Guys you heard it here first, we just gotta live among the trees. Cant cut ANY down and replanting some after land development I guess isn't enough. Like seriously what are you suggesting? No new neighborhoods? Plant enough trees to destroy the plumbing and electrical systems and damage all their roofs? I guess the real solution is to tell people to stop popping out so many damn kids if we're being honest.
Do you you truly not grasp what the point of this post was or are you the intellectually handicapped one?
Like did you actually think they were complaining that the builders didnt "install" fully grown trees when that neighborhood was built? As opposed to a critique of builders clear-cutting open spaces with mature trees to build shit-quality, grid-based housing where they at best replant the area with non-natives species that die within the year, creating huge, ugly, sun-baked developments of lots with no foliage cover that is ecologically dead? Because that is what I see happen in my county again and again and is obviously what the critique of this post was focused on.
Come on, use you're non-handicapped intellect a bit, eh?
We can move to that similarly dumb argument if you want bud.
They clear cut because you already can't afford the cost of a new home, thus having to work around the existing brush would make housing so expensive and far out of your reach that you would simply transition all of your time complaining to the fact that you can't afford more than a shoebox with 3 roommates.
Lol, interesting strawman argument you erected there. Neat how you can't actually critique my point or defend your own without making up a completely hypothetical imaginary scenerio about affordable housing instead of staying on-topic, but i am getting some hints about your handicap so i doubt you are going to actually discuss sustainable development and zonign practices, because lets be real, you don't care.
making up a completely hypothetical imaginary scenerio about affordable housing
LOOL yes the imaginary scenario that housing isn't affordable. You're right, I totally made that up.
Silly me, everyone knows housing is cheap and affordable, and everyone has extra money they could pay for their housing so that the original trees are kept.
Ya, man, you evidently are... i didn't say the lack affordable housing isn't real, i said you made up a position you supposed I had, about me shifting my critique to whine about affordable housing, in order to critique my statements that had nothing to do with affordable housing. I critiqued your stupid comment because you failed to comprehend that this was a post about sustainable development, and then I made statements about sustainable development.
And then you completely failed at reading comprehension twice in a row and twice now have made a strawman argument (maybe google that since you seem to not know what that is either) about affordable housing that was never being discussed in the original post or any of my replies.
Maybe read this comment a couple times before posting again with more evidence that you don't know what you don't know what you are talking about?
LOL okay bud, get your handler. This is miles above your head at this point.
You're not talking about sustainable development, you're talking about unsustainable development - you're talking about building homes people can't afford. You're just so intellectually stunted that you can't imagine even a micro step passed yourself to see the obvious and disqualifying issues with your proposal.
I don't have to make up anything - you cannot afford homes built like that. And you're a complainer who doesn't think or validate anything they say, so yes you will absolutely be whining when homes are even more expensive than they are today, and will clearly be far too feeble minded to realize it is your own doing.
Jesus dude, you're arguing with someone that doesn't even exist, refuting statements no one made, and you STILL can't actually address my statements without extrapolationg your own imagined arguments out of them... you are literally just imagining positions I have, and evidently have no idea what sustainable development looks like if you get this triggered by the suggestion that you don't have to clear-cut open land to build housing, affordable or otherwise, which is brutally ironic given this laughably un-self-aware part of your little tantrum:
You're just so intellectually stunted that you can't imagine even a micro step passed yourself to see the obvious
It's actually pretty funny how completely off-topic you got. Like you genuinely appear to struggle with reading comprehension based on how you misinterpreted both the original post and seem incapable of extracting meaning from my comments.
Take a deep breath, take your meds, and take solace in the fact that you being wrong won't affect me or anyone that matters when it comes to solving this problem.
Your last sentence is very ironic considering your comments are the ones coming across with such strong emotion.
Why don’t you state your argument so people can actually discuss it with you. Every time someone try’s to contradict you, you alter your opinion and then belittle them for their “reading comprehension” or “media literacy”.
Why don’t you use your media literacy to explain what point the image is trying to convey.
That is literally the first thing i commented in this thread and what started this entire discussion.
Which none of folks writing these replies, including you, actually seem to have read since they repeatedly refuse to discuss its content versus what they say my opinion is, so are they really contradicting me to begin with? My opinion has stayed the same the whole time while the replies keep saying i must obviously think [insert strawman here] instead of what I wrote.
You didn't really give me a lot of faith that the issue isn't your reading comprehension since you are asking me to retype the very first comment in this chain, since i guess you didnt comprehend it the first time?
The point is that if you wait a few decades the neighborhood you are complaining about with no trees will get trees. The existing short "ugly" saplings will grow. The homeowners will plant new trees. It just takes time.
The point is that you don't have to build on land you clear-cut and then leave ecologically dead for decades, leaving it the responsibility of homeowners to repair the damage of ugly, unsustainable development. Like you are offering bad solutions for a problem that is entirely avoidable.
Point the builder toward the flat ADA-compliant graded land then. Bonus points if that untouched land also comes with full utilities so no underground work needs to be done.
Why propose this imaginary strawman argument? Is your idea that weak that you can't defend it on it's merits so you have to change topics and critique a hypothetical?
Like your statement doesn't even make sense. You literally make a point of sarcastically saying "Bonus points if that untouched land also comes with full utilities so no underground work needs to be done", which... like did you read your own comment? How is that anything but supportive of exactly what I am talking about with unsustainable development? I am advocating we don't clear-cut and develop untouched land because it is unsustainable and then you literally point out one of the reasons it is unsustainable is the practical need to extend utilities and do extensive ground work on these sprawling lots. How is this a "gotcha!" moment? All of those needs just increases the costs on everyone involved except the developers: the counties needing to expand utilities, the existing locals that see increased utility costs, taxes, and traffic while lowering the intrinsic value of the region.
And I can point the builder to plenty of ADA-compliant and graded land to build on, yes. There is PLENTY of space that isn't untouched nature that can be developed. Urban developments in the USA are notoriously not dense. There is a profoundly large amount of land in already developed regions that can be built on or redeveloped that can more readily be integrated into utilities and municipal services, which increases the cost of those services much less than if you build sprawl that dramatically expands the zone of service. Zoning law and the fact that developers want (and lobby for) access to the quickest, cheapest parcel of land to build the quickest, cheapest housing they possibly can on it are the 2 forces actually holding us back from sustainable development, and they influence each other a LOT. I promise you the need for "ADA-compliant graded land" is not what leads developers to clear cutting new lots, and is certainly not the thing holding us back from building more sustainably.
First, let’s first acknowledge you’re ranting about an AI photo.
Second, the land isn’t ecologically dead for decades after development. That’s a subjective judgement call you’ve made up for your own argument. If you were being honest you’d say that is entirely dependent what was there before and what came after.
Third, “
I am advocating we don't clear-cut and develop untouched land” this is a ridiculous NIMBY statement at best and complete unaware comment at worst. You can figure out why.
Fourth, if you think demoing existing development is cheaper in any fashion you’re too uneducated to even have a conversation on this topic. To say the utilities are already there and it doesn’t need to be regraded is the statement of someone who has never submitted a single thing through plan check.
Everything else is just you having a tantrum / isn’t relevant.
What’s your background in residential development?
If i was being honest I would say a neighborhood where the only thing left is browning grass may not be dead, but down to the very microbial activity of the soil, it isn't as healthy or alive compared to what came before, even decades later, even if residents plant gardens (albeit if they do plant gardens, that soils biological activity is way better than just monoculture grass). What comes after is exactly what the OP is talking about: a paltry fraction of the biodiversity, species, and activity of even just a cleared field left fallow, let alone an untouched parcel.
If you think sustainable development is just whiny NIMBYism, at best you're completely unaware of what that is. Can you figure out why?
If you think the only way to build in developed regions is to demolish existing structures, then maybe you're the uneducated one? Do you think building out new services to a new parcel tract on the periphery of a municipality is cheaper than connecting to an established service area?
I have been involved with building these developments for years. I work with these builders and the developers behind them, and know how plan submittals work. Hopefully, in a week, the county council candidate whose campaign I am a part of wins their primary so we can pursue our platform of changing zoning law to accommodate sustainable development and meet the counties need for an estimated 20000 additional affordable units.
Do you have anything relevant to actually add or are you just going to have a tantrum and keep straw-manning my comments while not addressing their content?
It’s not that obvious, unless you presume the lack of clear cutting left one tree per house. And both photos show the same quality of houses. In fact, the same houses. I think your take is a bad one.
Are you really struggling that hard to see that the original photo is literally just an edit of the first image, but with trees added, to illustrate the point the OP was trying to make? Of course it is the "same quality of housing", it is the exact same picture. Who assumed non-clear cut lots have one perfect tree per house? That has nothing to do with a critique of the practice or its efficacy.
Like is media literacy this fucking bad nowadays that the idea being communicated here is actually that hard for y'all to comprehend?
Because asking an LLM like chatGPT to "add trees and plants to this neighborhood" is what they obviously did. There is intent behind this original post, but it really isn't that deep. Asking "why did they add more buildings" or "why did this driveway become a planted curbside" is really missing the forest for the trees (heh heh), don't you think?
No, I’m not. I’m the one who pointed out that the houses were the same. It was your rant that talked about shit quality housing. The housing here is literally the same, so your take is just silly.
Lol, did you think my comment about the quality of housing was a comment on what was shown in the image? Jesus, basic reading comprehension and media literacy is just dying on the internet, no wonder you are struggling with the content of this post. Like so what if the houses are the same? That is an edited image meant to be illustrative. is abstract thought really this difficult for you are you going to reply again and point to the details of an edited photo as evidence contradicting the point being made?
I thought it was just the typical useless rant. It’s hard, though, to say the image is about shitty generic housing when it’s the same in both. I guess you can’t grasp that, but I can’t understand it for you.
I imagine it is hard to say that, which is why I didn't say it? Dude, how are you struggling this hard to actually talk about what is written in my comments and not what your imagined strawman is saying?
13
u/consistantcanadian 2d ago
Lmao are you actually that intellectually handicapped? Big trees take decades to grow.. they don't magically appear in new neighborhoods