• PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      In Houston, though?

      A lot of land that is otherwise economically valuable is necessary to use to enable the massive flow of personal automobile traffic between and through areas.

  • Raiderkev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    To be fair, the population is probably a little more than 0. I’m sure there’s some homeless folks living under it.

  • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    You know what also houses 0 people, Central Park. And I mean permanent housing.

    You can make any point if you cherry pick data hard enough.

  • xia@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Zero? Really? In Houston? Surely there are at least a few sheltered under that.

  • jenny_ball@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    yes but we need cars i don’t understand how we’re supposed to live without the infrastructure

    • flipht@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I apologize if you’re being sarcastic, but this is the point. We need cars because we designed our cities around cars.

      If we designed around foot traffic and rail, we wouldn’t need (as many) cars and could do with less expensive car-centric infrastructure. Not just interstate exchanges, but also the massive parking lots and garages that are required, gas stations and car repair/oil change places on every corner, etc.