• Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    The vast majority of people do not have any sort of medical need for a house. This does not contribute to the conversation.

    • Robaque
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      You might have a point but you’re being an insensitive ass and it’s definitely possible that there are under-researched/discussed potential mental health side effects to apartments / city living. There is certainly a conversation to be had.

        • Robaque
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          How is it “not this discussion”? The general topic is about peoples’ housing/aparment preferences and Rukmer’s concerns are perfectly valid.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, because it’s such a small number of people it’s not worth changing the whole of society for. Obviously, people with disabilities will be accommodated for. This one person having agoraphobia doesn’t change the fact that society-wide we should be striving for more dense housing.

    • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not really true though, most people are much happier in a house and have far fewer sources of stress in their life. Also high density housing is an awfull place to bring up kids, that’s the exact reason London is knocking down all the old tower blocks like elephant and castle, all the studies showed it was a horrible place to live for everyone there.

      I know you want this solution to work because no one likes American suburbia but it doesn’t have to be a choice between two types of hell, there are actually good options like European suburbs with local shops, bus and cycle routes to pedestrianised shopping areas and lots of green spaces.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Studies actually show that medium density low rises allow for more housing and are more ecologically efficient than supposedly high-density high rises. I was surprised, but the models are irrefutable. It’s mainly due to the structural footprint of large buildings.

        So that’s my ideal. Paris, not Manhattan. Side benefit is it just looks nicer and feels better.

        • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You mean the rich areas of Paris? Not banlieue 93

          I’m sure New York has areas similar to Montmartre where only rich people can afford to live, and areas like Seine Saint Denis where they cram all the poor people in awful environments which result in criminality and cyclical poverty

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Um…yes? Idk much about Paris geography but who gives a fuck, you understand what I’m saying.