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

81–90 of 279 posts

Re: Make More Land

#81

Post by dr_dshiv »

America has an attitude problem. It thinks it is already developed. Like, there is nothing left to do. That is the single biggest difference between the America of today and the America of the last century.

The Netherlands feels more like India, in that everything is under a state of continual improvement all the time. The Netherlands is fantastically futuristic, though, and super nice (much more developed than most of America). That's because they don't think they are "done".

Here is a map of the parts of the Netherlands that are under water. https://images.app.goo.gl/c5E11LJfLETAFFBy9

Re: Make More Land

#82

Post by tengbretson »

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.

There seems to be no such thing as a marine habitat that is not rare.

Re: Make More Land

#83

Post by lkbm »

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?

How's that plan going?

Political feasibility is relevant when deciding what to do. It doesn't matter which solution is best. It matters which solution we can actually make happen is best.

Personally, I doubt the political feasibility of paving over the bay, but it seems like telling rich people to get over their selves isn't working either.

Re: Make More Land

#84

Post by CharlesColeman »

nck4222 wrote: post #51
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…

>> 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.

That's typifies a problem I have with internet pseudo-"rationality." The world is messy and and composed of lots of legitimate, competing political interests. The only way you can hope to offer a simple, "rational" solution in a pithy blog post is by ignoring or handwaving away a huge amount alternate perspectives and history, which actually isn't rational at all.

[1] The reason I bring this up is because the article is a blog post on LessWrong, which describes itself as "a place to 1) develop and train rationality, and 2) apply one’s rationality to real-world problems."

Re: Make More Land

#85

Post by ummwhat »

melling wrote: post #4

“... allowing people to live closer in is the most powerful way to address sprawl.” “ The second biggest is that BART doesn't have enough coverage to make living without a car practical in most of the area. ” I don’t know about the land, maybe it’s a good idea. However, this really comes down to building better mass transit. “Closer” doesn’t need to mean distance, it could also mean time. Could Oakland be turned into…

Oakland is San Francisco's Brooklyn

Re: Make More Land

#86

Post by beerandt »

rhacker wrote: post #63

> You do need to take fill into account to build in an earthquake-safe way, but modern engineering is well up to the task. That's pretty hand-wavy. I'm sure the guys in 1970 said the same argument. The word modern has been around for thousands of years.

Soil liquefaction is better understood, in the sense that we know better than to use certain soils for fill. A lot of these soils happen to be the ones dredged from water bottoms.

Re: Make More Land

#87

Post by davidw »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #81

America has an attitude problem. It thinks it is already developed. Like, there is nothing left to do. That is the single biggest difference between the America of today and the America of the last century. The Netherlands feels more like India, in that everything is under a state of continual improvement all the time. The Netherlands is fantastically futuristic, though, and super nice (much more developed than most…

Your comment reminds me of the Strong Towns concept of "built to a finished state". The idea that, say, a suburb gets built and it must stay in the form it was built in forever and ever, rather than, say, gradually gaining a few businesses, or some denser housing in more desirable locations.

Re: Make More Land

#88

Post by bwanab »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #81

America has an attitude problem. It thinks it is already developed. Like, there is nothing left to do. That is the single biggest difference between the America of today and the America of the last century. The Netherlands feels more like India, in that everything is under a state of continual improvement all the time. The Netherlands is fantastically futuristic, though, and super nice (much more developed than most…

I'm looking out my window at Boston's seaport. It has been under heavy development for over 10 years that continues. It's like a new city within a city. You may find that attitude in some places, but here in America's oldest city, it doesn't appear to exist.

Re: Make More Land

#89

Post by strken »

fiter wrote: post #78
bluGill wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Even with a dedicated lane, there will still be more delays than with a grade separation (subway). Intersections are a bottleneck.

Intersections aren't as much of a factor when the majority of travel is on a freeway.

Re: Make More Land

#90

Post by CapitalistCartr »

bwanab wrote: post #88
dr_dshiv wrote: post #81

America has an attitude problem. It thinks it is already developed. Like, there is nothing left to do. That is the single biggest difference between the America of today and the America of the last century. The Netherlands feels more like India, in that everything is under a state of continual improvement all the time. The Netherlands is fantastically futuristic, though, and super nice (much more developed than most…

I'm looking out my window at Boston's seaport. It has been under heavy development for over 10 years that continues. It's like a new city within a city. You may find that attitude in some places, but here in America's oldest city, it doesn't appear to exist.

" . . . America's oldest city . . ."

Santa Fe, Newport News, Hampton, Albany, and Jersey City would disagree.

Post reply on HN