32 ms·

> 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 phy

> 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.
      - davidw 11y ago
        The density list seems to be missing a number of places - New York, for instance. Most European cities are denser than SF, but it can be kind of hard to gauge as the line where the city ends can be somewhat arbitrary. Density doesn't need to be skyscrapers, it often works well if it's just a few extra stories.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  If you built apartments without parking in SF, people would live in them.

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.
    - davidw 11y ago
      The density list seems to be missing a number of places - New York, for instance. Most European cities are denser than SF, but it can be kind of hard to gauge as the line where the city ends can be somewhat arbitrary. Density doesn't need to be skyscrapers, it often works well if it's just a few extra stories.
ktRolster 11y ago
If you built apartments without parking in SF, people would live in them.