4 ms·

If you copy Japan policies you can get something much closer to Japan, it's not magic. (Transit oriented upzoning, no parking minimums, and businesses in the s

If you copy Japan policies you can get something much closer to Japan, it's not magic. (Transit oriented upzoning, no parking minimums, and businesses in the station building.)

ninetyninenine 2y ago
If it's not magic why isn't it being done? That's the point. This news is rather pathetic strictly because a better scenario is NOT magic.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  Simple. Most people don’t want it.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    They do. You're not being realistic. Almost everyone would like to have a choice between getting on a subway for super cheap or driving through traffic. You're saying they would rather have no choice between the two options? Come on. The Bay area (people) want top of the line transit, all of California wants it. It's similar to how Ethiopia wants to get out of poverty. Both places can't get what they want for similar reasons: incapability. Take a look at the high speed rail. Probably won't finish in both of our lifetimes. People want that thing, what's stopping it from happening is incompetence.
    - Johnny555 2y ago
      They do. You're not being realistic. Almost everyone would like to have a choice between getting on a subway for super cheap or driving through traffic. You're saying they would rather have no choice between the two options? Come on Sure, everyone wants an easy commute where the train picks them up in front of their house and drops them off at the office, but they also want their house with yard in Walnut Creek. Or lacking that, their single family house in the Sunset. Sure some people would be happy in a high density city, but do enough people want it to make it worth building? As dense as downtown San Francisco is, it's still a long commute to the Easy Bay or Peninsula from the Sunset or Richmond. Driving is usually faster and more convenient.
      - hamandcheese 2y ago
        > but do enough people want it to make it worth building? The reason we don't build more density isn't lack of demand (see: the price of rent), it is entirely political.
        Johnny555 2y ago
        I'd like to see some evidence for that -- sure, there are a lot of people in big cities that are happy with high density (but even many of them move out to the suburbs when they decide to settle down and have kids), but there are many people in the USA that won't give up their 2000 sq ft house with 3 car garage that fits their F150 pickup. Much of my midwest family is that way - they couldn't believe how tiny my "city" apartment was that wasn't even in the city, it was a 1600 sq ft townhouse that was a 40 minute commute from city center. It's going to take decades (or some catastrophic disaster) to get Americans to change that mindset and give up low density living.
        ninetyninenine 2y ago
        you're severely out of touch. Only around 15% of Californians can afford to buy a home. Why can't they buy a home? LACK of Inventory. You can see this on the news, you can quote experts everywhere saying this. There's not enough houses and that raises prices. So how do you lower prices? Build more homes. How do you build more homes? Increase density. Yeah if you're in the 15% sure, buy a big home. If you're in the 85%, well you want to buy a smaller home. You can safely assume 85% of the people who can't afford a home, want cheaper homes and therefore want higher density. >It's going to take decades (or some catastrophic disaster) to get Americans to change that mindset and give up low density living. Bro, that catastrophic disaster is called global warming. And you can see the effects of global warming in the weather in the US. There have already been entire cultures and peoples uprooted from where they live because of rising sea levels. The luxuries we enjoyed living in cities designed for cars is bought and paid for with our future.
        Johnny555 2y ago
- ricw 2y ago
  It is. A bunch of Bart stops now have developments around them, just look at MacArthur in Oakland with its 40 floor residential building next to Bart.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    How is that magic? That's good! The problem is that Bart network will barely get denser. At the rate they're building it, your great great great great great grandkids will live in a bay area where most people don't need to jump on a car to get to work. We can do better. It's not magic. But we don't. And that is pathetic.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  The economy is built around juicing home values. The costs make it too expensive for eminent domain and nimby people mobilize now.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    Agreed, hence why the situation is rather pathetic.
- Gibbon1 2y ago
  Because our politicians patrons are rentier capitalists who think the government spending money on things is a waste of their money. So yeah they really hate spending money on transit projects. Doesn't help that we're at the end stages of a debt driven real estate/rent price spiral. That means acquiring land for mass transit is twice as expensive as it should be. Ditto labor costs.
  - astrange 2y ago
    There's no "they" here. You're describing like five different groups that aren't aligned with each other, and most of them aren't capitalists. Japan is capitalist, more so than California.
- rangestransform 2y ago
  Too many voters vote to preserve their way of life in amber (see: prop 13, nimbyism in general) instead of evolving with society’s needs

If you copy Japan policies you can get something much closer to Japan, it's not magic. (Transit oriented upzoning, no parking minimums, and businesses in the station building.)

ninetyninenine 2y ago

If it's not magic why isn't it being done? That's the point. This news is rather pathetic strictly because a better scenario is NOT magic.

zeroonetwothree 2y ago
Simple. Most people don’t want it.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  They do. You're not being realistic. Almost everyone would like to have a choice between getting on a subway for super cheap or driving through traffic. You're saying they would rather have no choice between the two options? Come on. The Bay area (people) want top of the line transit, all of California wants it. It's similar to how Ethiopia wants to get out of poverty. Both places can't get what they want for similar reasons: incapability. Take a look at the high speed rail. Probably won't finish in both of our lifetimes. People want that thing, what's stopping it from happening is incompetence.
  - Johnny555 2y ago
    They do. You're not being realistic. Almost everyone would like to have a choice between getting on a subway for super cheap or driving through traffic. You're saying they would rather have no choice between the two options? Come on Sure, everyone wants an easy commute where the train picks them up in front of their house and drops them off at the office, but they also want their house with yard in Walnut Creek. Or lacking that, their single family house in the Sunset. Sure some people would be happy in a high density city, but do enough people want it to make it worth building? As dense as downtown San Francisco is, it's still a long commute to the Easy Bay or Peninsula from the Sunset or Richmond. Driving is usually faster and more convenient.
    - hamandcheese 2y ago
      > but do enough people want it to make it worth building? The reason we don't build more density isn't lack of demand (see: the price of rent), it is entirely political.
      - Johnny555 2y ago
        I'd like to see some evidence for that -- sure, there are a lot of people in big cities that are happy with high density (but even many of them move out to the suburbs when they decide to settle down and have kids), but there are many people in the USA that won't give up their 2000 sq ft house with 3 car garage that fits their F150 pickup. Much of my midwest family is that way - they couldn't believe how tiny my "city" apartment was that wasn't even in the city, it was a 1600 sq ft townhouse that was a 40 minute commute from city center. It's going to take decades (or some catastrophic disaster) to get Americans to change that mindset and give up low density living.
        ninetyninenine 2y ago
        you're severely out of touch. Only around 15% of Californians can afford to buy a home. Why can't they buy a home? LACK of Inventory. You can see this on the news, you can quote experts everywhere saying this. There's not enough houses and that raises prices. So how do you lower prices? Build more homes. How do you build more homes? Increase density. Yeah if you're in the 15% sure, buy a big home. If you're in the 85%, well you want to buy a smaller home. You can safely assume 85% of the people who can't afford a home, want cheaper homes and therefore want higher density. >It's going to take decades (or some catastrophic disaster) to get Americans to change that mindset and give up low density living. Bro, that catastrophic disaster is called global warming. And you can see the effects of global warming in the weather in the US. There have already been entire cultures and peoples uprooted from where they live because of rising sea levels. The luxuries we enjoyed living in cities designed for cars is bought and paid for with our future.
        Johnny555 2y ago
ricw 2y ago
It is. A bunch of Bart stops now have developments around them, just look at MacArthur in Oakland with its 40 floor residential building next to Bart.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  How is that magic? That's good! The problem is that Bart network will barely get denser. At the rate they're building it, your great great great great great grandkids will live in a bay area where most people don't need to jump on a car to get to work. We can do better. It's not magic. But we don't. And that is pathetic.
Spooky23 2y ago
The economy is built around juicing home values. The costs make it too expensive for eminent domain and nimby people mobilize now.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  Agreed, hence why the situation is rather pathetic.
Gibbon1 2y ago
Because our politicians patrons are rentier capitalists who think the government spending money on things is a waste of their money. So yeah they really hate spending money on transit projects. Doesn't help that we're at the end stages of a debt driven real estate/rent price spiral. That means acquiring land for mass transit is twice as expensive as it should be. Ditto labor costs.
- astrange 2y ago
  There's no "they" here. You're describing like five different groups that aren't aligned with each other, and most of them aren't capitalists. Japan is capitalist, more so than California.
rangestransform 2y ago
Too many voters vote to preserve their way of life in amber (see: prop 13, nimbyism in general) instead of evolving with society’s needs