8 ms·

New cities we desperately don't need. There are plenty of small cities than can be grown instead of destroying more wild nature, which we are fast running out o

New cities we desperately don't need. There are plenty of small cities than can be grown instead of destroying more wild nature, which we are fast running out of.

thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
You know those hen farm houses where hens are squeezed together by the 1000s into a tiny area with poop all over the place. Some people think that's not nice to do to a chicken. I think it's not nice to do that to human beings. And yet that's exactly what we're doing to the people in SF, Poop included. If you don't create new cities, the people still need to end up somewhere. You can move jobs to smaller cities or create new ones, whatever. the point is, you need to move jobs to areas that want to grow. Have you seen the new neighborhoods that are being built in places like CA? Every single tree gets chopped down, ever last one. That's because developers are forced to build with density because the cost of land is so high. if you want to prevent the slaughtering of trees, you'll need specifically create minimum distance regs or reduce the # of trees that can be cut down legally. at the current rate, there's no nature for anyone to enjoy in the neighborhoods that are currently being built.
- fluxic 7y ago
  Show me the chicken that's unhappy in a $750/mo 750sqft apartment? The only reason that doesn't exist in CA is because of NIMBYs and their ridiculous zoning policies.
  - maxsilver 7y ago
    > Show me the chicken that's unhappy in a $750/mo 750sqft apartment? There's a lot of chickens unhappy about $1600/month 200sqft apartments. (a real example from SF - https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/micro-apartments-making-160-square-feet-livable-san-francisco/1038601/ https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollecti... ) Because that's the dystopian nightmare in SF, and to move jobs out of silicon valley to elsewhere, would be to export that same dystopia to more places. We already see this in Michigan of all places. You can make a SF salary and pay $1600/month for a micro-apartment. Or you can take a 50% pay cut, to pay $800/month for ~200sqft micro-apartment. They are equally ridiculous and equally unaffordable, once you account for the currency/wage differences, despite the fact that we have no zoning restrictions in this town. We obviously need more housing, and need to build more housing, but housing is inherently pollution-heavy. You can not build your way into affordability alone, because the act of new construction inherently generates more unaffordability. It alone can never solve it. > The only reason (cheap apartments) doesn't exist in CA is because of NIMBYs and their ridiculous zoning policies. No, that's only a tiny part. Zoning is a small reason, but not the primary one. The biggest reason CA apartments are expensive, is the financial pollution generated by the companies there. If you built a brand new city in an empty cornfield somewhere, with no laws or zoning of any kind, it would be somewhat cheaper than San Francisco, but every single apartment would still cost ~$1100-$1600/month. Because most of that price is due to the financial pollution from the companies, not the zoning.
    - baddox 7y ago
      > You can make a SF salary and pay $1600/month for a micro-apartment. Or you can take a 50% pay cut, to pay $800/month for ~200sqft micro-apartment. They are equally ridiculous and equally unaffordable, once you account for the currency/wage differences, despite the fact that we have no zoning restrictions in this town. They’re not equal. You almost certainly end up with significantly more disposable income in SF.
      - maxsilver 7y ago
        Agreed. And that kind of makes the whole situation worse.
  - monksy 7y ago
    NIMBY's aren't the only reason you can't get that deal. Usually that kind of deal exists only in lower COL locations that aren't that popular. The whole idea that increasing supply will drop the price isn't 100% accurate. In Chicago we've had lots of new development in an area that wasn't that expensive to be in. Now we have 900sqft 2br places that are 3.2k a month and studios for 1800 in that same area.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      > The whole idea that increasing supply will drop the price isn't 100% accurate. That simply means there isn’t sufficient new supply proportional to the new demand. New supply may make an area more desirable, inducing more demand. But there is a limit to the total demand, so one just needs to keep adding supply.
      - monksy 7y ago
        > so one just needs to keep adding supply. That's a very tech focused idea. Chicago is currently having infrastructure issues due to demand. (the city wants to use that to show "see we need more money" the transit system is always busy.. yet isn't considering how to address that issue) Anyways, new developers are only choosing to build "luxury" apartments. Here's an example: when I moved into logan square: I was paying 1350$+100$ for a garage 2br/1ba. That was about 200$ more than the places around it. Now that 10+ high rise buildings have been built near by. A place similar to mine costs $3200, and studios are going for 1800. (Either limited parking [as in you are competing with others to rent a space] or no parking at all) Has the area improved? Nope. Businesses are having an even harder time staying open.
        lotsofpulp 7y ago
        Then the supply of “Chicago” equivalents is too low. By paying high prices, people are signaling to society that they value a dense city with public transportation. And chicago is the cheapest one of those, so if chicago is too expensive, then it’s signaling we need far more dense cities with public transportation. Unfortunately, current regulations and voters make it impossible to create another Chicago/NYC/SF.
- pcwalton 7y ago
  If you want to prevent the "slaughtering of trees", then you should be in favor of increased density. There are no trees on the BART parking lots that are getting turned into housing. You know where there are trees, though? Sites for sprawling suburbs, where the trees get cleared en masse.
- doublement 7y ago
  San Francisco isn't even as dense as Queens, and isn't anywhere close to Paris or Barcelona. Its problems aren't a result of density, but rather economic stress. Moreover leaving a few trees up in a lower-density development isn't a way to respect nature; whatever trees are left are there to decorate human properties. We need new cities designed to be high-density from the start, and we need higher density in most existing cities. When humans live in urban areas, nature can be left alone, and you don't have to go 100 miles outside the city to reach undeveloped land.
  - CapricornNoble 7y ago
    Japan is a pretty good model IMO.... Extremely efficient high-density cities that combine car AND bike friendly streets with mass transit. Numerous green parks and public spaces as well. The rest of the country is rapidly turning into wilderness as people move into the cities for jobs, and the elderly rural-dwellers die off. Fortunately, the government still keeps the roads well-maintained so people such as myself can drive into the countryside and get our Initial D on.
- brendanw 7y ago
  There does not have to be a trade-off between trees and new construction; see the new transbay terminal in San Francisco as an example, or the Changi airport in Singapore. The poop in SF is from growing rates of homelessness, not from density. SF ranks low on density compared to NYC and Hong Kong, yet only SF has a poop problem. NIMBYism crops up in every place where there is growth, and it seems to create a system that rewards luck of being born in the right time and place over contributions to society.
- foogazi 7y ago
  > And yet that's exactly what we're doing to the people in SF, Poop included. No one is doing any of that to anyone in SF. People that find it acceptable move in, those that don’t move out
thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
and if you really want to preserve nature, then you need do something about our growing population. more people need more space to live, it's that simple.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  All countries except Africa and some in the Middle East have fertility rates below replacement rate.
  - thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
    but the population in the US and the world as a whole is still growing. "World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100" https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world...
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      True, due to population momentum. It’s important to differentiate when discussing policy.
- wpasc 7y ago
  all 7b of us could live in new zealand with the housing density of manhattan
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  Not at all "that simple." The population growth (in terms of birthrate) has already flatlined in the US and will soon do so globally. People use up remarkably little space to actually live. In dense cities, multiple stories mean you can fit 3-10 times as many people as in single stories in the same area. But even with single stories, not much land is used. What IS important is area used for agriculture. It's vastly more than land used for roads and houses and other buildings. Cut down on that (without sacrificing amount of food produced--possible using technology and policy together) and footprint on nature is reduced. In fact, less land is now used for agriculture than was used in the late 1940s, even though population has more than doubled: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature-how-is-land-used/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature... That is due to vastly higher yields. We can go further and eliminate much farmland altogether by growing most of our calories from single-celled organisms. Given the processed food of the current industrial food system, the end-quality would be unchanged for the most part and may even improve. Even if not used for human consumption, it can displace animal feed (and already is used to some extent). Meat substitutes can also help.
thordenmark 7y ago
Once you get out of densely populated areas you soon realize the vast majority of the earth is wild nature. Humankind is only taking up a tiny fraction. As agriculture techniques continue to improve less land is needed to feed more people. Go camping in Montana.
doublement 7y ago
Cities intended to be big cities from the start, we do need. The trouble with small cities is that no one wants to see their character changed. In New York they built the subway ahead of development, making high density possible immediately, and regularly bulldozed existing properties as demand increased to make them even higher density later.

New cities we desperately don't need. There are plenty of small cities than can be grown instead of destroying more wild nature, which we are fast running out of.

thorwasdfasdf 7y ago

You know those hen farm houses where hens are squeezed together by the 1000s into a tiny area with poop all over the place. Some people think that's not nice to do to a chicken. I think it's not nice to do that to human beings. And yet that's exactly what we're doing to the people in SF, Poop included. If you don't create new cities, the people still need to end up somewhere. You can move jobs to smaller cities or create new ones, whatever. the point is, you need to move jobs to areas that want to grow. Have you seen the new neighborhoods that are being built in places like CA? Every single tree gets chopped down, ever last one. That's because developers are forced to build with density because the cost of land is so high. if you want to prevent the slaughtering of trees, you'll need specifically create minimum distance regs or reduce the # of trees that can be cut down legally. at the current rate, there's no nature for anyone to enjoy in the neighborhoods that are currently being built.

fluxic 7y ago
Show me the chicken that's unhappy in a $750/mo 750sqft apartment? The only reason that doesn't exist in CA is because of NIMBYs and their ridiculous zoning policies.
- maxsilver 7y ago
  > Show me the chicken that's unhappy in a $750/mo 750sqft apartment? There's a lot of chickens unhappy about $1600/month 200sqft apartments. (a real example from SF - https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/micro-apartments-making-160-square-feet-livable-san-francisco/1038601/ https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollecti... ) Because that's the dystopian nightmare in SF, and to move jobs out of silicon valley to elsewhere, would be to export that same dystopia to more places. We already see this in Michigan of all places. You can make a SF salary and pay $1600/month for a micro-apartment. Or you can take a 50% pay cut, to pay $800/month for ~200sqft micro-apartment. They are equally ridiculous and equally unaffordable, once you account for the currency/wage differences, despite the fact that we have no zoning restrictions in this town. We obviously need more housing, and need to build more housing, but housing is inherently pollution-heavy. You can not build your way into affordability alone, because the act of new construction inherently generates more unaffordability. It alone can never solve it. > The only reason (cheap apartments) doesn't exist in CA is because of NIMBYs and their ridiculous zoning policies. No, that's only a tiny part. Zoning is a small reason, but not the primary one. The biggest reason CA apartments are expensive, is the financial pollution generated by the companies there. If you built a brand new city in an empty cornfield somewhere, with no laws or zoning of any kind, it would be somewhat cheaper than San Francisco, but every single apartment would still cost ~$1100-$1600/month. Because most of that price is due to the financial pollution from the companies, not the zoning.
  - baddox 7y ago
    > You can make a SF salary and pay $1600/month for a micro-apartment. Or you can take a 50% pay cut, to pay $800/month for ~200sqft micro-apartment. They are equally ridiculous and equally unaffordable, once you account for the currency/wage differences, despite the fact that we have no zoning restrictions in this town. They’re not equal. You almost certainly end up with significantly more disposable income in SF.
    - maxsilver 7y ago
      Agreed. And that kind of makes the whole situation worse.
- monksy 7y ago
  NIMBY's aren't the only reason you can't get that deal. Usually that kind of deal exists only in lower COL locations that aren't that popular. The whole idea that increasing supply will drop the price isn't 100% accurate. In Chicago we've had lots of new development in an area that wasn't that expensive to be in. Now we have 900sqft 2br places that are 3.2k a month and studios for 1800 in that same area.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    > The whole idea that increasing supply will drop the price isn't 100% accurate. That simply means there isn’t sufficient new supply proportional to the new demand. New supply may make an area more desirable, inducing more demand. But there is a limit to the total demand, so one just needs to keep adding supply.
    - monksy 7y ago
      > so one just needs to keep adding supply. That's a very tech focused idea. Chicago is currently having infrastructure issues due to demand. (the city wants to use that to show "see we need more money" the transit system is always busy.. yet isn't considering how to address that issue) Anyways, new developers are only choosing to build "luxury" apartments. Here's an example: when I moved into logan square: I was paying 1350$+100$ for a garage 2br/1ba. That was about 200$ more than the places around it. Now that 10+ high rise buildings have been built near by. A place similar to mine costs $3200, and studios are going for 1800. (Either limited parking [as in you are competing with others to rent a space] or no parking at all) Has the area improved? Nope. Businesses are having an even harder time staying open.
      - lotsofpulp 7y ago
        Then the supply of “Chicago” equivalents is too low. By paying high prices, people are signaling to society that they value a dense city with public transportation. And chicago is the cheapest one of those, so if chicago is too expensive, then it’s signaling we need far more dense cities with public transportation. Unfortunately, current regulations and voters make it impossible to create another Chicago/NYC/SF.
pcwalton 7y ago
If you want to prevent the "slaughtering of trees", then you should be in favor of increased density. There are no trees on the BART parking lots that are getting turned into housing. You know where there are trees, though? Sites for sprawling suburbs, where the trees get cleared en masse.
doublement 7y ago
San Francisco isn't even as dense as Queens, and isn't anywhere close to Paris or Barcelona. Its problems aren't a result of density, but rather economic stress. Moreover leaving a few trees up in a lower-density development isn't a way to respect nature; whatever trees are left are there to decorate human properties. We need new cities designed to be high-density from the start, and we need higher density in most existing cities. When humans live in urban areas, nature can be left alone, and you don't have to go 100 miles outside the city to reach undeveloped land.
- CapricornNoble 7y ago
  Japan is a pretty good model IMO.... Extremely efficient high-density cities that combine car AND bike friendly streets with mass transit. Numerous green parks and public spaces as well. The rest of the country is rapidly turning into wilderness as people move into the cities for jobs, and the elderly rural-dwellers die off. Fortunately, the government still keeps the roads well-maintained so people such as myself can drive into the countryside and get our Initial D on.
brendanw 7y ago
There does not have to be a trade-off between trees and new construction; see the new transbay terminal in San Francisco as an example, or the Changi airport in Singapore. The poop in SF is from growing rates of homelessness, not from density. SF ranks low on density compared to NYC and Hong Kong, yet only SF has a poop problem. NIMBYism crops up in every place where there is growth, and it seems to create a system that rewards luck of being born in the right time and place over contributions to society.
foogazi 7y ago
> And yet that's exactly what we're doing to the people in SF, Poop included. No one is doing any of that to anyone in SF. People that find it acceptable move in, those that don’t move out

thorwasdfasdf 7y ago

and if you really want to preserve nature, then you need do something about our growing population. more people need more space to live, it's that simple.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
All countries except Africa and some in the Middle East have fertility rates below replacement rate.
- thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
  but the population in the US and the world as a whole is still growing. "World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100" https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world...
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    True, due to population momentum. It’s important to differentiate when discussing policy.
wpasc 7y ago
all 7b of us could live in new zealand with the housing density of manhattan
Robotbeat 7y ago
Not at all "that simple." The population growth (in terms of birthrate) has already flatlined in the US and will soon do so globally. People use up remarkably little space to actually live. In dense cities, multiple stories mean you can fit 3-10 times as many people as in single stories in the same area. But even with single stories, not much land is used. What IS important is area used for agriculture. It's vastly more than land used for roads and houses and other buildings. Cut down on that (without sacrificing amount of food produced--possible using technology and policy together) and footprint on nature is reduced. In fact, less land is now used for agriculture than was used in the late 1940s, even though population has more than doubled: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature-how-is-land-used/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/march/data-feature... That is due to vastly higher yields. We can go further and eliminate much farmland altogether by growing most of our calories from single-celled organisms. Given the processed food of the current industrial food system, the end-quality would be unchanged for the most part and may even improve. Even if not used for human consumption, it can displace animal feed (and already is used to some extent). Meat substitutes can also help.

thordenmark 7y ago

Once you get out of densely populated areas you soon realize the vast majority of the earth is wild nature. Humankind is only taking up a tiny fraction. As agriculture techniques continue to improve less land is needed to feed more people. Go camping in Montana.

doublement 7y ago

Cities intended to be big cities from the start, we do need. The trouble with small cities is that no one wants to see their character changed. In New York they built the subway ahead of development, making high density possible immediately, and regularly bulldozed existing properties as demand increased to make them even higher density later.