4 ms·
As mentioned in the comments, housing/shelter has a different meaning depending on your perspective (renter/owner, single/married, young/old or import/local res
by aSplash0fDerp 7y ago
As mentioned in the comments, housing/shelter has a different meaning depending on your perspective (renter/owner, single/married, young/old or import/local resident).
Unless we define housing types/building codes for specific subsets, it'll most likely be just more of the same development/investments.
With many major metro areas bursting at the seams, I think they need to break ground on new 21st century cities and identify a way to lower the populations as a solution/initial step, rather than adding more deck chairs to the ship.
This gives the economy a new canvas to work with and the opportunity to move forward 100% with sustainable priciples without being encumbered by the pre-existing conditions plaguing NIMBY strongholds.
With desalination and autonomous vehicles becoming a bigger part of the modern economy, California could build horseshoe/teardrop shaped autonomous highways from the coastline cities hundreds of miles inland that allow modern logistics to fillin the gaps with public transportation and servicing basic needs (water, sanitation, public services) and accomodate new suburban models to house an ever-growing population. Outside of the earthquake zones, the can build the high-density housing they need to solve a good portion of the social crisis.
Extending cities with autonomous loops may not be the best answer, but the existing city planning models need more pioneering strategies if they want to seed future growth.
- c0nfused 7y agoThe answer was and always will be to increase density not increase transit to the suburbs. This is how you get 2 hour commutes. The idea that you are not doing the driving doesn't make a 150 mile commute seem better to me. You can cap density by height like most European cities do or go up forever like Shanghai. But simply arguing suburbs + highways were the 1950s answer and will be the 2050s answer is missing the point.
- aSplash0fDerp 7y agoYour "always" statement reeks of a legacy mindset that doesn't have room to explore implementing new technologies/logistics outside of the box as potential solutions and you also appear to be oblivious to the overhanging threat that earthquakes have in long-term planning for high-density housing in California. Why do you think Cali has not overbuilt skyscrapers to solve the housing crisis? The moneys has always been there to build them. Its probably something obvious huh? Edit: I'm also in Southern California and am impressed with the sheer number of bungalows that cover the landscape. They would have chosen other alternatives had they been available during the growth boom. I also felt the tremors in July of last year from the quakes 150 miles away and think that is still top-of-mind looking forward.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y agoCalifornians seem like people who would care about co2 and emissions, the only good solution is to build higher and denser, instead of long drives.
- aSplash0fDerp 7y agoI've spent over an hour going 10 miles on the 405 recently, so hopefully they'll use the autonomous infrastructure to deliver work to the remote extensions/areas as well to turn back the clock on congestion a few decades in the existing cities.