6 ms·

This seems naive. There's only so much land in urban areas, and everyone wants to live there. As population expands, isn't there some kind of mathematical cons

by graeme 11y ago

This seems naive. There's only so much land in urban areas, and everyone wants to live there. As population expands, isn't there some kind of mathematical constraint on total possible hoising within a circular area? City centres radiate outwards roughly circularly. More NYC like areas would help, but we can't seem to build those anymore. When existing cities grow they just sort of spread outwards. Edit: Per my comment below, my argument is that as long as we build the way we do, we can't really build our way out of this. Even our "dense" construction isn't really dense once you consider total land use including businesses, offices, etc

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
landryraccoon 11y ago
> More NYC like areas would help, but we can't seem to build those anymore. That seems like a policy problem. I don't think we're nearly at the point where physics or math is a constraint on how densely we can build.
- graeme 11y ago
  I agree, actually. But it's a deep policy problem. Since cars, we've built no cities that are both dense and desirable. And very few areas dense, period, especially when you consider that stores + offices are usually separate from dense residential towers. So those separate areas need to be accounted for in the total footprint. The pre car areas tend to be dense and also have shops in the areas. I live in such an area in Montreal. Low rise but very dense.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    In part (but only in part), I'd argue this is because--sort of by definition--post-car cities have tended to be built in areas where there is room to spread out. And, for better or worse, the natural evolutionary path seems to be to spread out. (And, where there has been a conscious effort to build density in an area, it's tended to be housing project style.)
    - davidw 11y ago
      It's very much a policy problem. 'Dense' is not allowed in huge swaths of the US. Some people don't want dense, and that's fine, but for those who do favor it, it's simply not an option in many places, and that needs fixing. San Francisco is not as dense as Paris, France - and Paris is not constrained by water, so that probably includes some fairly large tracts of low-density suburbs.
      - ghaff 11y ago
        So find one of the places that does favor dense. There are clearly issues of public policy where majority shouldn't rule. However, I'm mostly uncomfortable with arguments along the lines of: the residents/voters in an area have a different opinion from me, I can't seem to get them to change their minds, so someone ought to take actions that ignores those preferences.
        davidw 11y ago
        Clearly, in a democracy, you need to get people on board with things, and that will take time, but I don't think it's impossible. Naturally, the 'marginal' (in the economic sense) people who are being excluded don't get a voice in the matter, which is sad, because they're already being screwed by being pushed away from highly productive areas. You also need to balance what voters can and can't dictate with property rights. It's pretty common in the US to have laws like "houses must have a 2 car driveway", which seems excessive to me.
      - ghaff 11y ago
        Central Paris was built quite a while ago :-) Paris is actually almost uniquely dense among large cities in developed countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_d... Which I knew but wouldn't have guessed. Looking at a population density map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Paris I think the reason may be that the City of Paris is a very small chunk of the total area.
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    If you built apartments without parking in SF, people would live in them.
TulliusCicero 11y ago
> More NYC like areas would help, but we can't seem to build those anymore. Yes, but the whole reason we can't build them anymore is because of NIMBY landowners stopping us, not because of any inherent limit.

by graeme 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

landryraccoon 11y ago

> More NYC like areas would help, but we can't seem to build those anymore. That seems like a policy problem. I don't think we're nearly at the point where physics or math is a constraint on how densely we can build.

graeme 11y ago
I agree, actually. But it's a deep policy problem. Since cars, we've built no cities that are both dense and desirable. And very few areas dense, period, especially when you consider that stores + offices are usually separate from dense residential towers. So those separate areas need to be accounted for in the total footprint. The pre car areas tend to be dense and also have shops in the areas. I live in such an area in Montreal. Low rise but very dense.
- ghaff 11y ago
  In part (but only in part), I'd argue this is because--sort of by definition--post-car cities have tended to be built in areas where there is room to spread out. And, for better or worse, the natural evolutionary path seems to be to spread out. (And, where there has been a conscious effort to build density in an area, it's tended to be housing project style.)
  - davidw 11y ago
    It's very much a policy problem. 'Dense' is not allowed in huge swaths of the US. Some people don't want dense, and that's fine, but for those who do favor it, it's simply not an option in many places, and that needs fixing. San Francisco is not as dense as Paris, France - and Paris is not constrained by water, so that probably includes some fairly large tracts of low-density suburbs.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      So find one of the places that does favor dense. There are clearly issues of public policy where majority shouldn't rule. However, I'm mostly uncomfortable with arguments along the lines of: the residents/voters in an area have a different opinion from me, I can't seem to get them to change their minds, so someone ought to take actions that ignores those preferences.
      - davidw 11y ago
        Clearly, in a democracy, you need to get people on board with things, and that will take time, but I don't think it's impossible. Naturally, the 'marginal' (in the economic sense) people who are being excluded don't get a voice in the matter, which is sad, because they're already being screwed by being pushed away from highly productive areas. You also need to balance what voters can and can't dictate with property rights. It's pretty common in the US to have laws like "houses must have a 2 car driveway", which seems excessive to me.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      Central Paris was built quite a while ago :-) Paris is actually almost uniquely dense among large cities in developed countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_d... Which I knew but wouldn't have guessed. Looking at a population density map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Paris I think the reason may be that the City of Paris is a very small chunk of the total area.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  If you built apartments without parking in SF, people would live in them.

TulliusCicero 11y ago

> More NYC like areas would help, but we can't seem to build those anymore. Yes, but the whole reason we can't build them anymore is because of NIMBY landowners stopping us, not because of any inherent limit.