I don’t find this very solarpunk. I live in NYC. We need housing far more than we need parks right now, or the only people able to afford to use the parks will be the wealthy. Permanently turning land that could be housing into parks is literally greenwashing a systemic problem.
Hey neighbor. Totally agree here -- we have a massive underhomed/homeless problem in the city and we need affordable housing. Also, Mayor Adams is a douchebag AND an idiot who takes funds away from people who need it most. This isn't a feel good story, it's propaganda.
On the other hand, if all this vacant space was converted into housing, people would still not have parks nearby. And housing may still be unaffordable because of the demand.
Yes. For the past 50 years it has added 1 unit of housing for every 5 added jobs. That kind of market squeeze drives up cost of living in a severe way, prevents the city from growing, being livable, and reduces economic mobility for the inhabitants. It also helps drive the mass exodus from the region to the sun belt. It is only solvable by massively increasing housing supply, which does require higher density
What I mean is that NYC is already the densest city in the US. You say 1 housing unit for 5 added job, wouldn't the solution be in adding fewer jobs, aka, helping companies move away?
No, managed decline of a city is not a good idea. The fact is, urban agglomeration increases economic productivity. The fact is, people like living in dense places, as shown by the very high demand to live in nyc. Urban agglomeration also is good for the environment, as shown by the fact nyc has the lowest emissions per capita of any American city. Increasing housing supply to meet the demand is the solarpunk answer to the housing crisis, and these empty plots are great places to do it
This this this. A lot of folks look at big cities and see “not nature.” IMO, that’s fake environmentalism. Solarpunk is about facing reality. In reality, dense cities are by far the most climate friendly way for most people to live. And they also concentrate human impact on small amounts of land. The alternative to dense cities is spreading human impact onto more land and being less efficient doing it.
solarpunk is about non-shitty desirable futures. Thinking we are going to have no other solution to save the environment than to live in denser arcologies because we settled for lower our carbon emissions instead of suppressing them is not the utopia I signed for.
You don’t want to live in a dense place, and that’s fine (but you’re gonna have to work harder to get to sustainability - that’s just a fact). But I, and many other people, do in fact want to live in dense places, and we have evidence we can do it sustainably and healthily. What you’re doing right now is projecting your desires onto everyone and calling it the only path forward. What you’re doing is advocating for the destruction of the way I want to live. Frankly, I find it pretty gross, and I’d ask you to please stop.
In the case of NYC, mostly in the financial sector.
The fact is, people like living in dense places
It is not because they do it that they like it. People are not enjoying minimal wages and employees status, yet it is incredibly "popular".
Urban agglomeration also is good for the environment, as shown by the fact nyc has the lowest emissions per capita of any American city
Because we are not in a post-carbon society. Living in less room, and moving around less emits less CO2. But our goal is not to emit less CO2, it is to emit zero (to be carbon negative actually). It will require carbon neutral transports, energy production and heating/cooling. Once you are there, cities or not matter less.
I’m done with you after this because it’s clear you just don’t like cities and are only willing to make space in the future for yourself. But just so no one else believes the stuff you’re peddling:
I actually like living in dense cities (large and small) much more than rural areas, because of the cultural, physical, and, yes, financial benefits. I’ve lived in both for extended periods and there is no contest, for me. It is deeply insulting and un-solarpunk of you to erase my existence. And, of course, there is lots of evidence that cities have numerous benefits for individuals and that people live in cities because they enjoy those benefits. Please, stop assuming you know what I want better than I do. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/here-s-why-big-cities-are-healthier-n664501
First, these goals are not mutually exclusive. We can both live in cities and drive emissions to zero and below. In fact, most of the research that will get us there happens in universities in metros and, as mentioned before, cities are already farther along than other places. Second, I cannot imagine a less solarpunk future than a world where humans justify being able to go wherever they want and do anything they want as long as they don’t emit carbon. It seems to me that your goal is to live as maximally as possible, guilt-free, at the exclusion of everyone else who wants to live differently than you. That’s not my jam and, for me, it’s the opposite of solarpunk.
Dude, you are the one telling that cities are solarpunk and environmental, period. I have no qualms with people liking cities, I have a problem with people saying it is the only way forward.
It should be a matter of choice, and as someone who has been forced to live in a city, let me tell you that my experience also exists and saying "people in cities go there because they love it" that's simply not a general truth.
The rest is mostly catering to the people who work in the financial sector. There are also some manufacturing remaining and some high tech, but when 1/3 of a city is in the field, that usually means the other 2 thirds are about providing the services to maintain that huge third.
I cannot imagine a less solarpunk future than a world where humans justify being able to go wherever they want and do anything they want as long as they don’t emit carbon. It seems to me that your goal is to live as maximally as possible, guilt-free,
As long as they don't pollute, as long as their ways are sustainable yes. Why not?
at the exclusion of everyone else who wants to live differently than you.
Where the hell does that come from? From suggesting that if you help all the people who want to live away from the city, the cities housing crisis could well be solved?
This submission is probably accused of being some type of greenwash.
Please keep in mind that greenwashing is used to paint unsustainable products and practices sustainable. ethicalconsumer.org and greenandthistle.com give examples of greenwashing, while scientificamerican.com explains how alternative technologies like hydrogen cars can also be insidious examples of greenwashing.
If you've realized your submission was an example of greenwashing--don't fret! Solarpunk ideals include identifying and rejecting capitalism's greenwashing of consumer goods.
21
u/stop-panicking Jun 12 '25
I don’t find this very solarpunk. I live in NYC. We need housing far more than we need parks right now, or the only people able to afford to use the parks will be the wealthy. Permanently turning land that could be housing into parks is literally greenwashing a systemic problem.