5 ms·

I agree with him on the schooling. Notice my comment was solely about space, not school.

jelliclesfarm 8y ago
Don’t you think it’s connected? Or are you suggesting that people build homes and don’t send their kids to school? I am ready for the assault of downvotes if it means the right questions are asked. One average home is 4 people. 2 cars. 2 kids. 2 incomes. 40% of it goes to various taxes. Dense over crowded cities. Overcrowded schools. Kids need tutoring because everyone wants their kids to succeed. 2 hour commutes. Baby sitting and child care. More water. More gas. More pollution. More public services. Same or smaller roads as bicycles and walkable roads become important. Less shopping as space is used for homes and people travel outside more and shopping dollars go out of the city. Less open spaces and nature. People start traveling for vacations and relaxation. More outflow without a balanced local economy. More service people needed for the high tech income earning population. But unaffordable for lower tiers for income. Break this down for me. How is high density sustainable? Seriously ..how? Having a house isn’t everything. Living involves many other things.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  How is high density sustainable? Higher densities are clearly sustainable. We have historical precedent for higher densities than San Francisco. (Resulting in exceptional, vibrant communities.) Futurists envision (and quantify) ways this planet alone could sustain approaching a trillion. Kids need tutoring because everyone wants their kids to succeed Higher densities mean lower housing prices. Lower housing prices mean teachers and professors can actually live where they work. Lower housing prices mean creatives, craftspeople, artists, and diverse people can keep living locally.
  - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
    So how is housing affordability in San Francisco working for you? Is the higher density in SF bring all those supposed promised sustainablity benefits?
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      So how is housing affordability in San Francisco working for you? The housing density in SF is held at lower levels than the market equilibrium. The result is miserable, because the density is artificially low for the current market.
      - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
        Are you saying that if San Francisco has more people, it will become more sustainable and affordable and people will be happier? Paint that picture for me, please.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        Are you saying that if San Francisco has more people, it will become more sustainable and affordable and people will be happier? Of course that's a broken causal chain and obvious straw man. You have to start out with more and cheaper housing. Economic analyses indicate we could build a huge amount more housing, and people would snap it up. Build enough to actually bring the housing prices down, and yes, there would be a much more vibrant and diverse city life. (But the market has to follow this naturally. Legislating prices lower will have the opposite effect.) As far as cities being "sustainable" -- cities draw resources to themselves. That's simply how it works. Sustainability is something that only matters in the economy as a whole. Cities need not be locally sustainable to generate wealth and to be a positive benefit to society. Paint that picture for me, please. New York City in the past. Houston in its run up to becoming the 4th largest metropolitan area in the US. Chicago in the past as well. San Francisco is artificially held back from the density the market in other cities have achieved.
        jelliclesfarm 8y ago
        I disagree. But thanks for the engagement.
        stcredzero 8y ago
- tathougies 8y ago
  > How is high density sustainable? The question really is how is 'low density' sustainable. Can you point me to an agrarian area that has lasted for thousands of years, with continuous occupation, and continuous economic prosperity (or at least no long periods of economic destitution)? I don't think you can. On the other hand, humanity has countless examples of the sustainability of high-density cities. I can name off the top of my head many cities that have successfully housed humans with high density for thousands upon thousands of years: 1. Rome 2. Cairo 3. Chengdu 4. Baghdad 5. Bukhara 6. London 7. Mexico City/Tenochtitlan 8. Tokyo > Don’t you think it’s connected? Yes. Low density housing decreases access to education by requiring extra costs to achieve the same ends. All the civilizations listed above managed not only to house people, but also to educate them, hence retaining the prominence they held thousands of years ago to the present day. The issue is not enough high density housing. Having lived in some of the cities listed above, San Francisco feels like living in the country side. Do not respond by asking how high density is working in San Francisco. San Francisco is not high density. It acts as if it is a moderately sized city when it really ought to be a metropolis. This is also not an issue of taxation, as several of those cities have much lower tax rates than California. I am a libertarian at heart, so I am for lower taxes. However, it is a mistake to think California's high taxes are because of high-density. California's high taxes are a response to the need to pay for the externalities caused by low-density housing. For example, road maintenance, bus systems, etc are all much cheaper to run if people live closer together. Moreover, the schools fail not because of the density in housing but because of the lack of competition to drive prices down. Catholic schools in the inner city do a better job at turning out students than public schools, despite having broadly similar student bases (In terms of socioeconomics) and spending much less per student (limiting myself to Catholic schools because they have the lowest average tuition among private schools by far). I believe the average inner-city Catholic school class size is actually larger than the corresponding public school. Historically speaking of course, large classes were the norm. Sowell details the issues of public schooling in his book 'Education in America'. If you think California needs money to fix its schooling, I highly recommend that book.
  - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
    Low density can be sustainable if we live in clusters that are self sustaining. Form 4-6 Dunbar number sized communities and another bunch of them forming a bigger cluster. Intra city transport to be separate from Inter city transport..maybe underground or mag lev along with surface transport. The problem is not low density. The problem is sprawl. The solution is not high density and shaming people NIMBY or coerced altruism but cooperation. Giving people incentive to cooperate and share in return for something of non material value would work better than worsening quality of life for the productive and working folks. High density can also be sustainable. Paris is a good example but it has public transport and its shaped like a snail. It would also mean segregation of regions according to income and ameneties. Also..I can’t give you any example because no system lasts for ‘thousands’ of years. I am rejecting your high density sustainable cities list but when I get the time, I will do my own research and if I am wrong in my intuition that you are off mark, I will certainly come back to you with it. Again. You are wrong about low density meaning less education dollars. In California, we have a funding formula by which all the money goes to a common pot and then redistributed. The formula ...to put it simplistically...assigns more money to school districts with kids who need free lunches, English as second language etc. so this means counties that contribute less tax dollars and less property tax dollars due to low house prices get more of the education dollars. Highly educated households and English speaking households and those are higher income where kids don’t rely on school lunches get less education dollars. This leads to no money for infrastructure improvements or overcrowding in schools and budget cuts. And yet..it’s these high property priced areas that have a higher influx of school kids. It’s not working. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/documents/currentexpense1718.xlsx https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/documents/currentexpense1718... Per student expense allocation in affluent cities is less than in areas that have lower property values. No child is truly left behind in California when it comes to education at least as far as $ redistribution is concerned. The problems we have cannot be resolved by high density building in Bay Area and LA.

Don’t you think it’s connected? Or are you suggesting that people build homes and don’t send their kids to school? I am ready for the assault of downvotes if it means the right questions are asked. One average home is 4 people. 2 cars. 2 kids. 2 incomes. 40% of it goes to various taxes. Dense over crowded cities. Overcrowded schools. Kids need tutoring because everyone wants their kids to succeed. 2 hour commutes. Baby sitting and child care. More water. More gas. More pollution. More public services. Same or smaller roads as bicycles and walkable roads become important. Less shopping as space is used for homes and people travel outside more and shopping dollars go out of the city. Less open spaces and nature. People start traveling for vacations and relaxation. More outflow without a balanced local economy. More service people needed for the high tech income earning population. But unaffordable for lower tiers for income. Break this down for me. How is high density sustainable? Seriously ..how? Having a house isn’t everything. Living involves many other things.

stcredzero 8y ago
How is high density sustainable? Higher densities are clearly sustainable. We have historical precedent for higher densities than San Francisco. (Resulting in exceptional, vibrant communities.) Futurists envision (and quantify) ways this planet alone could sustain approaching a trillion. Kids need tutoring because everyone wants their kids to succeed Higher densities mean lower housing prices. Lower housing prices mean teachers and professors can actually live where they work. Lower housing prices mean creatives, craftspeople, artists, and diverse people can keep living locally.
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  So how is housing affordability in San Francisco working for you? Is the higher density in SF bring all those supposed promised sustainablity benefits?
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    So how is housing affordability in San Francisco working for you? The housing density in SF is held at lower levels than the market equilibrium. The result is miserable, because the density is artificially low for the current market.
    - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
      Are you saying that if San Francisco has more people, it will become more sustainable and affordable and people will be happier? Paint that picture for me, please.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        Are you saying that if San Francisco has more people, it will become more sustainable and affordable and people will be happier? Of course that's a broken causal chain and obvious straw man. You have to start out with more and cheaper housing. Economic analyses indicate we could build a huge amount more housing, and people would snap it up. Build enough to actually bring the housing prices down, and yes, there would be a much more vibrant and diverse city life. (But the market has to follow this naturally. Legislating prices lower will have the opposite effect.) As far as cities being "sustainable" -- cities draw resources to themselves. That's simply how it works. Sustainability is something that only matters in the economy as a whole. Cities need not be locally sustainable to generate wealth and to be a positive benefit to society. Paint that picture for me, please. New York City in the past. Houston in its run up to becoming the 4th largest metropolitan area in the US. Chicago in the past as well. San Francisco is artificially held back from the density the market in other cities have achieved.
        jelliclesfarm 8y ago
        I disagree. But thanks for the engagement.
        stcredzero 8y ago
tathougies 8y ago
> How is high density sustainable? The question really is how is 'low density' sustainable. Can you point me to an agrarian area that has lasted for thousands of years, with continuous occupation, and continuous economic prosperity (or at least no long periods of economic destitution)? I don't think you can. On the other hand, humanity has countless examples of the sustainability of high-density cities. I can name off the top of my head many cities that have successfully housed humans with high density for thousands upon thousands of years: 1. Rome 2. Cairo 3. Chengdu 4. Baghdad 5. Bukhara 6. London 7. Mexico City/Tenochtitlan 8. Tokyo > Don’t you think it’s connected? Yes. Low density housing decreases access to education by requiring extra costs to achieve the same ends. All the civilizations listed above managed not only to house people, but also to educate them, hence retaining the prominence they held thousands of years ago to the present day. The issue is not enough high density housing. Having lived in some of the cities listed above, San Francisco feels like living in the country side. Do not respond by asking how high density is working in San Francisco. San Francisco is not high density. It acts as if it is a moderately sized city when it really ought to be a metropolis. This is also not an issue of taxation, as several of those cities have much lower tax rates than California. I am a libertarian at heart, so I am for lower taxes. However, it is a mistake to think California's high taxes are because of high-density. California's high taxes are a response to the need to pay for the externalities caused by low-density housing. For example, road maintenance, bus systems, etc are all much cheaper to run if people live closer together. Moreover, the schools fail not because of the density in housing but because of the lack of competition to drive prices down. Catholic schools in the inner city do a better job at turning out students than public schools, despite having broadly similar student bases (In terms of socioeconomics) and spending much less per student (limiting myself to Catholic schools because they have the lowest average tuition among private schools by far). I believe the average inner-city Catholic school class size is actually larger than the corresponding public school. Historically speaking of course, large classes were the norm. Sowell details the issues of public schooling in his book 'Education in America'. If you think California needs money to fix its schooling, I highly recommend that book.
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  Low density can be sustainable if we live in clusters that are self sustaining. Form 4-6 Dunbar number sized communities and another bunch of them forming a bigger cluster. Intra city transport to be separate from Inter city transport..maybe underground or mag lev along with surface transport. The problem is not low density. The problem is sprawl. The solution is not high density and shaming people NIMBY or coerced altruism but cooperation. Giving people incentive to cooperate and share in return for something of non material value would work better than worsening quality of life for the productive and working folks. High density can also be sustainable. Paris is a good example but it has public transport and its shaped like a snail. It would also mean segregation of regions according to income and ameneties. Also..I can’t give you any example because no system lasts for ‘thousands’ of years. I am rejecting your high density sustainable cities list but when I get the time, I will do my own research and if I am wrong in my intuition that you are off mark, I will certainly come back to you with it. Again. You are wrong about low density meaning less education dollars. In California, we have a funding formula by which all the money goes to a common pot and then redistributed. The formula ...to put it simplistically...assigns more money to school districts with kids who need free lunches, English as second language etc. so this means counties that contribute less tax dollars and less property tax dollars due to low house prices get more of the education dollars. Highly educated households and English speaking households and those are higher income where kids don’t rely on school lunches get less education dollars. This leads to no money for infrastructure improvements or overcrowding in schools and budget cuts. And yet..it’s these high property priced areas that have a higher influx of school kids. It’s not working. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/documents/currentexpense1718.xlsx https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/documents/currentexpense1718... Per student expense allocation in affluent cities is less than in areas that have lower property values. No child is truly left behind in California when it comes to education at least as far as $ redistribution is concerned. The problems we have cannot be resolved by high density building in Bay Area and LA.