Before I discuss my proposal, I want to talk about cities in general.
People tend to think of cities as being flat. There’s the ground, and everything that people use is built on top. That’s not true. Cities are becoming increasingly subterranean. Whether for military reason or just to compensate for land shortages, for park area, or what other reason, cities are providing a greater amount of subterranean space. A city is both what people see on the surface and what people see underground.
I think that leaving the poor underground is actually one of the nicest and most practical things we can do for them. Poor people are protected against the weather, wild animals, and other people when underground. If this wasn’t true, homeless people wouldn’t be seen frequently in basements and sewage systems. Dedicating formal space underground both prevents the poor from facing harassment from others and prevents the poor from harassing others. Coincidentally, city leaders would face less flak over the presence of poverty on the surface. It’s not even an impractical approach either.
Building downwards is objectively less environmentally damaging than building outwards. Coincidentally, building down is easier (in most cases) than building up.
What do you guys think?
>>2117040Anon yearn for the mines.
Honestly while i think pushing poors underground makes no sense I think making buildings and homes both underground and under the sea and other unhabitable places neat
>>2116001>libs will think of increasingly fantastical schemes so that they both get to keep their housing assets high and never have to see a homeless personNot sure if better or worse than shipping conrainers
I hope you get banned.
Unique IPs: 20