3 ms·

Somebody also said "redesign the cities". Once again, this all sounds good until one starts to attach realistic math to these ideas. Simple example: The neig

Somebody also said "redesign the cities". Once again, this all sounds good until one starts to attach realistic math to these ideas. Simple example: The neighborhood where I live is relatively new. It was built about 25 years ago. I watched it being built after we effectively chose the lot where we wanted the house built. I visited the construction every single weekend for about a year until the homes were ready to go. I watched was they trenched over half a mile of would-be-roads to install sewage, power and communications lines underground. I watched as they built the roads, sidewalks and, eventually, the homes. I even paid the electrician on the side to run two CAT5 cables (4 total) from the garage to two opposite corners of every room (including the bathrooms). When you see a neighborhood go up like this from scratch you quickly realize this isn't going to be ripped-up and "redesigned" any within at least a lifetime. It's easy to wave a hand and say "redesign the cities". Sounds great. Yet, sadly, it is a fantasy. Even a small town would be a grotesquely expensive and logistically impossible undertaking. The best approach would be to do it right with new developments. Not sure we have the leadership necessary to take that approach, at all.

ZoomerCretin 5y ago
>When you see a neighborhood go up like this from scratch you quickly realize this isn't going to be ripped-up and "redesigned" any within at least a lifetime. Cities and NIMBYs have to go out of their way, on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of man-years drafting ever-complex zoning laws and BS lawsuits to block any and all market-driven densification, nearly anywhere and everywhere it happens. > Somebody also said "redesign the cities". Once again, this all sounds good until one starts to attach realistic math to these ideas. It won't be the government literally tearing down and re-building hundreds of square miles in a one-shot, hundred-trillion dollar effort. It'll be a decentralized, market-driven effort. All you have to do is have the local city government erase segregation-era anti-density zoning codes. No square foot minimums on apartments, no parking minimums, no Floor Area Ratio requirements, no cap on building height, and dedicate 1/8th of current transportation infrastructure to non-personal vehicles (Buses, bikes, rail, etc.).
- usui 5y ago
  We're talking about this in the context of environmental reform. The idea of decentralized change is good for change over time, but not when it's to avert a crisis, unless everyone thinks it's a no-brainer decision, which they don't.
  - ZoomerCretin 5y ago
    The market thinks higher profitability is a no-brainer, yes. It is more profitable to build an apartment block and collect rent from thousands of people than it is to build maybe 30 monoplexes on the same space. It is even more profitable when developers don't have to waste space to accommodate massive amounts of parking, or follow any of a dozen other needless zoning laws. Rome was not built in a day. The market won't solve everything, but in the limited circumstances where it very obviously can, we should abolish the laws that forbid it.
- robomartin 5y ago
  > It'll be a decentralized, market-driven effort. All you have to do is have the local city government erase segregation-era anti-density zoning codes. No square foot minimums on apartments, no parking minimums, no Floor Area Ratio requirements, no cap on building height, and dedicate 1/8th of current transportation infrastructure to non-personal vehicles (Buses, bikes, rail, etc.). Nice thoughts. Sadly, not realistic at all. The things you mention would require such changes as doubling the size of the sewage handling system, power delivery, gas, water, etc. You can't build stuff without having the underlying infrastructure to support it with the required services. Hate to put it this way, but that approach is a trip straight into third-world living. Cities are very complex works of engineering. While not perfect, you can't just double or triple occupancy or density without suffering serious consequences. As is always the case, there number of variables at play are far more than simple idealized concepts might lead one to believe. Take fires for example. Density and fire risk are related. In a place like Southern California you have to be very aware and equally careful about something like this.
nicoburns 5y ago
You don't have to rip-up the roads, you can just replace (some of) the buildings around them. Replace one house in a residential neighbourhood with a grocery store and you've already drastically reduced the amount people need to leave the neighbourhood.

ZoomerCretin 5y ago

>When you see a neighborhood go up like this from scratch you quickly realize this isn't going to be ripped-up and "redesigned" any within at least a lifetime. Cities and NIMBYs have to go out of their way, on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of man-years drafting ever-complex zoning laws and BS lawsuits to block any and all market-driven densification, nearly anywhere and everywhere it happens. > Somebody also said "redesign the cities". Once again, this all sounds good until one starts to attach realistic math to these ideas. It won't be the government literally tearing down and re-building hundreds of square miles in a one-shot, hundred-trillion dollar effort. It'll be a decentralized, market-driven effort. All you have to do is have the local city government erase segregation-era anti-density zoning codes. No square foot minimums on apartments, no parking minimums, no Floor Area Ratio requirements, no cap on building height, and dedicate 1/8th of current transportation infrastructure to non-personal vehicles (Buses, bikes, rail, etc.).

usui 5y ago
We're talking about this in the context of environmental reform. The idea of decentralized change is good for change over time, but not when it's to avert a crisis, unless everyone thinks it's a no-brainer decision, which they don't.
- ZoomerCretin 5y ago
  The market thinks higher profitability is a no-brainer, yes. It is more profitable to build an apartment block and collect rent from thousands of people than it is to build maybe 30 monoplexes on the same space. It is even more profitable when developers don't have to waste space to accommodate massive amounts of parking, or follow any of a dozen other needless zoning laws. Rome was not built in a day. The market won't solve everything, but in the limited circumstances where it very obviously can, we should abolish the laws that forbid it.
robomartin 5y ago
> It'll be a decentralized, market-driven effort. All you have to do is have the local city government erase segregation-era anti-density zoning codes. No square foot minimums on apartments, no parking minimums, no Floor Area Ratio requirements, no cap on building height, and dedicate 1/8th of current transportation infrastructure to non-personal vehicles (Buses, bikes, rail, etc.). Nice thoughts. Sadly, not realistic at all. The things you mention would require such changes as doubling the size of the sewage handling system, power delivery, gas, water, etc. You can't build stuff without having the underlying infrastructure to support it with the required services. Hate to put it this way, but that approach is a trip straight into third-world living. Cities are very complex works of engineering. While not perfect, you can't just double or triple occupancy or density without suffering serious consequences. As is always the case, there number of variables at play are far more than simple idealized concepts might lead one to believe. Take fires for example. Density and fire risk are related. In a place like Southern California you have to be very aware and equally careful about something like this.

nicoburns 5y ago

You don't have to rip-up the roads, you can just replace (some of) the buildings around them. Replace one house in a residential neighbourhood with a grocery store and you've already drastically reduced the amount people need to leave the neighbourhood.