4 ms·

At some point a city has a maximum density determined not only by housing but services, transportation and basic things like water. Given forest fires and insu

At some point a city has a maximum density determined not only by housing but services, transportation and basic things like water. Given forest fires and insufficient groundwater, I really wonder how this is going to go. At some point high prices are a signal that a city is full.

LogonType10 5y ago
All I see in San Francisco are three story houses; not a proper subway in sight. People want to have a town house with a lawn in the middle of a city and this is the result.
- kelnos 5y ago
  Yup. And our pitiful excuse for a new subway has so far taken 11 years to build and won't be operational until next year... in theory. > People want to have a town house with a lawn in the middle of a city and this is the result. Not even a townhouse; a detached single-family home!
resonantjacket5 5y ago
Opting for low density make no sense if you are worried about forest fires or insufficient groundwater. Suburban houses use more water per person not less compared to urban dwellers. The forest fires near houses are caused by the low density zoning forcing home builders to build closer and closer to forest fire prone areas. > At some point high prices are a signal that a city is full. It can also be a sign of low supply
phendrenad2 5y ago
SF doesn't rely on groundwater. SF water is piped in from the mountains. And it isn't actually at risk of running out. City water needs are tiny compared to what the farms in California use.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  SF water is piped in because their groundwater is depleted and they are using other areas water. This led to the shutter of several cities at the time (1900s ish). While farms do use significantly more water, they also are not in the city and they produce food. Farmers generally feel they should be able to use their water instead of the city leeching it.
  - google234123 5y ago
    Farms use a huge percent of the water I think 85 or 90 percent which has increased over time and they basically get it for free. We shouldn’t have to super-subsidize farms. If there is a water crisis, the farmer should also help.

LogonType10 5y ago

All I see in San Francisco are three story houses; not a proper subway in sight. People want to have a town house with a lawn in the middle of a city and this is the result.

kelnos 5y ago
Yup. And our pitiful excuse for a new subway has so far taken 11 years to build and won't be operational until next year... in theory. > People want to have a town house with a lawn in the middle of a city and this is the result. Not even a townhouse; a detached single-family home!

resonantjacket5 5y ago

Opting for low density make no sense if you are worried about forest fires or insufficient groundwater. Suburban houses use more water per person not less compared to urban dwellers. The forest fires near houses are caused by the low density zoning forcing home builders to build closer and closer to forest fire prone areas. > At some point high prices are a signal that a city is full. It can also be a sign of low supply

phendrenad2 5y ago

SF doesn't rely on groundwater. SF water is piped in from the mountains. And it isn't actually at risk of running out. City water needs are tiny compared to what the farms in California use.

vorpalhex 5y ago
SF water is piped in because their groundwater is depleted and they are using other areas water. This led to the shutter of several cities at the time (1900s ish). While farms do use significantly more water, they also are not in the city and they produce food. Farmers generally feel they should be able to use their water instead of the city leeching it.
- google234123 5y ago
  Farms use a huge percent of the water I think 85 or 90 percent which has increased over time and they basically get it for free. We shouldn’t have to super-subsidize farms. If there is a water crisis, the farmer should also help.