3 ms·

Bull fucking shit. The only fantasy land here is the one where we can’t build because it’s just too hard. Cities densifying is literally what cities have been

Bull fucking shit. The only fantasy land here is the one where we can’t build because it’s just too hard. Cities densifying is literally what cities have been doing for thousands of years now. It’s not impossible, and it’s not even hard. Yes, you have to invest in sewers, electrical infrastructure, schools, etc. but that is not hard either. We literally do it all the fucking time. Was Manhattan master planned for 3 million people back when it was New Amsterdam? No fucking way. Current system can’t be expanded? Build a new one. JFC, this isn’t rocket science.

robomartin 3y ago
Yup. Perfect evidence of living in fantasy land. Scaling cities is asymptotic. You get to a point beyond which it is --outside of fantasy land-- as close to impossible as you are going to get. Brother, we can't even build a fucking high speed train in California and you are talking about ripping-up cities to increase density. We can't generate enough power to support the electrification of transportation, and you are saying things like "it's not even hard". Have you ever built anything? I have. Multiple times. Let me tell you, it isn't easy. It's hard, very hard. And it easily goes exponentially expensive. Case in point, the California High Speed train --again. The other issue often ignored in fantasy-land is this virtual-reality mentality that you can click and mouse and rebuild entire cities and neighborhoods. Well, reality isn't a video game. Things don't work that way. The relative cost of any construction today has reached astronomical levels. There isn't enough revenue to take a city of non-trivial scale and, say, double the infrastructure. Like I said, things are asymptotic. I know that's hard to understand when looking at reality as if it were a video game fantasy. Well, it isn't. Sorry. No, what you are thinking is firmly planted in fantasy land. You might not realize it now. Give it a few decades and more experience and you might understand. Why do I say "more experience"? Because nobody --nobody-- who truly understands construction would say the things you are saying. Only those observing from the outside think this way. Go try to build something in a city like Los Angeles and see how much fun it is. And by that I mean, something where you need new sewers, electricity, water, roads, schools. In my town they built a new high school at a completely new location (vacant lot, unused land, etc.). It took THIRTHY FIVE YEARS. And they still made a mess of it. And you think densifying a city is "not even hard"? Please.
- darksaints 3y ago
  My neighborhood went from 3000 people per square mile to over 20000 in less than a decade. Did traffic get worse? Slightly…but mobility actually improved because we built light rail. It now takes less time to move around the city. Did we have to build a new sewer processing facility? Yes. And it costs me all of $15 a month to pay for it. Did we have to build a new electrical substation? Of course! And we did it in less than a year without any problems. I have more than enough experience to know it can be done. I’m living that experience every day. I’m sorry you’re so bad at building things that you think it’s not possible, but luckily we’re not all incompetent.
  - robomartin 3y ago
    That’s very funny. It’s funny that you think that’s impressive. It’s funny that you think density means anything. It’s funny that you think you actually have experience because others did the work. It’s funny that you think your lame 10x density increase can actually translate to a city like Los Angeles, NYC, San Francisco, etc. It’s funny you can’t connect reality to math and understand what you are talking about is pure fantasy: NYC 20MM today, 200MM after your fantasy Los Angeles, 12MM to 120MM Chicago, 9MM to 90MM Etc. Please. Get real. Now, if you are talking about building where there’s nothing (3000 people per square mile is nothing), well, have at it. That’s not where housing availability is a problem. Oh, yes, your attempt to use density to impress is hilarious. I did note you said “your neighborhood”. One or a few apartment buildings can easily cause a 10x density increase in a neighborhood, given that “neighborhood” can be just a few blocks. If you actually want to make the point you are attempting to make, provide links to the many stories that would have been written about a non-trivial CITY increasing the population by a factor of ten within its own boundaries. Otherwise, I think you are trying to inflate two apartment buildings into something they are not. This is about providing affordable housing for tens of millions of people. That cannot be done within the boundaries of major cities in the US. That problem is asymptotic.
    - darksaints 3y ago
      This happened in Seattle, which I assume falls into your non-trivial CITY argument. Nobody here is talking about making Manhattan or Downtown Chicago denser, JFC. They’re talking about making SFH neighborhoods denser…you know, those neighborhoods like the ones where you find those million dollar homes that you linked to in your post. I’m so glad I don’t work with anybody like you. What a fucking nightmare.

robomartin 3y ago

Yup. Perfect evidence of living in fantasy land. Scaling cities is asymptotic. You get to a point beyond which it is --outside of fantasy land-- as close to impossible as you are going to get. Brother, we can't even build a fucking high speed train in California and you are talking about ripping-up cities to increase density. We can't generate enough power to support the electrification of transportation, and you are saying things like "it's not even hard". Have you ever built anything? I have. Multiple times. Let me tell you, it isn't easy. It's hard, very hard. And it easily goes exponentially expensive. Case in point, the California High Speed train --again. The other issue often ignored in fantasy-land is this virtual-reality mentality that you can click and mouse and rebuild entire cities and neighborhoods. Well, reality isn't a video game. Things don't work that way. The relative cost of any construction today has reached astronomical levels. There isn't enough revenue to take a city of non-trivial scale and, say, double the infrastructure. Like I said, things are asymptotic. I know that's hard to understand when looking at reality as if it were a video game fantasy. Well, it isn't. Sorry. No, what you are thinking is firmly planted in fantasy land. You might not realize it now. Give it a few decades and more experience and you might understand. Why do I say "more experience"? Because nobody --nobody-- who truly understands construction would say the things you are saying. Only those observing from the outside think this way. Go try to build something in a city like Los Angeles and see how much fun it is. And by that I mean, something where you need new sewers, electricity, water, roads, schools. In my town they built a new high school at a completely new location (vacant lot, unused land, etc.). It took THIRTHY FIVE YEARS. And they still made a mess of it. And you think densifying a city is "not even hard"? Please.

darksaints 3y ago
My neighborhood went from 3000 people per square mile to over 20000 in less than a decade. Did traffic get worse? Slightly…but mobility actually improved because we built light rail. It now takes less time to move around the city. Did we have to build a new sewer processing facility? Yes. And it costs me all of $15 a month to pay for it. Did we have to build a new electrical substation? Of course! And we did it in less than a year without any problems. I have more than enough experience to know it can be done. I’m living that experience every day. I’m sorry you’re so bad at building things that you think it’s not possible, but luckily we’re not all incompetent.
- robomartin 3y ago
  That’s very funny. It’s funny that you think that’s impressive. It’s funny that you think density means anything. It’s funny that you think you actually have experience because others did the work. It’s funny that you think your lame 10x density increase can actually translate to a city like Los Angeles, NYC, San Francisco, etc. It’s funny you can’t connect reality to math and understand what you are talking about is pure fantasy: NYC 20MM today, 200MM after your fantasy Los Angeles, 12MM to 120MM Chicago, 9MM to 90MM Etc. Please. Get real. Now, if you are talking about building where there’s nothing (3000 people per square mile is nothing), well, have at it. That’s not where housing availability is a problem. Oh, yes, your attempt to use density to impress is hilarious. I did note you said “your neighborhood”. One or a few apartment buildings can easily cause a 10x density increase in a neighborhood, given that “neighborhood” can be just a few blocks. If you actually want to make the point you are attempting to make, provide links to the many stories that would have been written about a non-trivial CITY increasing the population by a factor of ten within its own boundaries. Otherwise, I think you are trying to inflate two apartment buildings into something they are not. This is about providing affordable housing for tens of millions of people. That cannot be done within the boundaries of major cities in the US. That problem is asymptotic.
  - darksaints 3y ago
    This happened in Seattle, which I assume falls into your non-trivial CITY argument. Nobody here is talking about making Manhattan or Downtown Chicago denser, JFC. They’re talking about making SFH neighborhoods denser…you know, those neighborhoods like the ones where you find those million dollar homes that you linked to in your post. I’m so glad I don’t work with anybody like you. What a fucking nightmare.