• FanonFan [comrade/them, any]
      ·
      9 months ago

      I mean the idea is that good urban planning would enable shorter and more frequent grocery store trips. Rather than a supercenter supplying everyone within 30 miles, requiring long drives, you'd have things distributed by need, i.e. general food stores every couple miles, more specialist places potentially farther away. Our current layout and shopping habits are contingent on car infrastructure and massive federal subsidies.

      Would also decrease waste and increase general health, since fresher, less processed food could be purchased.

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      ·
      9 months ago

      I've done that. You just bring something appropriate to carry it in.

      Although now that I live closer to a smaller grocer, I just walk twice.

    • gareins@lemm.ee
      ·
      9 months ago

      This is ok though, going once per 14days for that 90% of stuff and having your car for that is ok. Otherwise if you run out of something, hop to your nearest store. Also here some of my friends and family are not reachable via public transport so I use car for that. But dont use it for commute every day, going to the beach/mountains every weekend, going to the store every other day, taking kids to school and back etc. For many this is completely doable but people are lazy

  • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    cake
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Am from Germany and went to Nuremburg to visit a convention.
    The public transit is night and day between those two places.
    Only had to wait about <10min for the next bus.
    I believe the accomodation is not very outside or inside of the transit serving area but it is surprising what a subway and a good schedule can do for one.

  • workerONE@lemmy.ml
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    "Stop driving cars because places were not supposed to be driven to." Wow that's a good point /s

  • Floon@lemmy.ml
    ·
    9 months ago

    People responding to the meme that needing cars isn't evil, and is required for many areas, are missing the point of the meme.

    The meme is complaining about areas we built that can exist as they are only if everyone owns a car. If we weren't so consumerist, and if white people could better tolerate living near black people, we wouldn't have so much of the population living in suburban areas where cars are so necessary. A lot more people would live in circumstances where public transport is more viable for them.

    And, of course, some shade thrown at the car buyers who buy comsumptively-extreme cars to do piddling stuff in. The number of basic sedans that can be had with 200+hp engines, or F150 pickups with massive gas-guzzling engines, that only get used for surface road driving one or two people around, is pretty ridiculous.

    The main wrong thing about the meme is that it's assuming our situation was created specifically so that evil corporations could sell cars and gas... no, they're profiting from, and exacerbating, the problem of white flight from cities. Most of the country's problems come in large part from racism first, and then profiteering on top of that.

  • RawrGuthlaf@lemmy.sdf.org
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yet again, this is not a meme. This is an idealogical pamphlet. I don't even disagree with the message. But it's not a meme.

  • AndyLikesCandy@reddthat.com
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    "I would love to live here"photo looks like a typical suburb - with a population density that is at a level where everyone still needs to own a car. I'm thinking European cities like Bern. Most people don't need one to get to work but basically every household still needs one for non-work use.

    Car-free population density should be more like minor Japanese cities (like Kanazawa, etc), or old towns in Europe (downtown Bordeaux).