Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

Post by hnaccy » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 8:50 PM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #34

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #11

I've noticed an increasing trend in West Coast cities where people complain that there's "just too many people". "Tell them to move elsewhere, we're full". It's as if the lessons of Malthusian limits were lost on us. For humanity to continue growing as a species we have to become more efficient with land use.

Not only that, the people who say that fail to realize that population control will simply replace a housing crisis with a demographic crisis. We're going to need a lot of people to care for the aging boomers as they enter their retirement years. The boomers don't realize that one of the groups most hurt by their policies will be themselves .

Post by brent_noorda » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 8:51 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #27

opportune wrote: post #13

I walked around downtown San Bruno recently and it's honestly pathetic how this city is squandering their potential. Even on el camino real itself a lot of the property is being wasted on auto repair shops and fast food places, 2-3 story buildings, etc. This place could be way, way better given its proximity to the airport and SF.

I mean, I don't know how to tell you guys, but from the perspective of an east coaster, the entire peninsula (including SF) looks like this. It feels like some kind of parallel universe where nothing makes sense. Like I hear about a housing crisis in SF but I go there and there are supermarkets surrounded by parking lots in the middle of the city. There are literal big-box stores like you'd see in the suburbs adjacen…

Post by Karrot_Kream » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 8:53 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #30

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can't go on like this. What is the stopping point? Why is now the stopping point? > The inevitable conclusion of forever-growth is, indeed, that everyone piles in to microscopic communal living spaces I mean, or we become more efficient _now_, buy ourselves centuries more time on the planet, and then figure out a different solution, maybe involving terraforming other planets or something. Progress isn't linear a…

> maybe involving terraforming other planets This is like peak San Francisco housing conversation right here. Have you guys considering the radical idea of building a couple fucking apartment buildings instead? I mean, seriously.

Post by jacobolus » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #29

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #11

I've noticed an increasing trend in West Coast cities where people complain that there's "just too many people". "Tell them to move elsewhere, we're full". It's as if the lessons of Malthusian limits were lost on us. For humanity to continue growing as a species we have to become more efficient with land use.

I just spent 3 weeks in the US Midwest. There is plenty of land to use, thousands of square miles of empty rolling grassy plains. (Ex.: South Dakota averages 11 people per square mile.) Apply a little modern technology (solar/wind, water storage/purification, insulation, Starlink satellite internet) and nobody need complain of population density. There's a startup waiting to happen: self-sufficient high-tech prefab h…

Post by pcwalton » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

hnaccy wrote: post #42

pcwalton wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, the people who say that fail to realize that population control will simply replace a housing crisis with a demographic crisis. We're going to need a lot of people to care for the aging boomers as they enter their retirement years. The boomers don't realize that one of the groups most hurt by their policies will be themselves .

The population physically cannot grow limitlessly so there must be a point at which you level off. If you wait longer you're increasing the number of people that have to suffer during the transition period and increasing the ecological load of the stable population's lifestyle.