3 ms·

> The world is very large, and cities are a very small portion of it. The land we set aside for animals should be outside of cities, where far more land is avai

> The world is very large, and cities are a very small portion of it. The land we set aside for animals should be outside of cities, where far more land is available at far less impact to people. Absurd. Just because a city happens to be there doesn't mean we should destroy the surrounding environment with impunity. Want to increase available housing in the bay? Get rid of NIMBY zoning that prevents building up.

troutwine 7y ago
Hard agree. Also, realistically, what is this proposing? Should cities be totally artificial environments with bounded growth rings to demarcate human/animal boundaries? Even a totally paved artificial environment is an ecosystem: which animals are okay? If cities are not bounded, how do we justify expansion into "animal" areas? To be clear, I'm fully onboard with no-build nature areas in countries like the US where we have lots and lots of sparsely populated land. But, environmentally integrated building is almost surely the best way forward for preserving human health and in terms of long-term maintenance of an industrial civilization.
srmatto 7y ago
Also wetlands the biome targeted for infill in the example are an especially important type of biome and are also comparatively rare.
jefftk 7y ago
(author here) I'm also strongly in favor of abolishing the restrictive zoning that prohibits building up, but in many ways it's less politically practical to increase density in built-out areas than build new dense areas. If we don't use small amounts of land close to cities to build new housing we'll continue with our default of using large amounts of land far from cities. This destroys more of the environment, pollutes with more driving, and wastes more time commuting.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  Why not extend the development in a direction that's already dry?
- ridewinter 7y ago
  Nice, concise & persuasive article. Do you think the political environment in the Bay Area is ripe for it?

troutwine 7y ago

Hard agree. Also, realistically, what is this proposing? Should cities be totally artificial environments with bounded growth rings to demarcate human/animal boundaries? Even a totally paved artificial environment is an ecosystem: which animals are okay? If cities are not bounded, how do we justify expansion into "animal" areas? To be clear, I'm fully onboard with no-build nature areas in countries like the US where we have lots and lots of sparsely populated land. But, environmentally integrated building is almost surely the best way forward for preserving human health and in terms of long-term maintenance of an industrial civilization.

srmatto 7y ago

Also wetlands the biome targeted for infill in the example are an especially important type of biome and are also comparatively rare.

jefftk 7y ago

(author here) I'm also strongly in favor of abolishing the restrictive zoning that prohibits building up, but in many ways it's less politically practical to increase density in built-out areas than build new dense areas. If we don't use small amounts of land close to cities to build new housing we'll continue with our default of using large amounts of land far from cities. This destroys more of the environment, pollutes with more driving, and wastes more time commuting.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
Why not extend the development in a direction that's already dry?
ridewinter 7y ago
Nice, concise & persuasive article. Do you think the political environment in the Bay Area is ripe for it?