4 ms·

You always needed those. So why is it that you could build the first homes and roads and sewers and power plants and hospitals and schools, but not more of the

by clarry 7y ago

You always needed those. So why is it that you could build the first homes and roads and sewers and power plants and hospitals and schools, but not more of the same?

sokoloff 7y ago
Do you imagine that the size of sewers, hospitals, schools, and power plants to serve 100K people are the same size as those to serve 500K people? If you've got existing, working infrastructure built out for population X, you have a lot more building to do to support 5X. Often that requires tearing down existing, functional infrastructure and replacing with larger.
- eru 7y ago
  Yes, but it's usually less than 5x more. I don't really see your argument. The per capita expenditure should be the same or less. If really necessary, just charge real estate developers for it.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    When the sewer and water service is under existing streets and needs to be dug up to support higher density housing, that project is enormously more expensive and disruptive to the locals.
    - clarry 7y ago
      It's funny that city living is described as economical, ecological, and scalable compared to suburban & rural living because of infrastructure & transport costs. And here you're arguing the exact opposite. So how is it? Dig up the street and build taller flats (oh no, digging up streets is expensive!), or commit to suburban sprawl (oh no, spreading infrastructure wide is expensive!). Pick your poison; either way people are going to have the infrastructure they need in one place or another, unless you kill them off. Nevermind the the third and obvious alternative of expanding the city with high density buildings and new infrastructure to support it. You don't have to interconnect every sewer pipe in town just because.
    - eru 7y ago
      In addition to what clarry said: do it piecemeal, and upgrade the sewers when you would be doing maintenance on them anyway. Also: if necessary, do charge the developers, and use that to finance the upgrading work and perhaps some modest handouts to existing residents to compensate them for the trouble. (Perhaps have different parts of the city compete in an auction on who would accept the smallest handout to be upgraded first. Allow negative bids as well, in case some parts of the city positively want the upgrade.)

by clarry 7y ago

You always needed those. So why is it that you could build the first homes and roads and sewers and power plants and hospitals and schools, but not more of the same?

sokoloff 7y ago

Do you imagine that the size of sewers, hospitals, schools, and power plants to serve 100K people are the same size as those to serve 500K people? If you've got existing, working infrastructure built out for population X, you have a lot more building to do to support 5X. Often that requires tearing down existing, functional infrastructure and replacing with larger.

eru 7y ago
Yes, but it's usually less than 5x more. I don't really see your argument. The per capita expenditure should be the same or less. If really necessary, just charge real estate developers for it.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  When the sewer and water service is under existing streets and needs to be dug up to support higher density housing, that project is enormously more expensive and disruptive to the locals.
  - clarry 7y ago
    It's funny that city living is described as economical, ecological, and scalable compared to suburban & rural living because of infrastructure & transport costs. And here you're arguing the exact opposite. So how is it? Dig up the street and build taller flats (oh no, digging up streets is expensive!), or commit to suburban sprawl (oh no, spreading infrastructure wide is expensive!). Pick your poison; either way people are going to have the infrastructure they need in one place or another, unless you kill them off. Nevermind the the third and obvious alternative of expanding the city with high density buildings and new infrastructure to support it. You don't have to interconnect every sewer pipe in town just because.
  - eru 7y ago
    In addition to what clarry said: do it piecemeal, and upgrade the sewers when you would be doing maintenance on them anyway. Also: if necessary, do charge the developers, and use that to finance the upgrading work and perhaps some modest handouts to existing residents to compensate them for the trouble. (Perhaps have different parts of the city compete in an auction on who would accept the smallest handout to be upgraded first. Allow negative bids as well, in case some parts of the city positively want the upgrade.)