this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
950 points (97.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

10348 readers
1451 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 85 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

You're probably not going to save 95% of the trees given the major earthworks likely needed for managing sewage, stormwater, and other utilities. You'll probably save most of them, though.

40k looks pretty optimistic for the size and number of buildings, too.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago

I don't know if it's the same in USA but with all these new regulations building houses these days is an environmental disaster

[–] Sergio@slrpnk.net 14 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

probably not going to save 95% of the trees

I was wondering that too... maybe they meant: plant new trees, and the total number of new trees would be 95% of the number of old trees?

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 30 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I’m guessing they’re just not aware of construction impacts on trees. It’s not something most people think about.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 25 points 14 hours ago

I supposed they meant "And this amount of space is still available for greenery" rather than "These, specific, trees will be preserved"

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Depends how many floors they have but yeah, that would be quite high density at 60k/km²