2 ms·
I 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 destru
by reducesuffering 6y ago
I 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