You compare a city center with an interchange close to the city limit. You will see stuff like that in Europe too, especially motorways that separate cities from their sprawling neighbors. Houston has interchanges that look way more problematic.
The really fun bit is that the US doesn't need more room to house people. There are more vacant apartments than there are homeless people as is, but nobody can pay the rents.
There are enough highway interchanges in Italy too.
Not every ground that is suitable for streets, is also suitable for living.
The cost between those both are not comparable.
Usage of land is (at least in Italy) carefully determined to fulfill societies needs. Most people prefer to live somewhere, where infrastrcture already exists instead of building up a ghost town without anything nearby.
This isn't a great argument. There is so much open undeveloped space in the US that could be used to house people. This interchange isn't taking space away from anyone.
What do you propose they do with that space? Adding literally any way to access it necessarily interferes with the roads around it and makes the entire project pointless.
Even ignoring that obvious problem, you can't use it for housing since there's nothing there and it's surrounded by high-speed traffic. Can't build shops or other amenities there since nobody stops and it's surrounded by high-speed traffic. You definitely can't put livestock there.
That wasn't the argument I was responding to. The initial argument was that the interchange was taking away space that could be used to house people. Simply replacing the interchange with housing would cause even larger problems than developing the empty land around it.
I'd say you're technically correct in saying that we can do everything, whereas the other point is that since other species are also affected by our decisions we shouldn't
Aren't there any hobos under there?
You compare a city center with an interchange close to the city limit. You will see stuff like that in Europe too, especially motorways that separate cities from their sprawling neighbors. Houston has interchanges that look way more problematic.
The really fun bit is that the US doesn't need more room to house people. There are more vacant apartments than there are homeless people as is, but nobody can pay the rents.
Build stack interchange only in cities skylines, not in real world
Comparing apples to pears. Nice.
How so? It's showing that with all that space the interchange is taking up you can house 30000+ people.
There are enough highway interchanges in Italy too.
Not every ground that is suitable for streets, is also suitable for living.
The cost between those both are not comparable.
Usage of land is (at least in Italy) carefully determined to fulfill societies needs. Most people prefer to live somewhere, where infrastrcture already exists instead of building up a ghost town without anything nearby.
This isn't a great argument. There is so much open undeveloped space in the US that could be used to house people. This interchange isn't taking space away from anyone.
This isn't a great argument. A majority of highway interchanges in city limits have actually displaced people.
this interchange is in the city of Houston. of course it's taking space away.
Those giant empty fields right below it are even larger...
Gee, I wonder why people don't want to live next to a highway interchange.
And then deal with all the car noise pollution? No thanks.
What do you propose they do with that space? Adding literally any way to access it necessarily interferes with the roads around it and makes the entire project pointless.
Even ignoring that obvious problem, you can't use it for housing since there's nothing there and it's surrounded by high-speed traffic. Can't build shops or other amenities there since nobody stops and it's surrounded by high-speed traffic. You definitely can't put livestock there.
That wasn't the argument I was responding to. The initial argument was that the interchange was taking away space that could be used to house people. Simply replacing the interchange with housing would cause even larger problems than developing the empty land around it.
depends on how myopic is your definition of "anyone" is
"space" isn't for humans only. roads are taking monstrous amounts of space
Humans won the planet, they can do as they please. (Including damn themselves, but all belongs to us)
if you want to provoke, you should try to write something less immature.
go play with your xbox
I'm not being edgy, the planet and all consequences belong to us.
Is there another dominant species around I haven't met yet?
I'd say you're technically correct in saying that we can do everything, whereas the other point is that since other species are also affected by our decisions we shouldn't
That's the consequences part
Go tell that to the people displaced by Robert Moses.
In Texas?
It's not just about how much space, but where that space is.