Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Make More Land

jefftk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 279 posts

Re: Make More Land

#51

Post by nck4222 »

choeger wrote: post #2

The more pressing question: Can we actually still do such projects in western democracies? How long would it take until the last judge has dismissed the plea to save the nearly extinct Californian Pink Stink Beetle that by circumstance breeds in that area? How much more expensive would the project become over its ever longer runtime? What will happen when the seemingly inevitable corruption scandals are brought to da…

>The more pressing question: Can we actually still do such projects in western democracies?

I sure hope not. Two sentences by the author dismissing environmental concerns isn't sufficient.

They also list Boston as an example, but Boston's land creation projects ran over cost back in the 1800's, which most people seem to think is only a modern day issue for some reason. The Back Bay was filled-in because the city had already created an environmental disaster out of it. A dam was built which caused the bay to stagnate, and fill with sewage. Maybe a judge should've ordered an environmental impact study be done before the dam was built, which would've caught this. https://historyofmassachusetts.org/how-boston-lost-its-hills...

You don't need to create land in order to have a functioning public transit system, which would address several of the problems the author brings up, without introducing a plethora of new issues.

Re: Make More Land

#52

Post by BurningFrog »

dougweltman wrote: post #10
thrower123 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not want to take a wager on whether this sort of project could be done in San Francisco. China, I am certain, could do it. If it were an Army Corps of Engineers project on the Mississippi or the deep South, I'd give it 50-50 odds. We do seem to have no ability to do any sort of large scale projects. They built the Empire State Building in under a year in the 1930s, and meanwhile it's taken ten and counting to…

I agree with your general point, but it's worth mentioning 2 points on the Empire State Building example: 1) Depending on where you draw the line for starting the ESB, it was 16 months. 2) Look at building sites in NYC today (which can still build skyscrapers effectively), and compare them with pictures from the 30s. MUCH better health and safety, both for workers and nearby pedestrians. At least 5, and as many as 14…

I seriously doubt any substantial part of the slowdowns are caused by improved worker safety. Yes there is a correlation between those two trends, but as we all know, that doesn't prove causation.

We have enormously better technology today than in the 30s, and should be able to put of a skyscraper in 1/4 of the time. I understand that's more or less what China does.

Re: Make More Land

#53

Post by llamataboot »

Maybe we could start by not incentivizing-vordering-on-requiring single family homes everywhere in the US. US city density is so much less than nearly every other city on the planet. You don't need more land to build up.

Re: Make More Land

#54

Post by BurningFrog »

hnruss wrote: post #32

”Making more land” requires destruction of relatively rare marine habitats. Sure, there’s a lot of ocean out there, but many species thrive where the land naturally meets the sea. Bays and estuaries are treasures, not just bits of water waiting to be paved.

Land would still meet the sea. Just in a different location.

Re: Make More Land

#56

Post by jupp0r »

ninth_ant wrote: post #17

That’s a pretty big project to propose to protect the “character of neighborhoods” for the benefit of the already wealthy! How about instead just build densely on the land that already exists in cities? And not pave over the bay?

Because that plan has not been working so well.

Re: Make More Land

#57

Post by imgabe »

BurningFrog wrote: post #52
dougweltman wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your general point, but it's worth mentioning 2 points on the Empire State Building example: 1) Depending on where you draw the line for starting the ESB, it was 16 months. 2) Look at building sites in NYC today (which can still build skyscrapers effectively), and compare them with pictures from the 30s. MUCH better health and safety, both for workers and nearby pedestrians. At least 5, and as many as 14…

I seriously doubt any substantial part of the slowdowns are caused by improved worker safety. Yes there is a correlation between those two trends, but as we all know, that doesn't prove causation. We have enormously better technology today than in the 30s, and should be able to put of a skyscraper in 1/4 of the time. I understand that's more or less what China does.

But sometimes China has things like this happen: https://failedarchitecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/22...

Re: Make More Land

#58

Post by bluGill »

melling wrote: post #30
bluGill wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better mass transit needs straight lines to run on more than density. When the bus has to go down every long cul-de-sac nobody will ride because the bus takes so long, when it doesn't few people ride because of the long walk to the bus. If developments has more long straight streets down the middle there wouldn't be a long walk to a bus that runs a reasonable route. As you said, closer isn't a measure of only distanc…

No one said it would be easy. Yes, it will require urban planning. Personally, I’d prefer trains/subways to buses. The future of mass transit should arrive within a decade or so as China finishes developing low-speed maglevs that travel around 100 mph. Oakland out 50 miles should become commutable. For now, what’s the subway situation from Oakland to downtown San Francisco? Getting people to commute in that direction…

Technology is not important. The reasons to prefer trains and subways are not the technology so much as most buses are running in the same lane as cars and so they have the same limitations. A bus in a truly dedicated lane would work just as well for most purposes, if only we cared about them.

There are a couple advantages to trains/subways over buses, but for the most part they don't apply.

They can be longer: have more riders, which is only important when they come every 5 minutes. When the bus isn't coming every 5 minutes you should address overcrowding by adding more buses which makes the whole system more convenient for the riders.

They run steel on steel which is more energy efficient. While this is a factor, a bus is so much more better than cars we shouldn't count it.

Re: Make More Land

#60

Post by driverdan »

> The world is very large, and cities are a very small portion of it. The land we set aside for animals should be outside of cities, where far more land is available at far less impact to people.

Absurd. Just because a city happens to be there doesn't mean we should destroy the surrounding environment with impunity.

Want to increase available housing in the bay? Get rid of NIMBY zoning that prevents building up.

Post reply on HN