11–20 of 361 posts
And the freeways can support this how?
Run BART the short way between SF and SJ, build many clusters of high density along heavy transit routes. Let the current freeway dependent population continue to use them, but build housing so that people can get to jobs without using single-occupancy passenger cars.
And the freeways can support this how?
https://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ebt-l... - and that's only the most urgently needed stuff. There are many more rail rights of way and tunnel sites that are easy to build on, like the Permanente Quarry branch line.
Why not just build out and do greenfield development but put some mandatory density requirements in place for new building?
And the freeways can support this how?
Because big dense cities like NY are affordable?
Why is this? It ultimately comes back to the Law of Rent. The amount that landlords are able to charge directly corresponds to the produce obtainable at that location over their next best alternative... and that alternative is likewise set that way up until you reach the "margin" which is the best available rent-free location.
Since all land has been homesteaded, there's not much of a ceiling on rents... they tend towards the entire nominal productivity of the site. And the more desirable that site is, the more astronomical the rent.
We want locations to be desirable, so in effect we actually do want rent to be high. It's just important that everyone share in that rising wealth. In other words, we need to create a high demand for labor, by shifting taxes from labor onto idle landlords. Land speculators are like patent trolls atop the surface of the planet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Several ways, including congestion taxes and more public transportation options, like it's been pointed out. But, also, a 50% increase in housing supply means higher density of population, with higher buildings instead of single family homes and therefore more comercial space in large populated areas, meaning more jobs will be at walking/biking/short-bus-ride distance.
Sorry but you are totally naive if you think a 50% increase is possible in that time frame. You just can’t, or don’t want to do the math. What you are suggesting amounts to jail cells with no infrastructure.
There are limitations on current build rates though; we'll have to massively increase the construction work force to do anything like this, as it's already not quite able to meet demand here.
And the freeways can support this how?
They can't. Build better public transit. https://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ebt-l... - and that's only the most urgently needed stuff. There are many more rail rights of way and tunnel sites that are easy to build on, like the Permanente Quarry branch line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Several ways, including congestion taxes and more public transportation options, like it's been pointed out. But, also, a 50% increase in housing supply means higher density of population, with higher buildings instead of single family homes and therefore more comercial space in large populated areas, meaning more jobs will be at walking/biking/short-bus-ride distance.
Sorry but you are totally naive if you think a 50% increase is possible in that time frame. You just can’t, or don’t want to do the math. What you are suggesting amounts to jail cells with no infrastructure.
Because big dense cities like NY are affordable?
If this is true then I think the Bay will need to let go of it's ideas towards rezoning. Deregulatory zoning adjustments just won't be able to stimulate this level of building. Why not just build out and do greenfield development but put some mandatory density requirements in place for new building?
