3 ms·

Chicken-egg problem though. If you say transit doesn't go places or doesn't run often people claim the density is too low and we need more people to use it. Can

by s0rce 8y ago

Chicken-egg problem though. If you say transit doesn't go places or doesn't run often people claim the density is too low and we need more people to use it. Can't have the same excuses just used to block everything. Just start building everything, high density housing, dedicated bus lanes, multi-level parking garages, better utilities.

bilbo0s 8y ago
>Just start building everything, high density housing, dedicated bus lanes, multi-level parking garages I'd advise against this. We did that in Madison, and before we even got very far doing this, Mother Nature started to hint to us that it might not be a good idea. Maybe there are places where you can just build Willy-Nilly. (I doubt it, but what do I know?) I suspect, however, most places are like Madison, just not quite as delicate. You probably have to be REALLY careful about what you're building. And even more careful about where you're building it.
- 0xffff2 8y ago
  > Mother Nature started to hint to us that it might not be a good idea. Could you explain what you mean by this?
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    When we started building down what all the experts told us was an "under utilized" corridor, a bit of flooding appeared. Initially, when the rain would come down, you'd have to navigate through maybe 6 inches of water. Max. Annoying, but not necessarily cause for alarm. As we built more, and more down that corridor, it's gotten worse. Fast forward to today, and when the rain comes down hard you're navigating through maybe a foot or a foot and a half on a bad day in that area. It's also taking much longer to drain. (Nothing speaks to the folly of thoughtless building like high end, fancy restaurants, in gleaming new fancy buildings with sand bags out front that you have to jump over.) So yeah, no new plans for any new massive footprint, high density buildings along that area in the near future. I suspect until they get this whole thing worked out. Point is that just digging out massive parking garages, paving over areas, building high density housing, it all sounds good on the surface. And it might be good for other cities? Who knows? But we now have a better understanding that you need a more well thought out plan if you're a city built on a system of five lakes with a dam and locks system delicately balancing their water levels as it is.
- s0rce 8y ago
  While I'm sure there are areas where this is true, this seems like a special case. In the Bay Area some liquefaction zones and high fire risk hilly areas are likely candidates to not build on, however, I didn't suggest to build everywhere. In fact, I think we should keep open space and hilly fire-prone areas as parks, we can in fill low density areas and empty lots with high density.
flomo 8y ago
Problem is it takes forever for the egg to hatch. SF Central Stubway took 20 years to construct and will take another 20 years to reach the wharf. Caltrain DTX has been in planning for 20 years, construction probably won't start until 2030s. Geary BART has been talked about since the 1960s with no motion. Second transbay tube is needed, no specific plans yet. Muni Metro is at capacity with no plans to fix. So you can build a lot of housing and tell people to deal, but they may be retired or dead before it gets fixed.

by s0rce 8y ago

bilbo0s 8y ago

>Just start building everything, high density housing, dedicated bus lanes, multi-level parking garages I'd advise against this. We did that in Madison, and before we even got very far doing this, Mother Nature started to hint to us that it might not be a good idea. Maybe there are places where you can just build Willy-Nilly. (I doubt it, but what do I know?) I suspect, however, most places are like Madison, just not quite as delicate. You probably have to be REALLY careful about what you're building. And even more careful about where you're building it.

0xffff2 8y ago
> Mother Nature started to hint to us that it might not be a good idea. Could you explain what you mean by this?
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  When we started building down what all the experts told us was an "under utilized" corridor, a bit of flooding appeared. Initially, when the rain would come down, you'd have to navigate through maybe 6 inches of water. Max. Annoying, but not necessarily cause for alarm. As we built more, and more down that corridor, it's gotten worse. Fast forward to today, and when the rain comes down hard you're navigating through maybe a foot or a foot and a half on a bad day in that area. It's also taking much longer to drain. (Nothing speaks to the folly of thoughtless building like high end, fancy restaurants, in gleaming new fancy buildings with sand bags out front that you have to jump over.) So yeah, no new plans for any new massive footprint, high density buildings along that area in the near future. I suspect until they get this whole thing worked out. Point is that just digging out massive parking garages, paving over areas, building high density housing, it all sounds good on the surface. And it might be good for other cities? Who knows? But we now have a better understanding that you need a more well thought out plan if you're a city built on a system of five lakes with a dam and locks system delicately balancing their water levels as it is.
s0rce 8y ago
While I'm sure there are areas where this is true, this seems like a special case. In the Bay Area some liquefaction zones and high fire risk hilly areas are likely candidates to not build on, however, I didn't suggest to build everywhere. In fact, I think we should keep open space and hilly fire-prone areas as parks, we can in fill low density areas and empty lots with high density.

flomo 8y ago

Problem is it takes forever for the egg to hatch. SF Central Stubway took 20 years to construct and will take another 20 years to reach the wharf. Caltrain DTX has been in planning for 20 years, construction probably won't start until 2030s. Geary BART has been talked about since the 1960s with no motion. Second transbay tube is needed, no specific plans yet. Muni Metro is at capacity with no plans to fix. So you can build a lot of housing and tell people to deal, but they may be retired or dead before it gets fixed.