3 ms·

There are two different stresses. In terms of long-term maintenance of infrastructure, it's generally cheaper in denser areas. However, if you try to build up a

There are two different stresses. In terms of long-term maintenance of infrastructure, it's generally cheaper in denser areas. However, if you try to build up a medium density area to high density, then it can take tremendous capital costs to re-scale the infrastructure, since a) You're not just paying for the new one, you have to tear the old one out b) The old one is probably full of nasty surprises that'll drive your cost and time up in unpredictable ways c) Since it's already fairly built up, it's going to really disruptive.

gumby 13y ago
Your comment refers to only a few of the factors. Yes you have to tear down old city buildings to make new ones, but your alternative is to tear up virgin land. In addition you only look at capex (the capital cost of building new housing). Don't forget the opex -- transportation, heating, etc. Finally there are the externalities: the loss of open space, the environmental impact of sprawl, the roads needed to reach these distributed communities. So the cool thing is we have a field called "economics" which is not always right but does have a framework for discussing these issues. And economics, along with city planning, architecture, environmental science and plenty of other fields have been brought to bear on this problem. I would give you some links, but there is so much literature on this field that it's not even worth it. If you'd like to make a fact-based, rather than emotion-based, decision, do a bit of research on your own.
- icegreentea 13y ago
  I am trying to make a fact based observation of how actual decision making is done, not on what the best decisions to actually make are. My point is that is many cities cannot afford the capital expenditures, or are unwilling to take them on, but would rather accept the higher operating costs in the long run. I agree that increasing density is a sensible thing to do in general. My point was that the city of San Francisco's specific situation, which must also include political realities may prevent it from taking the best course of action as dictated by all the fields that you mention. After all, we are talking about a country that likes to skimp on infrastructure maintenance costs until they nearly reach disaster situations, and then forced to shell out way more in rushed emergency maintenance, and then rushed infrastructure upgrade - hardly the most sensible decisions.

gumby 13y ago

Your comment refers to only a few of the factors. Yes you have to tear down old city buildings to make new ones, but your alternative is to tear up virgin land. In addition you only look at capex (the capital cost of building new housing). Don't forget the opex -- transportation, heating, etc. Finally there are the externalities: the loss of open space, the environmental impact of sprawl, the roads needed to reach these distributed communities. So the cool thing is we have a field called "economics" which is not always right but does have a framework for discussing these issues. And economics, along with city planning, architecture, environmental science and plenty of other fields have been brought to bear on this problem. I would give you some links, but there is so much literature on this field that it's not even worth it. If you'd like to make a fact-based, rather than emotion-based, decision, do a bit of research on your own.

icegreentea 13y ago
I am trying to make a fact based observation of how actual decision making is done, not on what the best decisions to actually make are. My point is that is many cities cannot afford the capital expenditures, or are unwilling to take them on, but would rather accept the higher operating costs in the long run. I agree that increasing density is a sensible thing to do in general. My point was that the city of San Francisco's specific situation, which must also include political realities may prevent it from taking the best course of action as dictated by all the fields that you mention. After all, we are talking about a country that likes to skimp on infrastructure maintenance costs until they nearly reach disaster situations, and then forced to shell out way more in rushed emergency maintenance, and then rushed infrastructure upgrade - hardly the most sensible decisions.