5 ms·

> Paradise on Earth and home to the nation’s fastest-growing industry; California could easily grow to 100M residents if it simply allowed housing to be built

> Paradise on Earth and home to the nation’s fastest-growing industry; California could easily grow to 100M residents if it simply allowed housing to be built to accommodate all the people who want to live here. And it would be a net win for the climate, because most of them would be coming here from much less eco-friendly places. Are you in agreement with changing zoning laws to accommodate many more high rises e.g in norcal and around the bay? (I'm presuming your location from your bio. Correct me if I'm wrong) (I live near DC. DC itself has a height restriction that dates back to the building of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cairo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cairo, and I quite wish DC's height restrictions would change at the very least in its residential areas, but people are NIMBYing the heck out of that too)

bombcar 5y ago
I’m in favor of higher density and I’d have no problem tying it to practical mass transit - thus encouraging developers to work to expand mass transit so they can redevelop land to higher density.
- CameronNemo 5y ago
  Unfortunately countless coastal communities will happily watch their children flee so that they can keep their "beach bungalow vibe" or whatever other delusion they have. Meanwhile we will keep building huge roads and parking lots to accomodate their lifestyle.
  - JPKab 5y ago
    My father doesn't live in California, but he's one of those baby boomers that drives me crazy with this kind of crap. There are no jobs or industry anywhere near where we grew up but people like him make sure that stays a reality and then he has the nerve to complain about how I live so far away. He's the ultimate NIMBY. He and others like him all truly believe that as soon as their house was completed no further changes can ever allow to happen or else it will ruin the landscape. It's not just hypocritical it's outright selfish.
    - StandardFuture 5y ago
      > it's outright selfish. Yes, but aren't we all to at least some degree? "Self-focused" is perhaps an easier adjective to digest? The reality is that the boomers dominated politics (local and national) up until now. That starts to change inside this decade. So we are going to see dramatic shifts by 2030 and we will see if that is for the better or the worse.
raldi 5y ago
No need for highrises; just take all the places where 40' single-family houses are allowed, and allow 40' multifamily houses.
- eganist 5y ago
  Why no need for highrises?
  - raldi 5y ago
    Most of California, even the densest regions like the city of San Francisco, are covered in a sea of single-family houses. This is primarily because in the 1970's, all other kinds of housing were banned. See, for instance, the map at: http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ If we allowed four-story apartment buildings again like we used to, the state's population could easily double in size without even having to raise a single height limit anywhere. (However, I should mention that I, for one, think six-story apartments are where it's at.)
    - clairity 5y ago
      in LA, the limit in the early 1900s was 13 stories/150’ [0], so many of the older tall-ish buildings in downtown and along the wilshire corridor are a uniform height. it’s quite pleasing actually. i’d support a bill allowing all mixed-use buildings to be 13 stories/150’ by default, and taller along transit corridors. and all residential to be 4+1 by right, and bigger within 1/2 mile of a transit corridor. CA politicians don’t even let such bills get to vote oftentimes, but vote them down when they do. i’d be down to put them on the ballot as a voter proposition instead. [0]: https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/l-a-s-changing-skyline-a-brief-history-of-skyscrapers-in-the-city-of-angels https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/l-a-s-changing-skyline-a-...
      - sagarm 5y ago
        Politics is the art of the possible, and a bill that made those changes is highly unlikely to pass. San Francisco's state senator Scott Weiner has been leading in he charge. A few good bills have gotten through, but opposition from LA has been a serious hurdle to upzoning.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

bombcar 5y ago

I’m in favor of higher density and I’d have no problem tying it to practical mass transit - thus encouraging developers to work to expand mass transit so they can redevelop land to higher density.

CameronNemo 5y ago
Unfortunately countless coastal communities will happily watch their children flee so that they can keep their "beach bungalow vibe" or whatever other delusion they have. Meanwhile we will keep building huge roads and parking lots to accomodate their lifestyle.
- JPKab 5y ago
  My father doesn't live in California, but he's one of those baby boomers that drives me crazy with this kind of crap. There are no jobs or industry anywhere near where we grew up but people like him make sure that stays a reality and then he has the nerve to complain about how I live so far away. He's the ultimate NIMBY. He and others like him all truly believe that as soon as their house was completed no further changes can ever allow to happen or else it will ruin the landscape. It's not just hypocritical it's outright selfish.
  - StandardFuture 5y ago
    > it's outright selfish. Yes, but aren't we all to at least some degree? "Self-focused" is perhaps an easier adjective to digest? The reality is that the boomers dominated politics (local and national) up until now. That starts to change inside this decade. So we are going to see dramatic shifts by 2030 and we will see if that is for the better or the worse.

raldi 5y ago

No need for highrises; just take all the places where 40' single-family houses are allowed, and allow 40' multifamily houses.

eganist 5y ago
Why no need for highrises?
- raldi 5y ago
  Most of California, even the densest regions like the city of San Francisco, are covered in a sea of single-family houses. This is primarily because in the 1970's, all other kinds of housing were banned. See, for instance, the map at: http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ If we allowed four-story apartment buildings again like we used to, the state's population could easily double in size without even having to raise a single height limit anywhere. (However, I should mention that I, for one, think six-story apartments are where it's at.)
  - clairity 5y ago
    in LA, the limit in the early 1900s was 13 stories/150’ [0], so many of the older tall-ish buildings in downtown and along the wilshire corridor are a uniform height. it’s quite pleasing actually. i’d support a bill allowing all mixed-use buildings to be 13 stories/150’ by default, and taller along transit corridors. and all residential to be 4+1 by right, and bigger within 1/2 mile of a transit corridor. CA politicians don’t even let such bills get to vote oftentimes, but vote them down when they do. i’d be down to put them on the ballot as a voter proposition instead. [0]: https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/l-a-s-changing-skyline-a-brief-history-of-skyscrapers-in-the-city-of-angels https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/l-a-s-changing-skyline-a-...
    - sagarm 5y ago
      Politics is the art of the possible, and a bill that made those changes is highly unlikely to pass. San Francisco's state senator Scott Weiner has been leading in he charge. A few good bills have gotten through, but opposition from LA has been a serious hurdle to upzoning.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]