4 ms·

America needs more dense cities like NYC, for economic, national-strategic, and environmental reasons. But the citizens of cities will decide how they want to l

America needs more dense cities like NYC, for economic, national-strategic, and environmental reasons. But the citizens of cities will decide how they want to live. The people and property owners of San Francisco may not be able to make the sacrifices that going ultra-dense require, even though San Fran is putting a huge amount of effort toward becoming far more dense than it already is. IMO Los Angeles is more likely to have the ducks lined up for becoming ultra-dense over the next 25 years. Perhaps the demographic and geographic conditions are making this possible. Perhaps the strong, small property owners are also removed enough from where the corridors density will occur.

rayiner 14y ago
> America needs more dense cities like NYC, for economic, national-strategic, and environmental reasons. But the citizens of cities will decide how they want to live. Sure, but you have to let people actually decide, instead of municipal zoning boards.
- nextstep 14y ago
  Isn't a municipal zoning board an example of "people deciding"?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    It's an example of some people deciding, not all the people deciding, specifically the people who got their first and then put up regulatory barriers in an effort to drive up housing prices. If you gave everyone in the Bay Area a vote as to whether they wanted to "keep the SF charm" or put up high density development so they could afford to move into the city proper, I think you'd get a different outcome.
    - joejohnson 14y ago
      It would be interesting to put zoning issues like building height and affordable housing policy up to the voters. When the BART was being built, many SF residents organized against it, fearing the "manhattanification" of SF. I see similar attitudes today; I think a lot of SF residents are fine with the small-town "charm" and lack of big-city services, even though they are paying big-city prices. I honestly think a lot of people in SF don't understand how much better big cities can be; there's a reason you don't see many NY transplants in the Bay. In more ways than one, the Bay Area is in a bubble.
      - rafcavallaro 14y ago
        As someone who grew up in NYC I don't think many respondents here understand how depressing and lightless it is to live in an urban environment of 30 story buildings where you almost never see the sun. That which has drawn many people to San Francisco would be nearly completely destroyed if it were developed the way midtown manhattan is.
        rayiner 14y ago
        When comparing SF and NYC you have to be careful. Manhattan (mostly Midtown and the Financial District) is "sized" to handle an influx of almost 2 million commuters and visitors each day (225% increase). So when you see those skyscraper in Midtown Manhattan, you're looking at places designed to accommodate almost 1 million people per square mile in some of the census tracts. San Francisco doesn't have that commuting pattern. It's daytime population is only about 200,000 larger than its night-time (less than 25% increase). A neighborhood designed to accommodate 50,000-75,000 people per square mile doesn't look like Midtown Manhattan. The near north side of Chicago is in that range, and it's very light and airy. This is what a neighborhood of 60,000 residents per square mile looks like: http://goo.gl/maps/V8IS6 http://goo.gl/maps/V8IS6. That's about 2.5x as dense as the Mission.
  - jseliger 14y ago
    The basic problem is that non-residents who would like to live there can't vote. Until the 1970s, anyone could basically build whatever residential housing they wanted to anywhere. Not coincidentally, prices were low and relatively stable (by modern standards). During the 1970s, the city of Petaluma in CA passed the Petaluma Plan, which drastically restricted development. Courts accepted this and more and more residential restrictions. In the short term they didn't seem to matter much. But in the last 40 years, as the population has grown and as people have realized that cities are pretty awesome in many ways (including economically), supply and demand have gotten way out of whack. One example is Santa Monica, which has the same number of residents it did in 1970 but vastly higher prices: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/12/sustainable_santa_monica_coastal_california_is_green_but_without_population.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/12/sustainable_s.... Existing property owners, especially of existing single-family houses, like restricting property so the value of their property goes up (although they often disguise this in other rhetoric). Potential new residents can't vote, and courts have empowered existing residents and municipal boards. Hypothetically, if we had some kind of national zoning / municipal board setting policy across the country, people in Texas or Arizona who wanted to move to SF would get equal weight with the people already in SF. As it stands, property owners in SF can exclude Texans through voting. I cite this as a thought experiment, not as a proposal. Further reading: Edward Glaeser, The Triumph of the City.
    - jamespitts 14y ago
      Really good info here! City of Quartz is also goot to read and goes into NIMBYism and other related issues for the case of LA.
      - jseliger 14y ago
        Thanks. Ordered it.
      - jseliger 14y ago
        I'm looking for an e-mail address and can't find one in your profile or G+ or Twitter; this is probably too late, but if you see this send me a message at seligerj AT gmail DOT com.
- scarmig 14y ago
  I agree, but I wonder if you explain the lack of density as because of the municipal zoning boards or as because of the people deciding.
- dbrian 14y ago
  Aren't the zoning boards appointed by elected officials?
  - jseliger 14y ago
    See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5539447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5539447 .
- jamespitts 14y ago
  Yes, and it isn't just zoning boards. The planning process on all levels is often skewed toward following strong "visionaries", benefitting large real estate developers, and mollifying certain interest groups. These factors silence a lot of peoples' concerns. Look at what happened in the 1960s in just about every big city. Worse, deeper thoughts about the future of "the city" and what projects make sense for the greater community to invest in are both crowded out. This is happening on a smaller scale where I am right now in Ann Arbor. In our case, density is briskly proceeding downtown without enough thought toward things that people living downtown need such as parks and social services for the homeless.
temp453463343 14y ago
"America needs more dense cities like NYC, for economic, national-strategic, and environmental reasons. " Not sure what you mean by national-strategic, but sure cramming people in like sardines makes it easier to make things efficient - but it's very realistic to make less dense populations efficient/sustainable too. Urban developement isn't some kind of ecological optimization problem. There are factors you are completely dismissing, like overall happiness, contribution to the community and the nation as a whole, cultural value generated etc. The culture and appeal of SF are contingent on it staying small.
- jamespitts 14y ago
  Well I think that the United States will simply be eclipsed on the world stage if it does not develop more mega-cities. However, I am not saying that we should promote massive growth of concentrated centers without addressing the social, psy, and enviro impact! Because the purpose of a great city is not to build buildings but to create the best conditions for people to cooperate and concentrate their efforts. Also, I am not saying that a place like San Fran has to or even should make the sacrifice. Because going big is a huge sacrifice that destroys a lot of wonderful things. So, as a former resident of LA: "I choose Los Angeles to be sacrificed for the betterment of the nation" LOL.
- jamespitts 14y ago
  I do sometimes wonder if mega-cities are no longer necessary due to tech advances, and whether medium-dense places (not sure if this is the right term) like San Fran are actually ideal.

rayiner 14y ago

> America needs more dense cities like NYC, for economic, national-strategic, and environmental reasons. But the citizens of cities will decide how they want to live. Sure, but you have to let people actually decide, instead of municipal zoning boards.

nextstep 14y ago
Isn't a municipal zoning board an example of "people deciding"?
- rayiner 14y ago
  It's an example of some people deciding, not all the people deciding, specifically the people who got their first and then put up regulatory barriers in an effort to drive up housing prices. If you gave everyone in the Bay Area a vote as to whether they wanted to "keep the SF charm" or put up high density development so they could afford to move into the city proper, I think you'd get a different outcome.
  - joejohnson 14y ago
    It would be interesting to put zoning issues like building height and affordable housing policy up to the voters. When the BART was being built, many SF residents organized against it, fearing the "manhattanification" of SF. I see similar attitudes today; I think a lot of SF residents are fine with the small-town "charm" and lack of big-city services, even though they are paying big-city prices. I honestly think a lot of people in SF don't understand how much better big cities can be; there's a reason you don't see many NY transplants in the Bay. In more ways than one, the Bay Area is in a bubble.
    - rafcavallaro 14y ago
      As someone who grew up in NYC I don't think many respondents here understand how depressing and lightless it is to live in an urban environment of 30 story buildings where you almost never see the sun. That which has drawn many people to San Francisco would be nearly completely destroyed if it were developed the way midtown manhattan is.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        When comparing SF and NYC you have to be careful. Manhattan (mostly Midtown and the Financial District) is "sized" to handle an influx of almost 2 million commuters and visitors each day (225% increase). So when you see those skyscraper in Midtown Manhattan, you're looking at places designed to accommodate almost 1 million people per square mile in some of the census tracts. San Francisco doesn't have that commuting pattern. It's daytime population is only about 200,000 larger than its night-time (less than 25% increase). A neighborhood designed to accommodate 50,000-75,000 people per square mile doesn't look like Midtown Manhattan. The near north side of Chicago is in that range, and it's very light and airy. This is what a neighborhood of 60,000 residents per square mile looks like: http://goo.gl/maps/V8IS6 http://goo.gl/maps/V8IS6. That's about 2.5x as dense as the Mission.
- jseliger 14y ago
  The basic problem is that non-residents who would like to live there can't vote. Until the 1970s, anyone could basically build whatever residential housing they wanted to anywhere. Not coincidentally, prices were low and relatively stable (by modern standards). During the 1970s, the city of Petaluma in CA passed the Petaluma Plan, which drastically restricted development. Courts accepted this and more and more residential restrictions. In the short term they didn't seem to matter much. But in the last 40 years, as the population has grown and as people have realized that cities are pretty awesome in many ways (including economically), supply and demand have gotten way out of whack. One example is Santa Monica, which has the same number of residents it did in 1970 but vastly higher prices: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/12/sustainable_santa_monica_coastal_california_is_green_but_without_population.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/12/sustainable_s.... Existing property owners, especially of existing single-family houses, like restricting property so the value of their property goes up (although they often disguise this in other rhetoric). Potential new residents can't vote, and courts have empowered existing residents and municipal boards. Hypothetically, if we had some kind of national zoning / municipal board setting policy across the country, people in Texas or Arizona who wanted to move to SF would get equal weight with the people already in SF. As it stands, property owners in SF can exclude Texans through voting. I cite this as a thought experiment, not as a proposal. Further reading: Edward Glaeser, The Triumph of the City.
  - jamespitts 14y ago
    Really good info here! City of Quartz is also goot to read and goes into NIMBYism and other related issues for the case of LA.
    - jseliger 14y ago
      Thanks. Ordered it.
    - jseliger 14y ago
      I'm looking for an e-mail address and can't find one in your profile or G+ or Twitter; this is probably too late, but if you see this send me a message at seligerj AT gmail DOT com.
scarmig 14y ago
I agree, but I wonder if you explain the lack of density as because of the municipal zoning boards or as because of the people deciding.
dbrian 14y ago
Aren't the zoning boards appointed by elected officials?
- jseliger 14y ago
  See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5539447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5539447 .
jamespitts 14y ago
Yes, and it isn't just zoning boards. The planning process on all levels is often skewed toward following strong "visionaries", benefitting large real estate developers, and mollifying certain interest groups. These factors silence a lot of peoples' concerns. Look at what happened in the 1960s in just about every big city. Worse, deeper thoughts about the future of "the city" and what projects make sense for the greater community to invest in are both crowded out. This is happening on a smaller scale where I am right now in Ann Arbor. In our case, density is briskly proceeding downtown without enough thought toward things that people living downtown need such as parks and social services for the homeless.

temp453463343 14y ago

"America needs more dense cities like NYC, for economic, national-strategic, and environmental reasons. " Not sure what you mean by national-strategic, but sure cramming people in like sardines makes it easier to make things efficient - but it's very realistic to make less dense populations efficient/sustainable too. Urban developement isn't some kind of ecological optimization problem. There are factors you are completely dismissing, like overall happiness, contribution to the community and the nation as a whole, cultural value generated etc. The culture and appeal of SF are contingent on it staying small.

jamespitts 14y ago
Well I think that the United States will simply be eclipsed on the world stage if it does not develop more mega-cities. However, I am not saying that we should promote massive growth of concentrated centers without addressing the social, psy, and enviro impact! Because the purpose of a great city is not to build buildings but to create the best conditions for people to cooperate and concentrate their efforts. Also, I am not saying that a place like San Fran has to or even should make the sacrifice. Because going big is a huge sacrifice that destroys a lot of wonderful things. So, as a former resident of LA: "I choose Los Angeles to be sacrificed for the betterment of the nation" LOL.
jamespitts 14y ago
I do sometimes wonder if mega-cities are no longer necessary due to tech advances, and whether medium-dense places (not sure if this is the right term) like San Fran are actually ideal.