TwilitFox

TwilitFox t1_jcuoi3c wrote

It even seems potentially cost effective, since street structure probably needs to be redone anyway. But even if not, it would be nice for quality of life. Cars have WAY too much real estate. You'd think residents/pedestrians should have at least as much. Humans need some nature and clean air, which sounds obvious, but not to NYC so much.

1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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_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