Is this an issue you run into a lot? People claiming parking lots are historical? I mean you say you hate those people so clearly it must happen to you a lot?
It’s satire and overstatement. A real issue taken to an unreal extent. People claim shacks, beat up houses, and probably even parking garages, are historic and the reason you can’t build dense housing.
In 2017, the site was granted a monument protection status. Though King Richard III's bones have since been reburied in Leicester Cathedral, a museum has been built on the site of the car park where the remains were found and the area has been granted historic protection the museum is open daily and the area of the car park can be viewed
See, this isn't how I would have handled it. It would have been much funnier to have just put him right back where they found him. Put him back in his grave, and then rebuild the car park. Then declare the car park a historic landmark.
what I love is "you can't build here where would you put the cars?" as if every human is tied to their car as some form of life support, and without the car, humans just wither and die.
what I love is “you can’t build here where would you put the cars?”
The parking lot is surrounded by high rise apartments. But they're built in the older style, without understory parking, in a city that has doggedly clung to car transit as the only solution to some long distance travel.
This isn't a "people" problem nearly so much as an infrastructure problem. What that area really needs to be is a bus depot or train stop. But you can't just come in and declare "This should be more housing/retail/whatever" and get mad when folks who are actively reliant on this lonely low utility space to put their cars complain that they don't have any other options.
You made them reliant on parking. Unless you can relieve that reliance, they still need those spaces.
Well that's the trick isn't it! Less parking means it's more difficult to use your car, meaning you might make the uncomfortable choice of using public transport, walk or cycle.
It doesn't make for an appealing argument for those who think anything but driving is the worst way to get around.
So I tend to limit these types of conversations to those who are curious and open-minded. The rest will come.
they can only come join the fun if we build transit. getting suburban sprawl types (thinking north texas, houston, the endless wastes of the kansas cities on both sides of the border) the spread is so huge that transit becomes eyewateringly expensive and then people still piss and moan about using the transit.
gas needs to be $8 a gallon. transit needs to be funded and deployed over the will of the vroom vroom obsessed.
It's kinda weird how hard it is to sell regular people on doing anything substantive about this problem.
To be fair, enthusiasts of almost anything, almost always are extremely off putting when advocating for their opinions because they see what they've spent much time learning about and researching as things that should simply be self evident to anyone paying attention.
Probably one of the biggest problems with humanity in general; the inability to meet people where they are when trying to convince them to join your cause. Its like the less genuine someone is about their cause, the easier it is for them to sweet talk. I guess in those cases, being accurate mattering less helps.
Maybe we could put parking lots under the subway with giant exit and entrance ramps in and out of these giant endless parking lot voids. Then have elevators that take you all the way up to ground level
It's the easier infrastructure failing to understand, and if cities want to host events that cater to anyone from outside easy walking/transit paths then it's a necessary element. Sports and concerts can easily overwhelm a downtown's local options and my town has regular weekend markets that flood all the surrounding residential street parking. People that live in a metropolis may get by without a personal vehicle but friends or family can have a hard time visiting.
"Only do things in the place you live" is a solution but it's not an attractive one.
The loudest anti car people are always clueless rich douchebags whose solution is to just pay $10,000 a month in rent so you can live in a walkable area.
It's always performative liberals who are so clueless they think their privileged yuppy lifestyle is standard.
By making more areas walkable you decrease the rent required to live in one. This isn’t hard economics. The yuppies know it’s not standard, why would they campaign for more of what they have if it was already adopted?
You need parking. You don’t need the entire city to be parking. Make a few strategic parking lots and then a Park and Ride bus like every college campus ever.
I'm convinced that to many Americans, there's no difference, and that their mental image of a person includes four wheels. (And that a human without a car is not a person, as in, not deserving of moral comsideration.)
You say that like the reason for those things isn’t because of the design of the cities. It is exactly advocating for the car centric design that keeps it car centric down here. Sincerely somebody who’s lived in the south their whole life but doesn’t think cars should define your life
Yeah, I have to spend two hours on the bus when it takes half an hour to drive downtown. They have great bus service if you're within walking distance of the downtown area, but until earlier this year the last bus home left the station at 4p. Now the last bus home leaves at 6p.
I haven't owned a car in a while, and I cannot even find a job because employers don't want to work around the useless bus schedule.
Sort of? I used to have a regular bicycle, but the route with the least grade is also the truck route with no shoulders on parts of it. I quit biking after I got run off the road by a semi, so I think the main problem is just a lack of infrastructure.
Correct, but until you can fix the larger systemic issue, a 2-wheeler helps shield you from the monthly cost, stress of finding parking, traffic, etc when living in a carcentric hell.
PNW sadly enough. The fuckin neolibs running the area are using public transit to virtue signal how green they are without actually spending the money to make it actually effective. Gotta look good, so there's multiple 15min bus lines, but it only covers a couple square miles, so nobody wants to pay the $2 when they could just walk.
Yeah that's a stupid way to build towns and cities, and should change. But the south tends to vote Republican, so that's just going to make everything worse. (Not that Democrats are amazing, but it's like squares and rectangles.)
And that forces you to treat people without cars as sub-human? No sympathy, or even empathy, for people who have to navigate such a landscape without one?
There is a super easy fix for that when using sarcasm in writing but people refuse to use it for some reason and then complain when they get downvoted.
It’s incredibly difficult to tell sarcasm in writing because it is most often done in a different tone of voice or inflection. Pray tell, in what way does one convey tone of voice or inflection when writing?
I don't even agree with your premise - Sarcasm is conveyed and deciphered primarily via context clues and tone and expectations set by the context juxtaposed with both the tone and content of the message.
The tone of voice is the spoken equivalent of the sitcom laugh track and is really only there to absolutely make sure everyone is on the same page.
I have absolutely zero trouble reading The Onion's or Hard Drive Mag's satire even without knowing that's where it came from and understanding it as not being literal. I also have never seen sarcasm indicated with the /s tag outside of Reddit.
My coworkers frequently write sarcastically in casual chat at work and not once has anyone suffixed it with some tag, and I literally do not even know what they sound like at all.
Even on Reddit itself, that practice was only ever adopted as a way to keep out brigading/raids by bad-faith (often political) trolls who hide behind the veil of sarcasm. Same as the much more recent phenomenon of /uj and /rj tags being adopted on many circlejerk/parody subs
Over time the meaning probably got lost and ossified into "no one can understand sarcasm" or "no one can read". I suggest you read more.
No, absolutely fuck cars, cars are worse than landlords... Might be a hot take but the cars and urban spread that cars allow do more damage than landlords
while i certainly think there are far more cars distributed amongst people than needed, i don't think they should go alltogether, as they still have their usecases (certainly not a personal everyday mode of transport tho). Housing problem, on the other hand, is more immediate:
if i go to a new city, i won't give a single smallest flying fuck about cars, if i won't be able to find myself a place to live.
So yeah, absolutely fuck the landlords and the real estate agencies.
More immediate issue isn't necessarily a less important or less worse issue. Cars have much greater long term impacts on the ability of a population to be restrained by debt, damage to the environment, and hurt smaller economic ecosystems that are important for robust cities and towns.
I'm not saying don't fuck the landlords I'm saying they're a less important issue.
Seriously! I get that we're in a severe housing crisis, many people can barely afford rent and the homeless population is ever expanding, but won't anyone think of the cars?
Anyways, if you can't afford an apartment, you can always sleep in your car! You can't drive an apartment, checkmate liberals 😎
That's the version of the Jetsons Hanna-Barbera didn't have the balls to make. In the original version of the intro, George has a car that folds up into a briefcase-sized object, light as a feather. In the alternate universe version, it just keeps folding, then small enough that it just flies right up George's ass. No need to carry it around. When you need it, you call to it, and it flies out and unfolds. It stays clean due to future tech. And it's been done for so long it's just socially considered normal. In the alternate Jetsons future, people just carry their cars right up their asses.
We had a similar issue in Boston like 20 years ago. There was all this undeveloped land on the southern edge of downtown from closed down former port and industrial areas. Then the city wanted to redevelop it, but everyone complained about losing thousands of low cost parking spaces.
Now we see it was a good choice with an active newly developed part of the city and a couple additional subway lines. It really is better for most people to commute by train
The only real objection now is how could we have developed a new part of the city without building a subway there. Stupid bus is stupid
Just leave it at home or get rid of it. Buy an e-motorcycle and enjoy saving fuckloads of money long term. Even better take public transport if its available.
111 Comments
Iheartcheese@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 267d
Is this an issue you run into a lot? People claiming parking lots are historical? I mean you say you hate those people so clearly it must happen to you a lot?
Humanius@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 267d
It sounds a bit like a strawman. I can hardly believe that the "historical car park" defence gets used a lot.
CallMeAnAI@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 267d
No, completely made up propaganda. Maybe some singular edge cases somewhere but a complete non issue.
ronigami@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 266d
It’s satire and overstatement. A real issue taken to an unreal extent. People claim shacks, beat up houses, and probably even parking garages, are historic and the reason you can’t build dense housing.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 266d
turdcollector69@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 265d
Typical deranged bikebrain post
These people think they're fucking martyrs for making cars idle behind them and making traffic worse.
hOrni@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 267d
What the fuck is a "historic parking lot"?
TheBat@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 267d
naught101@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 267d
Ah yes, where King Richard the Third parked his car.
_stranger_@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 267d
It's where they parked King Richard III, actually.
naught101@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 266d
Hah, true!
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 266d
See, this isn't how I would have handled it. It would have been much funnier to have just put him right back where they found him. Put him back in his grave, and then rebuild the car park. Then declare the car park a historic landmark.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 266d
what I love is "you can't build here where would you put the cars?" as if every human is tied to their car as some form of life support, and without the car, humans just wither and die.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 265d
The parking lot is surrounded by high rise apartments. But they're built in the older style, without understory parking, in a city that has doggedly clung to car transit as the only solution to some long distance travel.
This isn't a "people" problem nearly so much as an infrastructure problem. What that area really needs to be is a bus depot or train stop. But you can't just come in and declare "This should be more housing/retail/whatever" and get mad when folks who are actively reliant on this lonely low utility space to put their cars complain that they don't have any other options.
You made them reliant on parking. Unless you can relieve that reliance, they still need those spaces.
teuniac_@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 265d
Well that's the trick isn't it! Less parking means it's more difficult to use your car, meaning you might make the uncomfortable choice of using public transport, walk or cycle.
It doesn't make for an appealing argument for those who think anything but driving is the worst way to get around.
So I tend to limit these types of conversations to those who are curious and open-minded. The rest will come.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 265d
they can only come join the fun if we build transit. getting suburban sprawl types (thinking north texas, houston, the endless wastes of the kansas cities on both sides of the border) the spread is so huge that transit becomes eyewateringly expensive and then people still piss and moan about using the transit.
gas needs to be $8 a gallon. transit needs to be funded and deployed over the will of the vroom vroom obsessed.
LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 265d
What I see there is a waste of vertical space. They should build a parking structure there.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 265d
they're the dominant species on this planet, we must care about the carssssssss.... pfft
Futurama@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 267d
Yeah! Everyone knows the correct phrase is an historic parking lot!
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 265d
It's kinda weird how hard it is to sell regular people on doing anything substantive about this problem.
To be fair, enthusiasts of almost anything, almost always are extremely off putting when advocating for their opinions because they see what they've spent much time learning about and researching as things that should simply be self evident to anyone paying attention.
Probably one of the biggest problems with humanity in general; the inability to meet people where they are when trying to convince them to join your cause. Its like the less genuine someone is about their cause, the easier it is for them to sweet talk. I guess in those cases, being accurate mattering less helps.
PissingIntoTheWind@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 265d
All housing should come with under ground parking. Dig deeper. Put parks at the ground level.
Emerald@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 265d
Maybe we could put parking lots under the subway with giant exit and entrance ramps in and out of these giant endless parking lot voids. Then have elevators that take you all the way up to ground level
PissingIntoTheWind@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 265d
I’ve been in tons of places that built like this in San Francisco. Towers and such. That need that deep trenching.
Evotech@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 265d
Counter argument is that this makes housing much more expensive to construct
PissingIntoTheWind@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 265d
Ya. So does solar requirements but it’s worth it.
Johnmannesca@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 265d
The irony is historic buildings like in Rockford, Illinois already had underground parking since 1929!
Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 266d
The only people I can imagine ever saying this are the people who own parking lots.
ronigami@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 266d
There are a lot of people who think downtown $CITY never has enough parking, even if it’s like 40% of the arable land devoted to parking already.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 265d
Houston in the 1970s
Soggy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 265d
It's the easier infrastructure failing to understand, and if cities want to host events that cater to anyone from outside easy walking/transit paths then it's a necessary element. Sports and concerts can easily overwhelm a downtown's local options and my town has regular weekend markets that flood all the surrounding residential street parking. People that live in a metropolis may get by without a personal vehicle but friends or family can have a hard time visiting.
"Only do things in the place you live" is a solution but it's not an attractive one.
turdcollector69@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 265d
The loudest anti car people are always clueless rich douchebags whose solution is to just pay $10,000 a month in rent so you can live in a walkable area.
It's always performative liberals who are so clueless they think their privileged yuppy lifestyle is standard.
ronigami@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 264d
By making more areas walkable you decrease the rent required to live in one. This isn’t hard economics. The yuppies know it’s not standard, why would they campaign for more of what they have if it was already adopted?
ronigami@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 264d
You need parking. You don’t need the entire city to be parking. Make a few strategic parking lots and then a Park and Ride bus like every college campus ever.
JargonWagon@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 266d
Yes.
Meron35@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 266d
Yes, this issue does actually pop up. Australia already has two heritage listed car parks. Both are in extremely central inner city areas.
Cardigan House brutalist car park in Carlton is heritage listed - https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/like-protecting-a-cigarette-factory-heritage-listing-for-brutalist-car-park-20230404-p5cxy6.html
Wickham Terrace Car Park - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickham_Terrace_Car_Park
Dozzi92@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 267d
Same shit happening right across the river in Jersey City too, hilarious.
agent_nycto@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 265d
These people don't exist, who's saying there's a historic parking lot?
5gruel@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 265d
But who am I angry at if not convenient strawmen i saw on the internet?
Gammelfisch@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 265d
Indeed, piss poor urban planning,
kepix@lemmy.world · -69 pts · 267d
where do you put the cars then
onnekas@sopuli.xyz · 113 pts · 267d
To some people the question of "where do you put the cars?" is more important than the question "where do we house the people?"
It's bizarre.
SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social · 51 pts · 266d
I'm convinced that to many Americans, there's no difference, and that their mental image of a person includes four wheels. (And that a human without a car is not a person, as in, not deserving of moral comsideration.)
frog_brawler@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 266d
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works · 15 pts · 266d
The image is of a dense urban area though, not some southern bumfuck town
renrenPDX@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 266d
Do people typically live that close to where they work though? All my coworkers live out of town, 30 min to 2 hours away by car.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 266d
That sounds like it has an easy solution.
renrenPDX@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 266d
If you’re suggesting mass transit, it’s double the time if available.
frog_brawler@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 265d
frog_brawler@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 266d
NewOldGuard@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 266d
You say that like the reason for those things isn’t because of the design of the cities. It is exactly advocating for the car centric design that keeps it car centric down here. Sincerely somebody who’s lived in the south their whole life but doesn’t think cars should define your life
faythofdragons@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 266d
Yeah, I have to spend two hours on the bus when it takes half an hour to drive downtown. They have great bus service if you're within walking distance of the downtown area, but until earlier this year the last bus home left the station at 4p. Now the last bus home leaves at 6p.
I haven't owned a car in a while, and I cannot even find a job because employers don't want to work around the useless bus schedule.
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 266d
Would a scooter, ebike, or commuter motorcycle like a used NC750X work?
faythofdragons@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 266d
Sort of? I used to have a regular bicycle, but the route with the least grade is also the truck route with no shoulders on parts of it. I quit biking after I got run off the road by a semi, so I think the main problem is just a lack of infrastructure.
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 265d
Correct, but until you can fix the larger systemic issue, a 2-wheeler helps shield you from the monthly cost, stress of finding parking, traffic, etc when living in a carcentric hell.
frog_brawler@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 266d
faythofdragons@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 266d
PNW sadly enough. The fuckin neolibs running the area are using public transit to virtue signal how green they are without actually spending the money to make it actually effective. Gotta look good, so there's multiple 15min bus lines, but it only covers a couple square miles, so nobody wants to pay the $2 when they could just walk.
frog_brawler@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 266d
jjjalljs@ttrpg.network · 3 pts · 265d
Yeah that's a stupid way to build towns and cities, and should change. But the south tends to vote Republican, so that's just going to make everything worse. (Not that Democrats are amazing, but it's like squares and rectangles.)
SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social · 2 pts · 266d
And that forces you to treat people without cars as sub-human? No sympathy, or even empathy, for people who have to navigate such a landscape without one?
frog_brawler@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 266d
FatVegan@leminal.space · 13 pts · 267d
Am i supposed to WALK? What is wrong with people?
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -9 pts · 266d
Downvoted for obvious sarcasm. Classic dotworld
athatet@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 266d
There is a super easy fix for that when using sarcasm in writing but people refuse to use it for some reason and then complain when they get downvoted.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -6 pts · 266d
The fix is having a brain on behalf of the reader. Writing is the superior communication method.
athatet@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 266d
It’s incredibly difficult to tell sarcasm in writing because it is most often done in a different tone of voice or inflection. Pray tell, in what way does one convey tone of voice or inflection when writing?
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 265d
I don't even agree with your premise - Sarcasm is conveyed and deciphered primarily via context clues and tone and expectations set by the context juxtaposed with both the tone and content of the message.
The tone of voice is the spoken equivalent of the sitcom laugh track and is really only there to absolutely make sure everyone is on the same page.
I have absolutely zero trouble reading The Onion's or Hard Drive Mag's satire even without knowing that's where it came from and understanding it as not being literal. I also have never seen sarcasm indicated with the /s tag outside of Reddit.
My coworkers frequently write sarcastically in casual chat at work and not once has anyone suffixed it with some tag, and I literally do not even know what they sound like at all.
Even on Reddit itself, that practice was only ever adopted as a way to keep out brigading/raids by bad-faith (often political) trolls who hide behind the veil of sarcasm. Same as the much more recent phenomenon of /uj and /rj tags being adopted on many circlejerk/parody subs
Over time the meaning probably got lost and ossified into "no one can understand sarcasm" or "no one can read". I suggest you read more.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 266d
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 266d
There is a lot of vacant houses. When you narrow that down to "long term vacancies in metropolises" the number goes down , and by no small amount
CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 265d
so its more of a fucklandlords and fuckthehousingbubble than fuckcars really, if we look at it close enough
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 265d
No, absolutely fuck cars, cars are worse than landlords... Might be a hot take but the cars and urban spread that cars allow do more damage than landlords
CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org · 5 pts · 265d
while i certainly think there are far more cars distributed amongst people than needed, i don't think they should go alltogether, as they still have their usecases (certainly not a personal everyday mode of transport tho). Housing problem, on the other hand, is more immediate:
if i go to a new city, i won't give a single smallest flying fuck about cars, if i won't be able to find myself a place to live.
So yeah, absolutely fuck the landlords and the real estate agencies.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 265d
More immediate issue isn't necessarily a less important or less worse issue. Cars have much greater long term impacts on the ability of a population to be restrained by debt, damage to the environment, and hurt smaller economic ecosystems that are important for robust cities and towns.
I'm not saying don't fuck the landlords I'm saying they're a less important issue.
SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social · 1 pts · 266d
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 45 pts · 266d
That's the neat part
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 41 pts · 267d
underground garage or compost them and reuse the metal for bicycles, buses, and trains
Evkob@lemmy.ca · 41 pts · 267d
Seriously! I get that we're in a severe housing crisis, many people can barely afford rent and the homeless population is ever expanding, but won't anyone think of the cars?
Anyways, if you can't afford an apartment, you can always sleep in your car! You can't drive an apartment, checkmate liberals 😎
athatet@lemmy.zip · 29 pts · 266d
In your ass.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 266d
That's the version of the Jetsons Hanna-Barbera didn't have the balls to make. In the original version of the intro, George has a car that folds up into a briefcase-sized object, light as a feather. In the alternate universe version, it just keeps folding, then small enough that it just flies right up George's ass. No need to carry it around. When you need it, you call to it, and it flies out and unfolds. It stays clean due to future tech. And it's been done for so long it's just socially considered normal. In the alternate Jetsons future, people just carry their cars right up their asses.
Takios@discuss.tchncs.de · 27 pts · 266d
that's right, into the square hole!
Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 25 pts · 267d
In a fire.
naught101@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 267d
In a smelter, so they can be recycled into bikes and trains.
otp@sh.itjust.works · 25 pts · 266d
Underground if you really need them. In a city, a lot of people won't need cars every day.
bdonvr@thelemmy.club · 23 pts · 267d
Maybe don't drive in the dense urban downtown.
Commuter? Park at the park and ride in your suburb or something
SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de · 18 pts · 267d
Outside city parking. Underground. Lots of options
AA5B@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 266d
We had a similar issue in Boston like 20 years ago. There was all this undeveloped land on the southern edge of downtown from closed down former port and industrial areas. Then the city wanted to redevelop it, but everyone complained about losing thousands of low cost parking spaces.
Now we see it was a good choice with an active newly developed part of the city and a couple additional subway lines. It really is better for most people to commute by train
The only real objection now is how could we have developed a new part of the city without building a subway there. Stupid bus is stupid
kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 267d
In a recycling plant, cities don't need cars
Greddan@feddit.org · 10 pts · 266d
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de · 9 pts · 267d
Just leave it at home or get rid of it. Buy an e-motorcycle and enjoy saving fuckloads of money long term. Even better take public transport if its available.
ColdWater@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 266d
In the scrap yards
Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 267d
Recycle the materials
jol@discuss.tchncs.de · 5 pts · 267d
In a big parking lot next to a train station that brings here here
arsCynic@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 265d
Into the car-to-bike conversion machine; FuckCars™.
Mongostein@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 266d
A parkade?
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one · 3 pts · 266d
You put cars into the car bedroom.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 266d
No! What would be the car bedroom must be the workshop!
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 267d
Stapling them. In a parkade.
veganpizza69@lemmy.vg · 2 pts · 264d
Big crunching machine.