3 ms·
> We need space for a lot more units than we have, and no one wants to build up. I don't understand this phobia against building up. The only city in the US t
by keypusher 11y ago
> We need space for a lot more units than we have, and no one wants to build up.
I don't understand this phobia against building up. The only city in the US that seems to have actually embraced building higher is New York, and they seem to be doing alright. With a bit of planning you can build mixed use Shops / Restaurant / Office / Residential and make far better use of the space. A big part of the reason cities like SF and Boston are suffering a housing crisis is because of the zoning committees and entrenched residents, and their misguided belief that medium-density semi-cities are somehow nicer than real cities. I would prefer if we let the cities be cities, and let those who want to live in a big house move to the suburbs.
- ska 11y agoSan Francisco, particularly, is adverse to building up ever since it was mostly flattened in an earthquake. Policy probably hasn't quite caught up with modern architectural realities, but it isn't just based on desire for medium density. This isn't unique to North America, look at the downtown core of Lisbon, for example.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- selectodude 11y agoNew York has made it very difficult to build up in the last many years. Chicago is really the only city in the US that seems to have embraced building up recently. And it's no surprise that it's one of the easier large cities to find housing at a reasonable cost.
- phdp 11y agoI'm not saying you're wrong, but what do you mean by that? There are those new super tall high rises going on up 57th street. Are there other instances where developers have been prevented from building up?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rhino369 11y agoA lot of cities will build up. In fact most will. Places like SF and DC are rare. The problem is building up is expensive. So the cost of building up has to be lower than just building sideways.