personal cars. If you were a middle income American in the early 20th century, the car would make too much sense not to adopt it. Today, we can clearly see the problems which that decision made, but at the time, it was a no brainer. If city overpopulation and climate change were not a thing, then the personal vehicle would have no criticism.

4

TwilitFox t1_jbz48wr wrote

Well, regardless of past bad decisions, we now have the technology to do the right thing and unpave every other street, creating something the rest of the world calls "neighborhoods", and "necessary" for being "healthy" and "human". Maybe we should unpave 2/3rds of the streets, and modernize public transportation. And ban unnecessary things like commuting for the 90% of jobs that can be done from home or the beach. At some point we have to evolve and learn how to use technology for the benefit of society, without using that as an excuse for perpetuating unnecessary destruction for profits sake. But I'm an optimist, which seems to offend a lot of people on here. Peace ye soulless zombies.

1

kilobitch t1_jbybuzr wrote

There’s tens of thousands of villages (if not more) like this all over the world. You are welcome to live in any of them. I’m sure “NYC” was just as boring then as those places are now. If you enjoy the amenities NYC of today has to offer, you can’t really complain that’s it’s not a pastoral rural village anymore.

10

TwilitFox t1_jbycxyk wrote

My complaint, specifically, is that NYC does not prioritize quality of life for humans over profit for millionaires and billionaires. Making a city enjoyable and healthy to exist in is important. But you can keep on arguing for cancer if it makes you feel good. It's a major failure to not keep nature in mind when designing a city, don't you think?

−6

TwilitFox t1_jbydwp2 wrote

You're down voting that cities should be nice lol

−4

ZestyItalian2 t1_jbyrz9o wrote

The Dutch invented capitalism and New Amsterdam / New York was created as its avatar. Literally every single “great city” in the world is a crucible of capitalistic enterprise.

Please leave NYC and send us a postcard from Pyongyang or whatever awesome spot you end up.

3

Taupenbeige t1_jbyavw3 wrote

You appear to be living in a dimension where Frederick Law Olmstead was never born…

2

TwilitFox t1_jbydcbq wrote

You appear to live right next to the park, must be nice. Most of the city is not nice to exist in. We should probably turn at least every other street into greenspaces with parks and bike lanes. That's what humans with brains and souls would do.

−2

tamwafle t1_jbyg8ky wrote

And who pays for that property to convert it?

4

djn24 t1_jc03601 wrote

That's not a realistic suggestion at all. NYC is one of the most developed and densely populated places in the world.

Seriously, if you don't like living in that dense and developed of an area, then why not live somewhere else? Why spend years of your limited time in a place that doesn't fit what you want?

4

TwilitFox t1_jc0cd7t wrote

Why not make the city nice?

−1

djn24 t1_jc0dbup wrote

You didn't write "let's make the city nice!" You wrote:

>We should probably turn at least every other street into greenspaces with parks and bike lanes.

You suggested converting half of the streets in NYC into greenspace and bike lanes. That's not happening. Not just because it's difficult but because it also goes against what so many people want.

Your definition of "nice" probably doesn't match the definition of "nice" for most of the people that want to live in NYC.

Again, why not just live somewhere else if being in such a developed and busy city isn't "nice" for you?

If someone told me they were looking for suggestions on places to live and they really valued green space and places to ride their bikes, then I would recommend a bunch of places before NYC. That isn't an indictment on you. It just sounds like where you want to live and where you live are a mismatch.

4

TwilitFox t1_jc0e2ki wrote

Nah, we should make NYC nice, with lots of walkable gardens, green spaces, public bathrooms, bicycle lanes. Even if you find my specific preference too green, and you prefer pollution. But since you speak for all New Yorkers and you say they don't want these normal, healthy things, then I respect your unfounded disingenuous opinion.

−1

djn24 t1_jc0g30n wrote

>Even if you find my specific preference too green, and you prefer pollution.

I don't live in NYC right now because I like more laid back places with easy access to nature. I like to currently spend as many of my days off as possible in the woods or in a kayak, and living in NYC at this point of my life wouldn't align with that. I actually get to do what I want with my free time right now because I live in a place that offers it. If I wanted to be back in the heart of a super busy metropolitan with a ridiculous amount of options for human interaction and food and entertainment options, then I would move back.

Part of growing up is realizing what you want and pursuing it with the options that you have available.

You only have so much time in life. Being miserable and telling everyone that you know how to make them happier better than they do sounds like an awful and lonely way to spend it.

Go ahead, fight with everyone around you and try to insult them. The rest of us are living our lives and enjoying ourselves. Give it a try. Or don't. Nobody really cares if you decide to be miserable or happy.

4

TwilitFox t1_jc0ec3z wrote

You're so disingenuous. You make bike riding sound like it's a fun little hobby and not an important and valid form of transportation for a big city. Bad faith logic, you're not honest.

−2

djn24 t1_jc0gb45 wrote

I ride my bike regularly to work and for fun. But I'm not going to tell other people that they don't know what "nice" is for their city or that your ideas to radically transform where you live are a good idea.

It's perfectly fine to advocate for the changes you want. But expecting a massive transformation for where you live isn't realistic, and calling people names for pointing out that it isn't realistic won't help you build any momentum toward making change and it won't help you convince your neighbors, especially when you tell them that they don't know what "nice" is.

If you don't like an area, then why live there? Move somewhere else that will make you happy because the general mindset of that area aligns with what you want out of life.

Grow up and stop throwing tantrums when people disagree with you.

3