3 ms·

Also: It's literally on top of a fault line, most of the land is unsuitable for skyscrapers due to soil liquefaction during an earthquake, 80% of the area surro

by swebs 9y ago

Also: It's literally on top of a fault line, most of the land is unsuitable for skyscrapers due to soil liquefaction during an earthquake, 80% of the area surrounding downtown is water >I'm sorry to say it, its time to bail out. We need to start lobbying software companies to get the heck out of the bay area Agreed. SF is just a bad location to build a large city.

raldi 9y ago
Tokyo
- swebs 9y ago
  The only thing they have in common is that they're both near a fault line. Tokyo has a foundation of solid bedrock so soil liquefaction is not an issue. Very little of the area surrounding downtown Tokyo is sea, compared to San Francisco, which is a peninsula around 10 km wide.
  - raldi 9y ago
    Most of SF actually has quite shallow bedrock. As for the part that doesn't, it already has subways and tall buildings (except for the part near Ocean Beach). But anyway, we wouldn't actually need any tall buildings to solve the housing crisis; 4-to-6-story apartments would do the trick. http://images.slideplayer.com/22/6340453/slides/slide_27.jpg http://images.slideplayer.com/22/6340453/slides/slide_27.jpg If being surrounded by water is an insurmountable problem, how do you explain the tall buildings and subways in Manhattan?
    - swebs 9y ago
      >If being surrounded by water is an insurmountable problem, how do you explain the tall buildings and subways in Manhattan? I'm not saying the water inhibits construction. It just limits the area where you can expand. Look at New York on Google maps and zoom out a bit. The metropolitan area expands in all directions except the very south. Now look at Tokyo. It also expands in all directions except the south-east. Now look at San Fransisco. The north, west, and east are blocked by the Pacific Ocean. There are single long bridges to the north and Oakland, but they serve as choke points limiting movement. Much of the area to the north is also a national park.

by swebs 9y ago

raldi 9y ago

Tokyo

swebs 9y ago
The only thing they have in common is that they're both near a fault line. Tokyo has a foundation of solid bedrock so soil liquefaction is not an issue. Very little of the area surrounding downtown Tokyo is sea, compared to San Francisco, which is a peninsula around 10 km wide.
- raldi 9y ago
  Most of SF actually has quite shallow bedrock. As for the part that doesn't, it already has subways and tall buildings (except for the part near Ocean Beach). But anyway, we wouldn't actually need any tall buildings to solve the housing crisis; 4-to-6-story apartments would do the trick. http://images.slideplayer.com/22/6340453/slides/slide_27.jpg http://images.slideplayer.com/22/6340453/slides/slide_27.jpg If being surrounded by water is an insurmountable problem, how do you explain the tall buildings and subways in Manhattan?
  - swebs 9y ago
    >If being surrounded by water is an insurmountable problem, how do you explain the tall buildings and subways in Manhattan? I'm not saying the water inhibits construction. It just limits the area where you can expand. Look at New York on Google maps and zoom out a bit. The metropolitan area expands in all directions except the very south. Now look at Tokyo. It also expands in all directions except the south-east. Now look at San Fransisco. The north, west, and east are blocked by the Pacific Ocean. There are single long bridges to the north and Oakland, but they serve as choke points limiting movement. Much of the area to the north is also a national park.