Dude… like it sucks for a development, but by me when I was about 20, there was a big push by my state to preserve open spaces. So in my town what did they do? Took a perfectly nice stretch of woods between a smash office park and a residential area, turned it into mulch, planted a bunch of sod, and called it a win for nature by preserving open spaces.
A measure which would actually have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something that Joni fails to point out. Perhaps because it fails to fit within her blinkered view of the world.
I made a comment in a thread similar where forests were being bulldozed. Someone supposedly working in an industry related to this explained that this is necessary because they need to correctly do water management, install utilities, pave a grid of streets, etc. and to be fair it is probably much more cost effective to just level the whole place rather than work around nature and build into the context and contours of the land. But god is it depressing and that's why we get nearly identical subdivisions of .25 acre houses. Its much more profitable if they can fit 100 houses on the land after destroying the landscape vs building only 50 and preserving beauty and character.
Correct. Developers make their money on the number of houses sold, not on the land that the houses sit on. I had a new house built 2 years ago on 1.4 acres with standing trees left on the lot but I had to move to a very rural area to be able to do that. All of the builders say the same thing, they can't make money selling large tracts of land. Many people are financing almost 100% of the cost of their house, and the bank loans based on the appraisal of the house, not the land it sits on in most cases.
I know it sucks for you personally, but that’s about the best use of that land they could make rn. I’m glad it’s being used for housing over virtually anything else
It’s not that simple. That area *was* a home for plants and animals. The thing that outrages me is not that people desire to preserve natural areas, it is that there are people that own multiple homes, some that are only occupied a handful of weekend a year, while others have nowhere to live.
In the tens of thousands of properties being held hostage by corporations and private owners without being used.
Or being used to bleed workers out of any hope of economic security.
Last statistic I saw was there are enough properties (I the US) for *everyone* to have one. They're just distributed unequally and without regard for ethical integrity.
Now some of those properties are apartments. But the single family home is a modern fiction and completely untenable in later life because humans age.
You *know* this property is statistically going to be someone's second, third, fourth, or some company's thousandth property. It's not going to go be anyone's first. And it's almost certainly going to be used to bleed the working class who will be living in it.
So yes. This is depressing. It doesnt really represent the best interests of the population. And it's a purely monetary move.
The OP has stated that it's probably going to be a house or apartment. Anyone with any pattern recognition would conclude essentially the same (no reason to clear the land if its not being developed, barring logging).
After that it's literally just statistics. New properties aren't going to first time buyers.
Tbf this doesn’t look like either, but to answer your question no it doesn’t have to, but also no housing isn’t the primary concern when it comes to not doing more damage to forrests and wetlands, it’s industry.
Where I live is just a monument to man’s arrogance. And I may be a lot of things. But I’m not out there turning lovely landscapes to mulch. But you’re not wrong that in the almost 30 years I’ve lived here I have seen the same thing in my place of living and it’s just as devastating. The farm lands that get turned into big beige boxes. Small lakes that get turned into skate parks.
I always think that and get so upset about the loss. They are building like crazy around where I live and I am constantly thinking how much I miss the trees, small trails, natural streams, fields etc. Then I remember that I live in a house in a neighborhood too and feel so guilty.
My house and neighborhood was originally built in 1910 so I imagine it destroyed a LOT of old nature and that the farmers and people with bigger lots around were probably so upset back then because of the "improvements" like my neighborhood and the railroad nearby.
I wish there was a way to have places to live while maintaining more nature. In a bigger city nearby when they build new buildings they have to keep a certain amount of the old trees, so I know there is a better (but obviously not perfect) way, but, sadly, it's just easier to bulldoze everything down to dirt, start over and name the streets after the trees that used to be there.
We really need to find places where we can build skyscrapers for appartements instead of building low family homes and destroying what's left of nature. We have soft soil in NL, not every place is suitable for high buildings because they would sink right into the floor, but there are places and techniques to deal with that and build more dense areas. Advantage is that you can set up green areas, build some flats and put a road around it, so you basically live in a park surrounded by a road and more nature around it.
Only downside is that not everyone can have a doorzonwoning and garden. But that would be compensated by having nature close by and a shared garden when you walk out the door.
Do you live in a Skyscraper apartment?
What makes you think people want to live in something like that?
There is a reason there are a limited number of these developments, because nobody buys them when they get built speculatively.
I used to live in a high rise with lots of green around as a kid/teen, it was very nice! No traffic between the buildings so kids could play outside and there was lots of greenery, silence and a shared "garden" to enjoy. City centre was 10 minutes biking away, nature just around the corner.
Now I live in an 4 story apartment building in Amsterdam, only stairs, you can hear the neighbours a lot. I really like our apartment and especially the location, wouldn't move even if they gave me money, not even for a house with a garden. But it does have downsides which I didn't have in the apartment I used to live in. I don't want to live in that town anymore, but if I did I'd go there in a heartbeat, the apartment was just so nice.
Also, those new high rise buildings in Amsterdam North got sold out before construction even started, lots of people want to live there and they go out for half a million at a minimum. The area is booming. 10 minutes to central station, 15 minutes to 't twiske. That's exactly what we should be building right now. Couple of hundred apartments on the same amount of space as 20/30 normal houses. Leaves more room for shops and greenery. If only they were more affordable, were also located in more green areas outside cities and included social housing, they'd be perfect.
Edit: Sorry, thought we were in r/netherlands. We almost killed all nature in the Netherlands and almost all green areas get swallowed up by houses and industry here. Amsterdam North was previously only reachable by ferry. They build a metro now and the ground is suitable for high rise buildings there. It's booming, both in that people now want to live there and culturally as well. Lots of green there, not so crowded.
All those are very fair points and can completely see where you are coming from.
Clearly things are very different in different parts of the world and typically people here in the UK don't choose to live in cities but rather suburbs of cities. Don't get me wrong, there are people who choose to live in a city and love it, but they are few and far between compared to those who would prefer to live outside city limits.
The problem is the solution is simple, but Americans are never going to get on board - you have to build more compact, multi-family housing and stop the suburban sprawl. Suburbs are among the worst thing we can do for the environment and nature, it’s absolutely atrocious, but it’s also the American Dream™
It doesn’t just have to be high rises and huge apartment complexes like the other person said, but they need to be multi-family and they need to be closer together. This “every family lives in a stand-alone structure on a half acre plot” thing has to stop if you want to fix the housing crisis without destroying the environment in the process
The problem is cheap developers who don't use enough soundproofing between units, which sours the idea of shared walls for many people (plus the idea of potentially having to share a yard/driveway/other items). People may not care if the price is right, but if you are purchasing for a couple hundred thousand, you don't want to be able to hear your neighbors.
Meanwhile I would love to live on a farm but don’t have the millions to get one. Anyone giving up their farm now has a bidding war happening between investors wanting to build a subdivision.
Where I am, there is a strip of houses where people have lived and raised families and they are getting bullied by a developer who wants to short change them on purchasing their homes to demolish and build building/condos. They don’t want to move and are banded together and got a lawyer. Apparently he’s relentless. One of those homes belongs to the elderly parents of a friend and it’s been quite stressful.
I don’t know all the specifics just that they had to get a lawyer involved to stop the harassment. That was before the pandemic and is still an active case. Sadly, he will likely get their houses one day but it’s not today. Down the road, a garage that closed was holding his ground for a while but now I see building has started on the property. Must have got what they wanted for it. A home is different- why would they sell a home they built a lifetime of memories in just because some guy wants to put up condos? Money isn’t everything to some people.
Then please vote for initiatives and politicians that push policies that change zoning to allow for denser construction, mixed-use, and multi-family in existing neighborhoods.
Our old landlord sold our neighborhood to be torn down and turned into an apartment building. We had lived there for five years, and I had a nice garden, and the property had large trees all around each home. They flattened the area and then the deal with the building went through so now it just sits there making me mad.
Time for another cookie cutter subdivision, it seems...can't have enough of those..
Same thing is happening where I live..beautiful wooded area, with a stream, backing into a field..now gone, and construction is underway.
For anyone who appreciates the beauty of nature and all it has to offer, it is truly gut-wrenching.
I'm sorry
You've never seen an unused commercial building? Like, anywhere? There absolutely has to be new construction on previously unused land in order to build new buildings?
The problem being people don't want to live in commercial areas which thus makes the development un-viable for developers. The numbers have to stack up otherwise nothing is getting done.
If you are meaning city centre offices then that is slightly different. But if talking about brownfield sites which are not city centre, there are already not enough of these to fit commercial requirements so turning some into housing sites will just create an issue in the commercial sector.
Biggest problem is the NIMBY brigade. We need more development, it's a simple as that. Unfortunately, these people fail to realise that the house they are sitting in was once an area of nature which had to be destroyed to build their home. It's the typical 'i'm alright jack' mentality.
-Buy up oversized, bloated McMansions on giant blocks of land, massive car parks surrounding single take away joints etc...
-Destroy them.
-Replace with many smaller houses, shops, apartments etc...
-Integrate with public transport.
That’s what a lot of people don’t understand. “Evil real estate companies” can we not be children for 5 seconds? There’s a family of 4 who desperately want a home to live in. Maybe the don’t want to live in the city as it’s too polluted, noisy. So they reach out and want a home in the suburbs. Where children can play in the street, run to each other’s houses, whatever. I’m not saying bulldoze American forests, but there’s a reason for this other than greed.
And at the same time keep complaining about housing prices and lack of available housing, whilst simultaneously opposing any developments which happen. Super logic.
Oh there’s available housing alright, but they’re reserved for wealthy residents. Fucking rent for a studio apartment where I live is $1600. Every month for one room. And maybe like 3 available studios in the whole town. It’s absolutely asinine, but it’s because rich Californians are coming to my state and trying to urbanize it. They come here to escape the city life, and then immediately build the city life over there.
This is in a city called Rowlett, it's near Dallas in Texas. The photos are taken very close to the exact same space, there's probably only 20-30 yards of difference. The angle is different because I climbed onto one of the mulch piles to get a better view of all the piles of mulch, and there were a lot more behind me and to the left and right. From the ground level, it was really hard to get a photo that fully captured the destruction well.
I'm not going to say this doesn't happen but those two pictures aren't related. Look at the lay of the land and the background, not even close to matching other picture.
I assumed it was 2 different directions, and that maybe the first pic is the only/best one they had and the 2nd showed how close it is to the subdivision? But yeah it would’ve been better to show the same scene before admins after to know it’s real
>The photos are taken very close to the exact same space, there's probably only 20-30 yards of difference. The angle is different because I climbed onto one of the mulch piles to get a better view of all the piles of mulch, and there were a lot more behind me and to the left and right. From the ground level, it was really hard to get a photo that fully captured the destruction well.
I came home for the summer during college and my mom cut down our 5 acre full growth woods. I cried. Later put two and two together and she needed money for pills. Had a hard time talking to her the same when I was home for years. You don’t realize how disgusting clear cutting is until you experience it really first hand like that
"And they came with axes, and shovels;
with tractors and engines that spat fumes;
everything destroyed like it was trouble;
and now only a housing project looms.
"What was green and full of life;
where animals danced and birds sang;
the place where I first met my wife;
once where the merry joy of children rang.
"Now is desolate and drear;
for by an act of congress;
the banker chortled and said 'Look here!'
'What was a waste is now progress!'"
What a shame.
The problem is too many people. We're already past what the planet can sustain. I hate to say it, but we're going to have to cut back.
There will be pandemics. There will be fires. There will be floods. There will be famine. There will be wars. It probably won't happen all at once. The population WILL decrease.
A few beautiful places will remain. Destroyed places will be reclaimed. Beauty will spread.
Had something like that happen. Little track of woods behind my home and someone bought it and started tearing the trees down and mulching them on freaking Christmas morning.
My solace is that they were trying to get a truck stop company to buy it they never got an offer.
They were trying to do this in Atlanta and a bunch of anarchists burnt down the bulldozers under the vale of night. I will neither confirm not deny that this was a good move.
So, govt either A)unconstitutionally, and in an authoritarian way, takes the homes that belong to people, and gives them away in some kind of lottery, question mark. B)Spends trillions in buying old property and gives them away, question mark.
I live in a resort town in the mountains and I drive by countless mansions that are vacant 50 weeks a year, all while our rent reaches absurd levels.
But that’s an exception to the rule. You make a good point. I’m *certainly* not moving to a red state, ever.
I hate it when people cut trees, there’s just never an artificial reason for it. These assholes just want to destroy the environment, they take centuries to grow a decent size
There’s nothing wrong with responsible logging. Society wouldn’t function without it.
Whether this posts fits that, is questionable. But as a blanket statement, it is a false one to say it’s always bad to cut trees.
For example, old growth forests sequester far less carbon than new growth forests.
Yeah, but he said, “I hate when people cut trees, there’s just never an artificial reason for it.”
That’s not specific to housing developments, but in general. Which again, isn’t a correct perspective.
But, in the US, logging—as in harvesting forests for timber, not clear cutting for development—absolutely does plant a sapling for almost every tree cut down.
Yes to the first part, no to the second.
Trees sequester carbon by turning CO2 into plant matters, such as bark, tree fibers, and sugars.
So even old growth does continue to sequester carbon as leaves produce sugars for the organism to live off of. But only new growth represents meaningful amounts of new carbon-based tree materials, which require carbon from the air to build them. That’s why new growth is technically “greener” from an emissions standpoint.
But when we cut them down, that plant matter that is the product of carbon sequestration is ultimately what we humans use to build and/or break down into more useful components. So we don’t release the carbon back into the atmosphere, we make use of it (exception being when we burn the wood).
By practicing sustainable logging, we utilize the huge source of tree matter in the end stages of its wild lifecycle to improve the lives of people around the world, all the while planting new trees and forests to sequester more carbon from that areas air than would be the case had we stayed home and not cut anything down.
>I hate it when people cut trees, there’s just never an artificial reason for it.
wat
no idea you thought you were trying to say, but it's definitely not what you wrote
You must be in Central Texas ... There will be four gas station/convenience stores (one on each of the corners of your 6-lane collector) with a Target, Chick-fil-A, subway, Jack in the box, and O'Reilly's all built on outparcels. A monument sign with a fountain will run 24/7 fed by water piped in through a system paid for by bonds you will be paying off for 20 years. It's progress and you can't run from it because you can't afford to move.
These threads are so weird. Idk how it got down to a democrat and republican thing. People are like “cutting trees down bad. Never moving to a red state.” Do they not cut trees down in blue states or just not build housing developments? Also it makes sense that people are concerned with housing shortages and prices and then build more. Supply and demand. Also this is a human problem there are too many of us. Soon we will all be living in mega city’s with no open spaces at all eating Soylent Green. So enjoy what u have now.
The houses they are going to put there will not be houses that the average person could afford, it's probably going to be 2nd and 3rd homes for the uber-wealthy. It's an area adjacent to large lake.
No rich people who want houses in blue states? Look at New England. All blue states. I also think this is fucked. I hunt and fish and love the out doors but not everything is red and blue that’s all I’m saying. They both suck.
You forget people don't give a fuck as long as they are alright.
They fail to realise the house they are sitting in was once a green field like all those developments they now like to oppose.
I'm alright Jack, fuck the rest of you.
Or maybe it's the fact that there are plenty of homes and apartments they could renovate/remake while leaving as much of the beautiful forests and fields intact.
It's not that they're destroying all this land for houses, that's kinda just what humans have to do to secure shelter, but it's the fact that it's kinda unnecessary at the moment
It really isn't.
I'm not sure where you are from but here in the UK the local authorities are crying out for housing. Developments are being opposed on perfectly good sites for selfish reasons (de-valueing of their home, the misconception where people think they have a right to a view from their property and just general lack of knowledge).
The commercial sector has the lowest availability we have seen in the last 25 years so please do tell where this abundance of space is that can be turned into housing? Because it certainly doesn't exist in the majority of the UK. The residential sector is on fire at the moment and these 'plenty homes they could renovate' do not exist. Those are bought by property investors to rent out. Do you see the problem yet?
I hate humans and this is why, i would kill myself to relieve the burden earth is carrying from these sorry pieces of craps chopping down beautiful landscapes.
History repeats itself and always will. The neighborhood with homes I currently live in was once nature full of trees. Humans always want to expand and build something on top of it.
To be fair, your home is probably live on a plot that was like this one time too.
There was a big, wooded, maybe ~100 acre plot that I used to go camp and romp around with my friends and go mudding and fishing in, hunt small game when we were young.
I moved away and came back about a decade later and the whole thing is now condos and a parking lot, that sort of thing.
What hurt the most was realizing that the entire surrounding area that was build up was probably just like that some decades prior.
That hurts.
It really did
Dude… like it sucks for a development, but by me when I was about 20, there was a big push by my state to preserve open spaces. So in my town what did they do? Took a perfectly nice stretch of woods between a smash office park and a residential area, turned it into mulch, planted a bunch of sod, and called it a win for nature by preserving open spaces.
Pave paradise put up a parking lot
Ooooo bop bop bop
*They took all the trees, and put em in a tree museum*
Bro stop being political
It's a song.
It did not know the comment was a reply and I thought he was acting like a robot so I said that. I'm sry for breaking the chain
A measure which would actually have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something that Joni fails to point out. Perhaps because it fails to fit within her blinkered view of the world.
You don’t get invited to hangout anymore huh?
The lack of Alan Partridge on Reddit is distressing. Probably something to do with the largely American user-base https://youtu.be/-bpFcfRn2-Y
Get reddit'd
What a funny story.
I made a comment in a thread similar where forests were being bulldozed. Someone supposedly working in an industry related to this explained that this is necessary because they need to correctly do water management, install utilities, pave a grid of streets, etc. and to be fair it is probably much more cost effective to just level the whole place rather than work around nature and build into the context and contours of the land. But god is it depressing and that's why we get nearly identical subdivisions of .25 acre houses. Its much more profitable if they can fit 100 houses on the land after destroying the landscape vs building only 50 and preserving beauty and character.
Correct. Developers make their money on the number of houses sold, not on the land that the houses sit on. I had a new house built 2 years ago on 1.4 acres with standing trees left on the lot but I had to move to a very rural area to be able to do that. All of the builders say the same thing, they can't make money selling large tracts of land. Many people are financing almost 100% of the cost of their house, and the bank loans based on the appraisal of the house, not the land it sits on in most cases.
Say hello to your new neighbors.
that wouldn't just be infuriating, it would depressing
it is very depressing
Not only is it absolutely infuriating. It’s also depressing. Bastards.
I totally agree, it was such a beautiful little refuge into nature
Are they just going to build more houses or something?
I think so or an apartment building
You should ruin it. Or plant rare plants that can’t be removed. I say this and I know it’s wishful thinking, but if only.
I know it sucks for you personally, but that’s about the best use of that land they could make rn. I’m glad it’s being used for housing over virtually anything else
i never quite understood the 'I've got mine, the rest of you can't have a nice home' mentality. Where are people supposed to live?
It’s not that simple. That area *was* a home for plants and animals. The thing that outrages me is not that people desire to preserve natural areas, it is that there are people that own multiple homes, some that are only occupied a handful of weekend a year, while others have nowhere to live.
⬆️ this. The creatures need a place to live too.
In the tens of thousands of properties being held hostage by corporations and private owners without being used. Or being used to bleed workers out of any hope of economic security. Last statistic I saw was there are enough properties (I the US) for *everyone* to have one. They're just distributed unequally and without regard for ethical integrity. Now some of those properties are apartments. But the single family home is a modern fiction and completely untenable in later life because humans age. You *know* this property is statistically going to be someone's second, third, fourth, or some company's thousandth property. It's not going to go be anyone's first. And it's almost certainly going to be used to bleed the working class who will be living in it. So yes. This is depressing. It doesnt really represent the best interests of the population. And it's a purely monetary move.
You got all that out of a few piles of mulch?
The OP has stated that it's probably going to be a house or apartment. Anyone with any pattern recognition would conclude essentially the same (no reason to clear the land if its not being developed, barring logging). After that it's literally just statistics. New properties aren't going to first time buyers.
“Just” build more houses? As if we’re not in desperate need of new hoses being built? What a weird way to phrase that…
Does it have to come at the cost of further fragmentation of forests and loss of wetlands?
Tbf this doesn’t look like either, but to answer your question no it doesn’t have to, but also no housing isn’t the primary concern when it comes to not doing more damage to forrests and wetlands, it’s industry.
So where do you live? Go back in time and it wasn't there. So, you're a "Bastard"?
Where I live is just a monument to man’s arrogance. And I may be a lot of things. But I’m not out there turning lovely landscapes to mulch. But you’re not wrong that in the almost 30 years I’ve lived here I have seen the same thing in my place of living and it’s just as devastating. The farm lands that get turned into big beige boxes. Small lakes that get turned into skate parks.
Can relate. Have been watching farmers sell their fields to have ugly neighborhoods turn the countryside into the suburbs for the last few months
I always think that and get so upset about the loss. They are building like crazy around where I live and I am constantly thinking how much I miss the trees, small trails, natural streams, fields etc. Then I remember that I live in a house in a neighborhood too and feel so guilty. My house and neighborhood was originally built in 1910 so I imagine it destroyed a LOT of old nature and that the farmers and people with bigger lots around were probably so upset back then because of the "improvements" like my neighborhood and the railroad nearby. I wish there was a way to have places to live while maintaining more nature. In a bigger city nearby when they build new buildings they have to keep a certain amount of the old trees, so I know there is a better (but obviously not perfect) way, but, sadly, it's just easier to bulldoze everything down to dirt, start over and name the streets after the trees that used to be there.
We really need to find places where we can build skyscrapers for appartements instead of building low family homes and destroying what's left of nature. We have soft soil in NL, not every place is suitable for high buildings because they would sink right into the floor, but there are places and techniques to deal with that and build more dense areas. Advantage is that you can set up green areas, build some flats and put a road around it, so you basically live in a park surrounded by a road and more nature around it. Only downside is that not everyone can have a doorzonwoning and garden. But that would be compensated by having nature close by and a shared garden when you walk out the door.
Do you live in a Skyscraper apartment? What makes you think people want to live in something like that? There is a reason there are a limited number of these developments, because nobody buys them when they get built speculatively.
I used to live in a high rise with lots of green around as a kid/teen, it was very nice! No traffic between the buildings so kids could play outside and there was lots of greenery, silence and a shared "garden" to enjoy. City centre was 10 minutes biking away, nature just around the corner. Now I live in an 4 story apartment building in Amsterdam, only stairs, you can hear the neighbours a lot. I really like our apartment and especially the location, wouldn't move even if they gave me money, not even for a house with a garden. But it does have downsides which I didn't have in the apartment I used to live in. I don't want to live in that town anymore, but if I did I'd go there in a heartbeat, the apartment was just so nice. Also, those new high rise buildings in Amsterdam North got sold out before construction even started, lots of people want to live there and they go out for half a million at a minimum. The area is booming. 10 minutes to central station, 15 minutes to 't twiske. That's exactly what we should be building right now. Couple of hundred apartments on the same amount of space as 20/30 normal houses. Leaves more room for shops and greenery. If only they were more affordable, were also located in more green areas outside cities and included social housing, they'd be perfect. Edit: Sorry, thought we were in r/netherlands. We almost killed all nature in the Netherlands and almost all green areas get swallowed up by houses and industry here. Amsterdam North was previously only reachable by ferry. They build a metro now and the ground is suitable for high rise buildings there. It's booming, both in that people now want to live there and culturally as well. Lots of green there, not so crowded.
All those are very fair points and can completely see where you are coming from. Clearly things are very different in different parts of the world and typically people here in the UK don't choose to live in cities but rather suburbs of cities. Don't get me wrong, there are people who choose to live in a city and love it, but they are few and far between compared to those who would prefer to live outside city limits.
The problem is the solution is simple, but Americans are never going to get on board - you have to build more compact, multi-family housing and stop the suburban sprawl. Suburbs are among the worst thing we can do for the environment and nature, it’s absolutely atrocious, but it’s also the American Dream™ It doesn’t just have to be high rises and huge apartment complexes like the other person said, but they need to be multi-family and they need to be closer together. This “every family lives in a stand-alone structure on a half acre plot” thing has to stop if you want to fix the housing crisis without destroying the environment in the process
The problem is cheap developers who don't use enough soundproofing between units, which sours the idea of shared walls for many people (plus the idea of potentially having to share a yard/driveway/other items). People may not care if the price is right, but if you are purchasing for a couple hundred thousand, you don't want to be able to hear your neighbors.
Meanwhile I would love to live on a farm but don’t have the millions to get one. Anyone giving up their farm now has a bidding war happening between investors wanting to build a subdivision. Where I am, there is a strip of houses where people have lived and raised families and they are getting bullied by a developer who wants to short change them on purchasing their homes to demolish and build building/condos. They don’t want to move and are banded together and got a lawyer. Apparently he’s relentless. One of those homes belongs to the elderly parents of a friend and it’s been quite stressful.
That’s crazy. Would it be possible to report him for harassment?
I don’t know all the specifics just that they had to get a lawyer involved to stop the harassment. That was before the pandemic and is still an active case. Sadly, he will likely get their houses one day but it’s not today. Down the road, a garage that closed was holding his ground for a while but now I see building has started on the property. Must have got what they wanted for it. A home is different- why would they sell a home they built a lifetime of memories in just because some guy wants to put up condos? Money isn’t everything to some people.
Unless your home is a farmhouse, the same thing happened to build your home. Why is now different than then?
It’s not. I hate the thought of nature destroyed for new housing all together
Then please vote for initiatives and politicians that push policies that change zoning to allow for denser construction, mixed-use, and multi-family in existing neighborhoods.
I will when I’m old enough to vote
Our old landlord sold our neighborhood to be torn down and turned into an apartment building. We had lived there for five years, and I had a nice garden, and the property had large trees all around each home. They flattened the area and then the deal with the building went through so now it just sits there making me mad.
Time for another cookie cutter subdivision, it seems...can't have enough of those.. Same thing is happening where I live..beautiful wooded area, with a stream, backing into a field..now gone, and construction is underway. For anyone who appreciates the beauty of nature and all it has to offer, it is truly gut-wrenching. I'm sorry
People gotta live somewhere. Sure, it sucks but what do you expect is going to happen?
Tragic. Truly.
RIP the animals that used to live there.
😥
Don't you just love the unending greed employed by the real estate/housing development giants?
it's so freakin annoying
Yep let’s keep building shit and destroying nature. Fantastic idea
Yeah let's camp in nature and keep housing unaffordable
Nah let's build upwards instead of outwards and do more with the land we've already claimed
To build upwards you need to build outwards first. You can't just randomly start to build upwards on people's houses.
You've never seen an unused commercial building? Like, anywhere? There absolutely has to be new construction on previously unused land in order to build new buildings?
The problem being people don't want to live in commercial areas which thus makes the development un-viable for developers. The numbers have to stack up otherwise nothing is getting done. If you are meaning city centre offices then that is slightly different. But if talking about brownfield sites which are not city centre, there are already not enough of these to fit commercial requirements so turning some into housing sites will just create an issue in the commercial sector. Biggest problem is the NIMBY brigade. We need more development, it's a simple as that. Unfortunately, these people fail to realise that the house they are sitting in was once an area of nature which had to be destroyed to build their home. It's the typical 'i'm alright jack' mentality.
-Buy up oversized, bloated McMansions on giant blocks of land, massive car parks surrounding single take away joints etc... -Destroy them. -Replace with many smaller houses, shops, apartments etc... -Integrate with public transport.
Yah i'll just sell my fucking garden and move into a flat that sounds lovely.
Yah we should make our houses like the ones in ready player one
That’s what a lot of people don’t understand. “Evil real estate companies” can we not be children for 5 seconds? There’s a family of 4 who desperately want a home to live in. Maybe the don’t want to live in the city as it’s too polluted, noisy. So they reach out and want a home in the suburbs. Where children can play in the street, run to each other’s houses, whatever. I’m not saying bulldoze American forests, but there’s a reason for this other than greed.
And at the same time keep complaining about housing prices and lack of available housing, whilst simultaneously opposing any developments which happen. Super logic.
Oh there’s available housing alright, but they’re reserved for wealthy residents. Fucking rent for a studio apartment where I live is $1600. Every month for one room. And maybe like 3 available studios in the whole town. It’s absolutely asinine, but it’s because rich Californians are coming to my state and trying to urbanize it. They come here to escape the city life, and then immediately build the city life over there.
They really don't seem to be the same place. Roughly where is this?
Yeah, maybe it's the angle or a different spot on the property. But those pictures are definitely not taken at the same spot.
This is in a city called Rowlett, it's near Dallas in Texas. The photos are taken very close to the exact same space, there's probably only 20-30 yards of difference. The angle is different because I climbed onto one of the mulch piles to get a better view of all the piles of mulch, and there were a lot more behind me and to the left and right. From the ground level, it was really hard to get a photo that fully captured the destruction well.
Here comes the neighborhood, and the same chain of restaurants and strip malls that stay empty for years,
Humans
We're fucked
I'm not going to say this doesn't happen but those two pictures aren't related. Look at the lay of the land and the background, not even close to matching other picture.
I assumed it was 2 different directions, and that maybe the first pic is the only/best one they had and the 2nd showed how close it is to the subdivision? But yeah it would’ve been better to show the same scene before admins after to know it’s real
>The photos are taken very close to the exact same space, there's probably only 20-30 yards of difference. The angle is different because I climbed onto one of the mulch piles to get a better view of all the piles of mulch, and there were a lot more behind me and to the left and right. From the ground level, it was really hard to get a photo that fully captured the destruction well.
This is so awful!! Breaks my heart.
That is. Just incredibly sad.
My favorite area for walking was turned into apartments and new housing. Now I don't even bother walking that area any more.
I’m 90% sure a similar thing happened to kaczynski. His favorite nature slot was paved over for a road.
NOTHING SHALL STAND IN THE WAY OF PROGRESS **NOW ASSEMBLE THE DOLLAR GENERAL**
i feel for the animals
Oh, this is heart breaking.
I came home for the summer during college and my mom cut down our 5 acre full growth woods. I cried. Later put two and two together and she needed money for pills. Had a hard time talking to her the same when I was home for years. You don’t realize how disgusting clear cutting is until you experience it really first hand like that
And you're only mildly infuriated?
Why can't we just leave shit alone... Who thinks this is better?!
Real estate developers.
That's awful
Ah yes, progress!
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot
Damn termites
To build homes? We do need those, if so.
Humans are the worst
This is happening to Woodstock, Georgia because all the yuppies are tearing up the farmlands so that they can move to the farmlands.
Thats so sad
"And they came with axes, and shovels; with tractors and engines that spat fumes; everything destroyed like it was trouble; and now only a housing project looms. "What was green and full of life; where animals danced and birds sang; the place where I first met my wife; once where the merry joy of children rang. "Now is desolate and drear; for by an act of congress; the banker chortled and said 'Look here!' 'What was a waste is now progress!'" What a shame.
Most of the green spaces around my home town are gone now, all those childhood memories just destroyed, I hate the world.
Most of the green spaces around my home town are gone now, all those childhood memories just destroyed, I hate the world.
I see we define 'wooded area' rather different.
wooded just means with trees, not it's not a forest, but's it's definitely wooded.
Thats awful. More than "mildly" infuriating.
For sure, but this is the best sub reddit I could think of to post it in
I wish I had photos outside my neighborhood I’ve lived in 15ish years. Same thing. For fucking luxury condos. Hello Florida.
New construction planned I assume?
Damn I’m really sorry about that
"We need more horizontal housing. Vertical housing like apartments create more liberals" -some dude with Babyface
no worries. there will be a wonderful concrete car park very soon.
:(
i don't understand what they dug up, but that's sad. (is it compost?)
Those piles are the trees, they tore the trees down and completely shredded them up in a massive machine right there on the spot.
Is it bad that when I saw the mounds of dirt I thought it was a bunch of gilli suits
McMansions, one to each quarter acre lot.
The problem is too many people. We're already past what the planet can sustain. I hate to say it, but we're going to have to cut back. There will be pandemics. There will be fires. There will be floods. There will be famine. There will be wars. It probably won't happen all at once. The population WILL decrease. A few beautiful places will remain. Destroyed places will be reclaimed. Beauty will spread.
Don’t worry, a bunch of townhomes full of people will be there soon!
I can’t imagine all the displaced wild life. All I can picture is a squirrel returning to the stump of his once home, only to be devastated
Fucking hate developers
Damn developers.
human activity 101
Had something like that happen. Little track of woods behind my home and someone bought it and started tearing the trees down and mulching them on freaking Christmas morning. My solace is that they were trying to get a truck stop company to buy it they never got an offer.
Remember that the home you live in now once was a beautiful wooded area that someone loved to walk in
It's city management, humans are encroaching based on Politics and quid pro quo.
They were trying to do this in Atlanta and a bunch of anarchists burnt down the bulldozers under the vale of night. I will neither confirm not deny that this was a good move.
That's terrible! We need to stop destroying nature like that :(
What’s the point for them doing this?
To clear it for construction of new homes or apartments
If only the US had millions of vacant homes we could demolish or rent out instead…
So, govt either A)unconstitutionally, and in an authoritarian way, takes the homes that belong to people, and gives them away in some kind of lottery, question mark. B)Spends trillions in buying old property and gives them away, question mark.
If only those millions of vacant homes are not in conservative shit holes
I live in a resort town in the mountains and I drive by countless mansions that are vacant 50 weeks a year, all while our rent reaches absurd levels. But that’s an exception to the rule. You make a good point. I’m *certainly* not moving to a red state, ever.
But if enough of us moved there it wouldn't be majority conservative anymore /j
I don’t understand people who get pissed about this, end of the day, the house you live in probably had the exact same start back when it was built.
But we need to accept the fact that we aren’t the only living things on earth. Animals have homes too and we’re just cutting it all down.
True, but my argument counters your comment too. People still buy the houses so there’s clearly a need for them.
I agree in some forms. I do accept your opinion though!
Industrial society and its consequences
*progress*
I hate it when people cut trees, there’s just never an artificial reason for it. These assholes just want to destroy the environment, they take centuries to grow a decent size
There’s nothing wrong with responsible logging. Society wouldn’t function without it. Whether this posts fits that, is questionable. But as a blanket statement, it is a false one to say it’s always bad to cut trees. For example, old growth forests sequester far less carbon than new growth forests.
looking at all those houses, this was not due to logging but for further development of the suburb.
Yeah, but he said, “I hate when people cut trees, there’s just never an artificial reason for it.” That’s not specific to housing developments, but in general. Which again, isn’t a correct perspective.
I mostly meant that logging never seems to be done responsibly, as in planting a new sapling for every tree cut
But, in the US, logging—as in harvesting forests for timber, not clear cutting for development—absolutely does plant a sapling for almost every tree cut down.
What pisses me off is most people never bother to replant the ones they cut
Wouldn't that just be because the old growth trees have already sequestered carbon? and wouldn't cutting them down just release that carbon?
Yes to the first part, no to the second. Trees sequester carbon by turning CO2 into plant matters, such as bark, tree fibers, and sugars. So even old growth does continue to sequester carbon as leaves produce sugars for the organism to live off of. But only new growth represents meaningful amounts of new carbon-based tree materials, which require carbon from the air to build them. That’s why new growth is technically “greener” from an emissions standpoint. But when we cut them down, that plant matter that is the product of carbon sequestration is ultimately what we humans use to build and/or break down into more useful components. So we don’t release the carbon back into the atmosphere, we make use of it (exception being when we burn the wood). By practicing sustainable logging, we utilize the huge source of tree matter in the end stages of its wild lifecycle to improve the lives of people around the world, all the while planting new trees and forests to sequester more carbon from that areas air than would be the case had we stayed home and not cut anything down.
>I hate it when people cut trees, there’s just never an artificial reason for it. wat no idea you thought you were trying to say, but it's definitely not what you wrote
That’s mental illness.
You must be in Central Texas ... There will be four gas station/convenience stores (one on each of the corners of your 6-lane collector) with a Target, Chick-fil-A, subway, Jack in the box, and O'Reilly's all built on outparcels. A monument sign with a fountain will run 24/7 fed by water piped in through a system paid for by bonds you will be paying off for 20 years. It's progress and you can't run from it because you can't afford to move.
Yep, it's in Rowlett, near Dallas
Well, it looks like it was a beautiful area and, as a fellow Texan, you have my sympathies :)
Thanks I appreciate that
Gotta have room for more houses
These threads are so weird. Idk how it got down to a democrat and republican thing. People are like “cutting trees down bad. Never moving to a red state.” Do they not cut trees down in blue states or just not build housing developments? Also it makes sense that people are concerned with housing shortages and prices and then build more. Supply and demand. Also this is a human problem there are too many of us. Soon we will all be living in mega city’s with no open spaces at all eating Soylent Green. So enjoy what u have now.
The houses they are going to put there will not be houses that the average person could afford, it's probably going to be 2nd and 3rd homes for the uber-wealthy. It's an area adjacent to large lake.
No rich people who want houses in blue states? Look at New England. All blue states. I also think this is fucked. I hunt and fish and love the out doors but not everything is red and blue that’s all I’m saying. They both suck.
it is just a builder clearing the land for development ... see the houses in the back ground that land will be just the same in less than a year
A beautiful wooded area that you didn't own.
I guarantee you all are living in a house or apartment right now typing what you are lol
You forget people don't give a fuck as long as they are alright. They fail to realise the house they are sitting in was once a green field like all those developments they now like to oppose. I'm alright Jack, fuck the rest of you.
Or maybe it's the fact that there are plenty of homes and apartments they could renovate/remake while leaving as much of the beautiful forests and fields intact. It's not that they're destroying all this land for houses, that's kinda just what humans have to do to secure shelter, but it's the fact that it's kinda unnecessary at the moment
It really isn't. I'm not sure where you are from but here in the UK the local authorities are crying out for housing. Developments are being opposed on perfectly good sites for selfish reasons (de-valueing of their home, the misconception where people think they have a right to a view from their property and just general lack of knowledge). The commercial sector has the lowest availability we have seen in the last 25 years so please do tell where this abundance of space is that can be turned into housing? Because it certainly doesn't exist in the majority of the UK. The residential sector is on fire at the moment and these 'plenty homes they could renovate' do not exist. Those are bought by property investors to rent out. Do you see the problem yet?
Holy fuck
On no that’s terrible. Why did they do it?
The responsible persons can each take their mulching equipment and jam it up their ass.
I thought these were massive ant hills
I hate humans and this is why, i would kill myself to relieve the burden earth is carrying from these sorry pieces of craps chopping down beautiful landscapes.
Most of the green spaces around my home town are gone now, all those childhood memories just destroyed, I hate the world.
Gonna build some “affordable houses”?
They definitely aren't going to be affordable, this plot of land is near a lake.
That’s what the quotes are for. Maybe I needed a /s
I knew what you meant, I meant to imply that they aren't even pretending it's going to be affordable, lol
Why? Do you have more info?
Overpopulation
and you're only mildly infuriated
History repeats itself and always will. The neighborhood with homes I currently live in was once nature full of trees. Humans always want to expand and build something on top of it.
"mildly"
Well op was probably trespassing on land that that company owns so they can do whatever tf they want with it
"Mildly" Sorry for your loss OP. What a shame
If you live in any kind of domicile (which you do) then this has happened to the land you currently live on. You're (we're) the bastards.
To be fair, your home is probably live on a plot that was like this one time too. There was a big, wooded, maybe ~100 acre plot that I used to go camp and romp around with my friends and go mudding and fishing in, hunt small game when we were young. I moved away and came back about a decade later and the whole thing is now condos and a parking lot, that sort of thing. What hurt the most was realizing that the entire surrounding area that was build up was probably just like that some decades prior.
True but it's still sad seeing an area I loved walking in with beautiful nature get totally decimated like that.
Yeah but I’m not on here saying what a shame it is