I hate pro-bughive channels

[Corpun]

Do eet. Maybe broaden it to include all the creepy bughive NGOs and bugpandering corporations, if you want a broader scope to better distinguish it from Breadtube and the Reddit General. I think there's enough material for a decent thread.

I'll work it out tomorrow. I'll need to find more of these channels and NGOs to put into an OP.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

As something of an environmentalist/conservationist myself, I'm somewhat split on the lawn issue; however, I'm also not dumb enough not to see through their argument.

They hate manicured artificial lawns, sure; but what they really hate is yards.
Yeah, cut non-native turf grass pumped up with fertilizer and water sucked from the source is shit; but what they really hate is the idea that people can have land to do with whatever the fuck they want.
Usually in discussions with peers ripping on the idea of manicured lawns I bring up that when I own land I'm going full patchwork wetland - woodland - native prairie on my property with native flowers for pollinator species and plenty of refugia for snakes and small mammals; they still get an angry grimace on their face and usually comment something to the effect of "oh well that still doesn't account for the waste blah blah blah".

 

[lemonsensei]

I thought this thread was about actual bugs and their hatred of bug kind. Agree with OP tho. It’s pretty spergy to throw a tantrum over people who want to wake up every morning to get the paper, on ya know, their lawn? Sometimes I don’t want to see a bum getting a blow job when I stick my head out the window. Crazy concept, I know.

 

[Meriasek]

Yeah, Xeroscaping. I'm a big fan of that, and thankfully it's catching on in parts of Texas.

Strong Towns and Not Just Bikes (moreso the latter) are actually on the more moderate side compared to others like Adam Something (who absolutely is what I would consider a bugman). Not Just Bikes even had a video on the benefits of streetcar suburbs, explained that suburbs have always been a thing (even several medieval cities had precursors to modern suburbs) and discussed how high density concrete high-rise living definitely isn't for everybody. He seems to hold a more nuanced view of the matter and is more concerned with pointless sprawl/overdevelopment rather than the concept of a single family detached home.

Not Just Bikes seems to really like the way Dutch cities work with lots of dedicated bike lanes that make it safe for cyclists to go everywhere. Which is absolutely reasonable, if not necessarily feasible to achieve with how most american cities are already built, and how suburbs are laid out.
As a near-dutch Eurocuck I do approve of cycling lanes, and seeing videos of american suburbs where there aren't even any sidewalks I'm quite amazed that people actually built like that. I guess it made sense from a city-planning point of view back then with cars becoming more and more ubiquitous, but tbh I don't think it's all that great. Oh well, it's how it is now, and it doesn't make much sense to compare historically grown european cities with the more planned, zoned, and coherent american cities and suburbs.

/edit: Particularly, european cities tend to be a bit less bug-hivey than the massive US metropoles, but that's because they tend to be smaller. The really big ones like Berlin or London are definitely bughives, though.

 

[WULULULULU]

If a Prospering Grounds thread for these losers starts popping up, I'll help out. Youtube loves showing me these fuckers all over the feed.

 

[Corpun]

As something of an environmentalist/conservationist myself, I'm somewhat split on the lawn issue; however, I'm also not dumb enough not to see through their argument.

They hate manicured artificial lawns, sure; but what they really hate is yards.
Yeah, cut non-native turf grass pumped up with fertilizer and water sucked from the source is shit; but what they really hate is the idea that people can have land to do with whatever the fuck they want.
Usually in discussions with peers ripping on the idea of manicured lawns I bring up that when I own land I'm going full patchwork wetland - woodland - native prairie on my property with native flowers for pollinator species and plenty of refugia for snakes and small mammals; they still get an angry grimace on their face and usually comment something to the effect of "oh well that still doesn't account for the waste blah blah blah".

With how much they hate the freedom you get with lawns in terms of creativity it is amazing they hate HOAs so damn much.

 

[Tealeaf]

What's bothering y'all so much about "bug hives"? Just don't live there lmao. Infinite suburban sprawl and rural areas don't stop existing if you had the mere possibility of snagging a cheap rental or condo from a nice walkable city. Just don't snag it. Don't even look that way. Live your own damn life.

It's not to the detriment of anyone if big thick cities are built up and made nicer. You probably can't drive there, but you didn't want to drive there in the first place because it's a disgusting bug hive so you're not losing anything either.

 

[Meriasek]

What's bothering y'all so much about "bug hives"? Just don't live there lmao. Infinite suburban sprawl and rural areas don't stop existing if you had the mere possibility of snagging a cheap rental or condo from a nice walkable city. Just don't snag it. Don't even look that way. Live your own damn life.

It's not to the detriment of anyone if big thick cities are built up and made nicer. You probably can't drive there, but you didn't want to drive there in the first place because it's a disgusting bug hive so you're not losing anything either.

I think it's more about these bughive enthusiasts proposing that suburban sprawl and rural areas should indeed stop existing, and that everyone should indeed go live in the bughive.

 

[quaawaa]

seeing videos of american suburbs where there aren't even any sidewalks I'm quite amazed that people actually built like that.

Most American suburbs with no sidewalks (though lots of them do have sidewalks and bike trails/lanes) have streets that are so low traffic that you can just walk in the middle of the road (or on the grass if you prefer that). The major roads tend to have sidewalks and/or bike lanes. The same people who attack American residential roads applaud similar streets in Europe.

What's bothering y'all so much about "bug hives"? Just don't live there lmao. Infinite suburban sprawl and rural areas don't stop existing if you had the mere possibility of snagging a cheap rental or condo from a nice walkable city. Just don't snag it. Don't even look that way. Live your own damn life.

The first thing urbanist groups pass are urban growth boundaries which make it illegal to build new houses. They also like to tear down roads and make it illegal to build parking. In most of the US, there is nothing stopping an urbanist from buying some land and building their dream car free high density neighborhood, but they aren’t happy with being able to live in a place they like; they want everyone to live like they do.

 

[Meriasek]

Most American suburbs with no sidewalks (though lots of them do have sidewalks and bike trails/lanes) have streets that are so low traffic that you can just walk in the middle of the road (or on the grass if you prefer that). The major roads tend to have sidewalks and/or bike lanes. The same people who attack American residential roads applaud similar streets in Europe.

The first thing urbanist groups pass are urban growth boundaries which make it illegal to build new houses. They also like to tear down roads and make it illegal to build parking. In most of the US, there is nothing stopping an urbanist from buying some land and building their dream car free high density neighborhood, but they aren’t happy with being able to live in a place they like; they want everyone to live like they do.

Ok, good to know.
Still, these kinda pictures feel weird to me.

Spoiler

Here in Germany basically all roads have sidewalks, except special roads where the speed limit is walking speed.

 

[A-Stump]

I would be OK with public transportation if it was racially segregated.

 

[quaawaa]

Ok, good to know.
Still, these kinda pictures feel weird to me.

Spoiler

View attachment 3376940

Here in Germany basically all roads have sidewalks, except special roads where the speed limit is walking speed.

The road in your picture would have very little traffic, just the people who live there and any visitors they have. The total traffic volume would be around a couple of dozen cars per day. The speed limit would be around 25 mph, but people will slow down if they see someone else on the road, as no one wants to run over a neighbor’s kid. The road is equivalent to your German walking speed road, just wider to allow for guests to street park without impeding traffic and to allow trucks to turn around.

 

[Tealeaf]

The first thing urbanist groups pass are urban growth boundaries which make it illegal to build new houses. They also like to tear down roads and make it illegal to build parking.

Even assuming that what you say is 100% true, it only affects a minuscule amount of built up environment and everyone who doesn't like it has plenty of better places to go. Urbanism cannot possibly threaten the car-driving lifestyle.

Where does the urbanist have to go? Nowhere. They have to painstakingly try to create somewhere they want to be in, and usually fail.

In most of the US, there is nothing stopping an urbanist from buying some land and building their dream car free high density neighborhood, but they aren’t happy with being able to live in a place they like; they want everyone to live like they do.

There is no place you describe. An empty plot of land is by definition not high density; it might be high density in 10 years if you keep building (with what money?). You also need to convince thousands of other people to hang on with nothing for 10 years while you're building it. Because you have to go far from existing cities and their suburbs to find a place to incorporate yourself to your image, there are also no jobs or economy nearby. You have to drive a car to go to work anyway, so much for a car-free utopia. You suggest the impossible.

On the other hand, it is within the realm of practicality to take an already somewhat dense, liveable place and make it more dense and otherwise improve it over time. It's hard, but possible.

 

[quaawaa]

Even assuming that what you say is 100% true, it only affects a minuscule amount of built up environment and everyone who doesn't like it has plenty of better places to go. Urbanism cannot possibly threaten the car-driving lifestyle.

Where does the urbanist have to go? Nowhere. They have to painstakingly try to create somewhere they want to be in, and usually fail.

They can build a high density neighborhood on some farmland. No need to try and convince others to let you redevelop their neighborhood or institute urban growth boundaries or parking maximums or car taxes or transit subsidies or any of the other common urbanist policies. What you said about urbanists not being able to threaten low density living is only true if there is no immigration and if there is a large group of people who are currently forced into houses but would prefer to live apartments. If you restrict the supply of new houses but increase the number of people who want one, there will be an issue. Considering that 81% of Americans want to live in suburban or rural areas and more people in urban areas want to move to suburbs/rural areas than vice versa, such a population doesn’t exist in the US. Additionally, if you take an area that was previously accessible by car and make it inaccessible, you are decreasing the quality of life of the people who used to go there.

Spoiler: Source for the preferences

There is no place you describe. An empty plot of land is by definition not high density; it might be high density in 10 years if you keep building (with what money?). You also need to convince thousands of other people to hang on with nothing for 10 years while you're building it. Because you have to go far from existing cities and their suburbs to find a place to incorporate yourself to your image, there are also no jobs or economy nearby. You have to drive a car to go to work anyway, so much for a car-free utopia. You suggest the impossible.

On the other hand, it is within the realm of practicality to take an already somewhat dense, liveable place and make it more dense and otherwise improve it over time. It's hard, but possible.

What happened to if you build it they will come? If there is truly a large number of people who want to live in a such a community but can’t because all that is being built are single family homes, then the developer would have people jumping to move there and companies would follow. There are an enormous number of successful areas built up at the edge of cities, though urbanists tend to deride them for being sprawl. The whole point of a walkable neighborhood is to have all your daily needs accessible within walking distance, so who cares if it is difficult to travel outside of your utopia? If the only thing you need a car for is going to work at a building not in your mixed use neighborhood, then you would have 99% of what you want with zero conflict with anyone who doesn’t want your lifestyle. This is an easily achievable goal, but for some reason urbanists don’t even want to try it.

 

[JJLiautaud]

More bug shit from adam

 

[SwanSwanson]

You do realize that American cities have essentially been ruined because of car oriented transport, you basically can't be outside without a car, which causes obesity, ruins the culture and history of the cities, causes social isolation, wasted peoples money and ruins society on a deeper spiritual level by robbing people of an outside.

Those are what these videos listed but all you managed to glean from those videos was "Having house bad, apartment good".

 

[FFinfo]

You do realize that American cities have essentially been ruined because of car oriented transport, you basically can't be outside without a car, which causes obesity, ruins the culture and history of the cities, causes social isolation, wasted peoples money and ruins society on a deeper spiritual level by robbing people of an outside.

Those are what these videos listed but all you managed to glean from those videos was "Having house bad, apartment good".

In fairness, you can still be outside in suburbia ime. Plus, a lot of suburban neighborhoods implement parks in the middle/on the edges that are within walking distance for the residents. Obesity is more a combination of junk food subsidies and food science driving the market into an arms race for making the most chemically addictive garbage possible without breaking any laws.

I'll agree that they do cause social isolation when you need a car to escape the neighborhood or everything social is tens of miles away, but I don't know if a dense urban shithole is necessarily any spiritually superior to a suburb. They both have their own unique problems.

In either case, the solutions will meet resistance from the current landowners. Making suburbia more dense impacts property values and will get NIMBY'd. Trying to get urban areas more manageable will require cities outright buying land from developers with bottomless pockets to restructure.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

and ruins society

Well as someone who hates society, you have just further sold me on why I should hate inescapable urban bughives

 

[DJ Grelle]

If there is enough on some of these people like Adam Something I may make a thread on them in community watch. Dunno what I'd call it, maybe bughive/urbanite YouTube or something. May have too much crossover with Breadtube though,

I'd like to help!
I was looking up adam something and the following could be found in the results:

Sounds kinda contradictory...

 

[Corpun]

I'd like to help!
I was looking up adam something and the following could be found in the results:
View attachment 3379773
Sounds kinda contradictory...

The gist of this commie blocks good argument I've come across is that they house a lot of people, ignoring that commie black housing traditionally centers around number of possible families that can be housed meaning that the apartments are cramped as shit. The skyscrapers rant is mostly him whining about how the floors are rented out by various corporations for business and commerce and could be used to house people or some shit, even though that isn't financially viable with the way those monstrosities are designed.