thats mostly the perspective that im arguing from. i also think that the sprawl of the US, while good for lots of ""free"" land, has the downside of being much more difficult to organise public transport, accessible schools, hospitals etc. like if you imagine a future without cars, the US population will have to densify.

[–] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

From an initial metropolitan perspective, as in imagine for a moment we accomplished to install a communist govt. Quickest expropriations that can be done in a metropolitan area such as New York city proper would be empty houses in the burbs - depending on how big they are you can house multiple families temporarily - damn near all the skyscrapers can be converted into temp housing, and that's not even touching the zones that feed into or out of Manhattan via rail.

Surplus homeless or other temp housed people seeking better accomidations can be relocated via rail to additional expropriated housing across the east coast, and that same rail allows for ease of moving people out to temp housing as well whenever more dense housing projects begin that requires radical redesigning of urban cityscape.

[–] starkillerfish@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

i dont have major disagreements. the only thing is i don't think skyscrapers or empty burb houses count as adequate housing, but if you count it as temporary then sure.