6 ms·

I'm usually a huge cheerleader for most things California, but I think this comment is missing some important considerations. Namely, people don't just need hou

I'm usually a huge cheerleader for most things California, but I think this comment is missing some important considerations. Namely, people don't just need housing, they also need food, energy, water, transportation, waste management, employment, education, health care, and space for recreation. Every new home that goes up requires a lot of infrastructure to support a healthy population. And people don't want to be evenly distributed throughout the state. There's still plenty of space in Fresno! But, many of the people who live there wish they lived somewhere else. Lots of people all want to live in the same places; doing some math based off 2010 census numbers, the San Francisco Bay Area currently has an average population density of about 912 people per square mile [1]. That may be getting asymptotically close to the carrying capacity for those areas for people who want to live suburban lifestyles. California might be able to carry 80 million people, twice its current population, but that will require solving California's population distribution problem -- making some undesirable places a lot more desirable. [1]: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm, includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.

raldi 5y ago
Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27082295 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27082295
- thaumaturgy 5y ago
  No argument from me that higher density population centers tend to be better for the global environment, but that wasn't my point.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    Density makes it easier to build the infrastructure to support population growth. Distribution makes it more expensive to build that infrastructure. Thus inreasing distribution hinders rather than helps the ability of California to support a larger population. That seems to directly contradict the points you were making.
    - thaumaturgy 5y ago
      Okay. Let's try this: raldi et al are talking about whether the state can support a 150% population increase, but I'm talking about whether 150% more people will want to live there. Let's walk through some of the numbers and issues in detail, together. As of 2019, San Francisco county has a population density of about 18,000 people per square mile. Let's say that San Francisco county is the ideal scenario for the Raldi Model. And clearly, lots of people do want to live there now, so it can't be all bad. Let's take that model and cut the population density in half and extend it across the greater Bay Area. Magic wand, presto-chango, the population density of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties is now 9,000 people per square mile, uniformly. That gets us 70 million people in just the greater Bay Area. Awesome! We did it. 30 million people get to share the rest of the state, everything is grand. What was the cost? Well, if the greater Bay Area were a country, it would now be the world's 3rd highest population density (give or take) [1]. In terms of scale, it would blow away any other competitors in the list, dwarfing most high-density countries' total populations by a significant factor, except Bangladesh. There was a thread yesterday on California's water woes [2]. What impact would the Raldi Model have on the state's water demand? San Francisco County uses about 41 gallons of water per person per day [3], which is less than half the state average. Fantastic! We only need to find about 3 billion gallons of water per day to serve this area, or 5.6 million acre-feet per year. This amounts to only about 5% more water than the state is currently consuming, so we only need to build one new reservoir that's a little bigger than the Shasta Reservoir, the state's current largest, and, somehow, fill it. Or, build 175 more Carlsbad desalination plants at $1 billion each, your choice. Okay, water's solved! Next, energy. We only need an additional 448 TWh to serve this area at current San Francisco County per-capita usage levels [4]. Well ... 449, since we tore down the Altamont Pass Wind Farm and replaced it with high density housing. California currently consumes around 260 TWh statewide [5], so... uhh... we'll build 10 more nuclear power plants somewhere [6], somehow -- handwaving away all the costs and political challenges, and also their locations, since Diablo Canyon sits on 900 now very valuable acres of real estate. And the rest, let's just say rooftop solar covers the gap, haha. Recreational space! Well, look, I have some bad news here. A lot of parks are gone now. Mount Diablo, the entire East Bay Regional Park system, the wildlife refuges in the north bay, Point Reyes, Muir Woods, they're all gone. Fortunately, people have all the same walkable concrete that San Francisco has. But, if you want to get away from one of the world's densest population centers for the weekend, don't go to Yosemite: due to consistently high traffic and the impacts it causes, Yosemite is using a reservation system for day passes now [7], and they'll want no part of 70 million more people visiting from the Bay Area. Waste management: here, the Raldi Model gets a big point in its favor, since San Francisco overall does a magical job of reducing waste and landfill usage through multiple programs [8], although I'm skeptical we're getting a complete picture [9]. Even so, San Francisco County takes advantage of nearby open spaces for things like composting, and those open spaces are gone, so more waste needs to be transported farther afield and handled there. But, compared to the last few logistical issues we've handwaved away, this one's a peach. Let's fast forward a bit and assume that everything else is taken care of too. There are enough teachers. All the paving that needs to be paved has been paved. Everyone is still, somehow, able to get all of the locally-grown organic food products that San Francisco County currently demands, we just have to stretch the definition of "locally grown" a bit. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was found to be taking up valuable real estate, so it was relocated to let's say San Diego, they'd love to have it there. All the trillions of dollars needed to make all this happen just sort of flew in and everybody looked at the plan and went, "yep, looks good to me." Now, honest question: do you, personally, want to live here? Lots of people would, no doubt. Lots of people live there now. But it's unclear how many people actually enjoy living there, and that kind of population density brings some serious human problems along with it [10]. I am extremely skeptical that, even if all the logistical problems could feasibly be solved, we'd find 70 million people in this country that would choose to live in that region once all the dust settled. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27068716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27068716 [3]: https://sfwater.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=14560 https://sfwater.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=145... [4]: https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx [5]: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/05/f22/CA-Energy%20Sector%20Risk%20Profile.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/05/f22/CA-Energ... [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant [7]: https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/news/yosemite-national-park-to-re-implement-a-day-use-reservation-system-beginning-on-friday-may-21-2021.htm https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/news/yosemite-national-park-t... [8]: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/13/how-san-francisco-became-a-global-leader-in-waste-management.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/13/how-san-francisco-became-a-g... [9]: https://discardstudies.com/2013/12/06/san-franciscos-famous-80-waste-diversion-rate-anatomy-of-an-exemplar/ https://discardstudies.com/2013/12/06/san-franciscos-famous-... [10]: https://idlewords.com/talks/notes_from_an_emergency.htm https://idlewords.com/talks/notes_from_an_emergency.htm, ctrl-f "excrement". Also https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/san-francisco-tech-open-letter-i-dont-want-to-see-homeless-riff-raff https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/san-franc..., https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/technology/san-francisco-taxes-homeless.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/technology/san-francisco-..., etc.
opportune 5y ago
You’re basically saying people should live in the desert or farmland, where there are not many good jobs, because you don’t want to be inconvenienced. But worse than that is the head in the sand attitude that if only people held the same opinion as you, the problem would fix itself. No amount of opinion will fix the mismatch between jobs and housing in California’s large urban areas
- thaumaturgy 5y ago
  Pardon? Where am I "basically saying" any of those things?

raldi 5y ago

Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27082295 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27082295

thaumaturgy 5y ago
No argument from me that higher density population centers tend to be better for the global environment, but that wasn't my point.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Density makes it easier to build the infrastructure to support population growth. Distribution makes it more expensive to build that infrastructure. Thus inreasing distribution hinders rather than helps the ability of California to support a larger population. That seems to directly contradict the points you were making.
  - thaumaturgy 5y ago
    Okay. Let's try this: raldi et al are talking about whether the state can support a 150% population increase, but I'm talking about whether 150% more people will want to live there. Let's walk through some of the numbers and issues in detail, together. As of 2019, San Francisco county has a population density of about 18,000 people per square mile. Let's say that San Francisco county is the ideal scenario for the Raldi Model. And clearly, lots of people do want to live there now, so it can't be all bad. Let's take that model and cut the population density in half and extend it across the greater Bay Area. Magic wand, presto-chango, the population density of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties is now 9,000 people per square mile, uniformly. That gets us 70 million people in just the greater Bay Area. Awesome! We did it. 30 million people get to share the rest of the state, everything is grand. What was the cost? Well, if the greater Bay Area were a country, it would now be the world's 3rd highest population density (give or take) [1]. In terms of scale, it would blow away any other competitors in the list, dwarfing most high-density countries' total populations by a significant factor, except Bangladesh. There was a thread yesterday on California's water woes [2]. What impact would the Raldi Model have on the state's water demand? San Francisco County uses about 41 gallons of water per person per day [3], which is less than half the state average. Fantastic! We only need to find about 3 billion gallons of water per day to serve this area, or 5.6 million acre-feet per year. This amounts to only about 5% more water than the state is currently consuming, so we only need to build one new reservoir that's a little bigger than the Shasta Reservoir, the state's current largest, and, somehow, fill it. Or, build 175 more Carlsbad desalination plants at $1 billion each, your choice. Okay, water's solved! Next, energy. We only need an additional 448 TWh to serve this area at current San Francisco County per-capita usage levels [4]. Well ... 449, since we tore down the Altamont Pass Wind Farm and replaced it with high density housing. California currently consumes around 260 TWh statewide [5], so... uhh... we'll build 10 more nuclear power plants somewhere [6], somehow -- handwaving away all the costs and political challenges, and also their locations, since Diablo Canyon sits on 900 now very valuable acres of real estate. And the rest, let's just say rooftop solar covers the gap, haha. Recreational space! Well, look, I have some bad news here. A lot of parks are gone now. Mount Diablo, the entire East Bay Regional Park system, the wildlife refuges in the north bay, Point Reyes, Muir Woods, they're all gone. Fortunately, people have all the same walkable concrete that San Francisco has. But, if you want to get away from one of the world's densest population centers for the weekend, don't go to Yosemite: due to consistently high traffic and the impacts it causes, Yosemite is using a reservation system for day passes now [7], and they'll want no part of 70 million more people visiting from the Bay Area. Waste management: here, the Raldi Model gets a big point in its favor, since San Francisco overall does a magical job of reducing waste and landfill usage through multiple programs [8], although I'm skeptical we're getting a complete picture [9]. Even so, San Francisco County takes advantage of nearby open spaces for things like composting, and those open spaces are gone, so more waste needs to be transported farther afield and handled there. But, compared to the last few logistical issues we've handwaved away, this one's a peach. Let's fast forward a bit and assume that everything else is taken care of too. There are enough teachers. All the paving that needs to be paved has been paved. Everyone is still, somehow, able to get all of the locally-grown organic food products that San Francisco County currently demands, we just have to stretch the definition of "locally grown" a bit. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was found to be taking up valuable real estate, so it was relocated to let's say San Diego, they'd love to have it there. All the trillions of dollars needed to make all this happen just sort of flew in and everybody looked at the plan and went, "yep, looks good to me." Now, honest question: do you, personally, want to live here? Lots of people would, no doubt. Lots of people live there now. But it's unclear how many people actually enjoy living there, and that kind of population density brings some serious human problems along with it [10]. I am extremely skeptical that, even if all the logistical problems could feasibly be solved, we'd find 70 million people in this country that would choose to live in that region once all the dust settled. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27068716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27068716 [3]: https://sfwater.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=14560 https://sfwater.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=145... [4]: https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx [5]: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/05/f22/CA-Energy%20Sector%20Risk%20Profile.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/05/f22/CA-Energ... [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant [7]: https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/news/yosemite-national-park-to-re-implement-a-day-use-reservation-system-beginning-on-friday-may-21-2021.htm https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/news/yosemite-national-park-t... [8]: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/13/how-san-francisco-became-a-global-leader-in-waste-management.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/13/how-san-francisco-became-a-g... [9]: https://discardstudies.com/2013/12/06/san-franciscos-famous-80-waste-diversion-rate-anatomy-of-an-exemplar/ https://discardstudies.com/2013/12/06/san-franciscos-famous-... [10]: https://idlewords.com/talks/notes_from_an_emergency.htm https://idlewords.com/talks/notes_from_an_emergency.htm, ctrl-f "excrement". Also https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/san-francisco-tech-open-letter-i-dont-want-to-see-homeless-riff-raff https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/san-franc..., https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/technology/san-francisco-taxes-homeless.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/technology/san-francisco-..., etc.

opportune 5y ago

You’re basically saying people should live in the desert or farmland, where there are not many good jobs, because you don’t want to be inconvenienced. But worse than that is the head in the sand attitude that if only people held the same opinion as you, the problem would fix itself. No amount of opinion will fix the mismatch between jobs and housing in California’s large urban areas

thaumaturgy 5y ago
Pardon? Where am I "basically saying" any of those things?