3 ms·
The 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
by c0nfused 7y ago
The 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.