3 ms·

That is all good, but what will they do with transportation? When the supply of the housing is increased, it will attract a ton of people who now simply can't a

That is all good, but what will they do with transportation? When the supply of the housing is increased, it will attract a ton of people who now simply can't afford (as many not-so-top, but still good coders - i know a ton of people who would move in, but can't afford the Valley rent). Can you imaging the traffic then?

tobylane 9y ago
Good planning laws should require the developers pay for some of the transport and government services used by the new residents. The UK's section 106 does this, I've seen it build or improve roundabouts, junctions, roads, GPs offices (PCP offices), train stations, bus stations, schools, community centres, water and sewage links. Or the plan by South Korea to build a city where cars aren't needed.
- anovikov 9y ago
  I think it will stop without starting because any real planning will come to conclusion that fitting any more people in comfortably is simply not possible, or at least not until Musk's Boring Company delivers.
closeparen 9y ago
The simple answer is to concentrate development around transit stations and to increase frequency and length of trains on existing service. For example, by-right authority to build towers, but only within half a mile of a BART station.
- raldi 9y ago
  We don't even need towers; six-story apartment buildings would do. See http://tinyurl.com/6storySF http://tinyurl.com/6storySF
  - closeparen 9y ago
    The land near BART that’s available for development in the near and medium term is the parking. Six story apartments on all BART parking is what, a couple thousand units? That’s a drop in the bucket. To replace enough SFHs to make a difference with buildings of that height, we would need eminent domain seizures of entire tracts. Not gonna happen. It’s true that an entire city built out of six story apartments could work, but realistically development needs to squeeze in the gaps (infill). A mere six stories is a huge waste of a gap. Path dependence is weird like that.
    - raldi 9y ago
      We absolutely would not need eminent domain. The city is full of tenantless low-density buildings close to transit hubs where the owners would voluntarily build six-story apartment buildings if we allowed them to. (If they wouldn't, then why did it need to be forbidden?)
      - closeparen 9y ago
        Of course they would build six story buildings if we allowed them to. But why would we stop them at six stories?
        raldi 9y ago
        I'm saying, whatever height you want, there's no need for eminent domain. Plenty of landowners want to build.
        closeparen 9y ago
        Appeals to Paris and vast tracts of six-story apartments as an alternative to high-rise construction are dangerous because they create the illusion that a six-story height limit is okay. If we could build the whole city over again tomorrow, it might be. Today, recognizing the reality that most existing low-rise structures are in it for the long haul, when there is an opportunity to build, every floor counts.

tobylane 9y ago

Good planning laws should require the developers pay for some of the transport and government services used by the new residents. The UK's section 106 does this, I've seen it build or improve roundabouts, junctions, roads, GPs offices (PCP offices), train stations, bus stations, schools, community centres, water and sewage links. Or the plan by South Korea to build a city where cars aren't needed.

anovikov 9y ago
I think it will stop without starting because any real planning will come to conclusion that fitting any more people in comfortably is simply not possible, or at least not until Musk's Boring Company delivers.

closeparen 9y ago

The simple answer is to concentrate development around transit stations and to increase frequency and length of trains on existing service. For example, by-right authority to build towers, but only within half a mile of a BART station.

raldi 9y ago
We don't even need towers; six-story apartment buildings would do. See http://tinyurl.com/6storySF http://tinyurl.com/6storySF
- closeparen 9y ago
  The land near BART that’s available for development in the near and medium term is the parking. Six story apartments on all BART parking is what, a couple thousand units? That’s a drop in the bucket. To replace enough SFHs to make a difference with buildings of that height, we would need eminent domain seizures of entire tracts. Not gonna happen. It’s true that an entire city built out of six story apartments could work, but realistically development needs to squeeze in the gaps (infill). A mere six stories is a huge waste of a gap. Path dependence is weird like that.
  - raldi 9y ago
    We absolutely would not need eminent domain. The city is full of tenantless low-density buildings close to transit hubs where the owners would voluntarily build six-story apartment buildings if we allowed them to. (If they wouldn't, then why did it need to be forbidden?)
    - closeparen 9y ago
      Of course they would build six story buildings if we allowed them to. But why would we stop them at six stories?
      - raldi 9y ago
        I'm saying, whatever height you want, there's no need for eminent domain. Plenty of landowners want to build.
        closeparen 9y ago
        Appeals to Paris and vast tracts of six-story apartments as an alternative to high-rise construction are dangerous because they create the illusion that a six-story height limit is okay. If we could build the whole city over again tomorrow, it might be. Today, recognizing the reality that most existing low-rise structures are in it for the long haul, when there is an opportunity to build, every floor counts.