3 ms·
It really comes down to lack of usable land area. When 7 million people are competing for a fixed number of parcels jammed into narrow strips between the ocean,
by plaidfuji 8y ago
It really comes down to lack of usable land area. When 7 million people are competing for a fixed number of parcels jammed into narrow strips between the ocean, an enormous bay, and development-unfriendly mountains, you end up with skyrocketing land prices and terrible commutes due to traffic choke points.
- erentz 8y ago> competing for a fixed number of parcels Hmm, what if we changed zoning to allow more people to live on those fixed number of parcels.
- derekp7 8y agoThen you run into issues with things like sewer / water / trash disposal, and also funneling those people into and out of those parcels. And you need to take away some of those parcels for increased shopping capacity, parks / recreation (with families, it is good to be able to access baseball / soccer / other sports fields, regular parks, etc). So yes, you can tear down large parts of the bay area, and replace them with Manhattan, but at that point why not just move to Manhattan which is already built on that model? Of course, I'm partial to the model that works where I'm at, Chicago area. You have the city and everything it brings to it, yet there is bountiful land surrounding it for having more spread out housing and other development. With good transportation all around, and a tone of both large and small businesses built up all around the city, up to 50 miles from the city core (so many people don't have to commute that far for work).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]