For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
Bungalows have never been sustainable, tax and infrastructure-wise. We need a similar one.
Mayberry and cars were neat for the 50s, but we've sacrificed green space and agri space for bungalow sprawl. We either have to reduce people or forget single-level fire-trap houses and driving 20 min to a parking lot for daily needs.
I don't know where you live but I have not seen a new bungalow built in 40 years.
I've seen plenty knocked down to build a McMansion on though.
It's not an issue of the style of house; it's an issue of the lot square footage allocated to a single house (i.e. dwelling units per acre).
Think of it like this: if you've got a single family house on a square 1-acre lot, that's a little over 200 feet on each side. Assuming it's not a corner lot and you've got a neighbor across the street, your tax dollars basically need to pay to maintain 100' of street, water and sewer pipes, etc. plus the cost per mile of city vehicles driving past it. (Plus some amount related to the depth of the yard and its effect on the length of other roads on other sides of the block, but let's ignore that for simplicity.)
In comparison, if it were 4 1/4-acre lots instead (with 50' of street frontage each), each family would only be responsible for 25' worth of infrastructure. Or if it were a 10-unit multifamily building on that lot, each family would only need to pay for 10'.
Unfortunately, because tax is based on property value and not street frontage and value doesn't scale linearly like that, what ends up happening is that the city loses money on the large-lot single-family, and those people (who are already generally some of the richest since they can afford large lots) end up getting subsidized by the (poorest) people who take up the least amount of space.
It's both unjust and a perverse incentive to consume more space than you need.
Mine's all brown and overgrown, am I doing it right?
We only have yards because some asshat when creaytng the cookie cutter home system for suburbia thought it was a good thing to force non rich people to care for a thing only rich people had because they paid others to take care of it to show they had wealth to hire a ton of people, so that "they would be too busy to think about commuting crimes"...
We also have them because they are nice to look at, smell good, and pleasant to use; the exact same reasons that the wealthy had them.
Most alternatives to a traditional lawn lose at least two of those and they can take just as much time to maintain.
Suburban lawns are a problem but there's very few, if any, alternatives that provide the same benefits.
Nice to look at is subjective. I find them ugly, but ofcourse that is rooted in knowing that they're basically dead land that just looks green. Just like tree plantations aren't as pretty as a forest. What I find prettier is chaotic growth that is mostly left to it's own.
Smell, again subjective, I find the varried smell much more pleasant. But the smell is always superceded by the nearby dairy farm anyways in my case, as it is for my neighbours with their grass yards
"Pleasant to use" you mean easy for kids to play on? Can't argue with that if you have kids. I don't and I enjoy watching my chaotic yard used more by birds and insects. , knowing that there's at least more life in there.