4 ms·
I vote we dig up the mountains and fill in the bay with the dirt. Take care of the shortage of land and fire risk at the same time. Let the masses flow back int
by qppo 6y ago
I vote we dig up the mountains and fill in the bay with the dirt. Take care of the shortage of land and fire risk at the same time. Let the masses flow back into affordable housing in the new interburbs between the peninsula and East Bay
- reducesuffering 6y agoI see this idea get floated around a few times, and I actually think it makes sense for being macro-environmentally friendly. While there's environmental destruction of this area, it's the size of half of SF proper. The possibility is that a megopolis can be erected on top of it, with the density and height of downtown SF. This would be a clean slate to house 5m+ people, a new New York, and completely unwind the supply-side issues of housing in the US, effectively lowering house prices and rent across the entire country. Back to the net-effect on the environment; while the local wildlife would suffer, the benefits of reduced emissions and sprawl elsewhere on the globe would be immense. Imagine the de-carbonization that would occur elsewhere with plentiful, dense, and cheap housing and jobs in this area.
- qppo 6y agoIt's mostly a joke. We can't even get ecological clearance to build medium density housing in most of the area, let alone blow up a couple mountains. What can happen is slow encroachment into the bay from the sides. It's already happened over many years (and dredging is continuous). And it wouldn't look like a megapolis, more like Venice meets Santa Clarita