https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbanHell/comments/pyavv4/evergrandes_handiwork/

Some cool people in the comments, and some unironic murican suburbs apologists :stalin-gun-1: :dna:

  • viva_la_juche [they/them, any]
    ·
    3 years ago

    oh boy the brainworms in the comments.

    lOoKs LiKe It WaS bUiLt In A sWaMp YiKeS

    haha yea! imagine building a city in a swamp and having an eternal battle to uphold the infrastructure and then not do shit about it. couldnt be me (houston, florida) :agony-shivering:

    • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      You build cities in the swamp because you don't want to waste arable land. A ton of cities are built on swamps

    • ennuid [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      San Fran is built on a landfill, which is why a recently completed, billion+ dollar building is visibly leaning towards one side

          • Nakoichi [they/them]
            ·
            3 years ago

            California is a beautiful paradise destroyed and corrupted by capitalist extraction and neoliberal economics.

            • OfficialBenGarrison [he/him]
              ·
              3 years ago

              Couldn't agree more.

              Fucking love California. Unfortunately, so do rich people. As a result, California becomes "chic" and they want to kick the poors out since they want the whole ass state all to themselves.

              • Nakoichi [they/them]
                ·
                3 years ago

                I was born in one of the highest cost of living (compared to median income) places in the world. I'll be damned if they get me to move. I may be an anarchist but I have a lot of sympathy for Maoism.

      • ClathrateG [none/use name]
        ·
        3 years ago

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Tower_(San_Francisco)#Sinking_and_tilting_problem ?

      • RNAi [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Mexico city has at least 470 more years than DC, and back then apparently it made a lot of sense to build a city in the middle of a lake cuz easily defensible from attacks, which later still made sense for the spanish, and later it was too big and significant to ditch so...

        Anyways, a bird eating a snake on top of a nopal told the mexicas to build the city there so they had no choice.

        Edit: the bird told them to build the city in Chapultepec (a hill) but other people got angry and ran them off to the lake, so birds are still totally correct.

        • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
          ·
          3 years ago

          It wasn't a bad choice at all; it was simply adapted successfully to its environment. Tenochtitlan had buildings on the high ground, a bunch of bridges and stilts connecting the stuff above water, and lots of chinampas (floating gardens) everywhere. As a result it was relatively stable and not very flood-prone.

          Mexico City drained the Texcoco swamps, and ever since then, it has struggled with both flooding and damage from seismic activity.

          • RNAi [he/him]
            ·
            3 years ago

            But the pyramid next to el Zocalo was the most important place and it wasn't high ground, every few decades they had to re-coat the sunking pyramid into a new pyramid. It has like seven layers and the inner most is almost at a 90 ° angle cuz it sunked sideways

            • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
              ·
              3 years ago

              They weren't perfect, and it's definitely arguable that it had sprawled larger than what made sense for islands in a lake. It's all still categorically better than draining the wetland to then build conventionally on.

    • RNAi [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      yeah in any case, if you can avoid it, don't build over swamps

      • viva_la_juche [they/them, any]
        ·
        3 years ago

        I mean for sure, Just a goofy pot and kettle situation from Americans when a good percentage of our cities, incl the 4th largest one, are in swamps