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

111–120 of 279 posts

Re: Make More Land

#111

Post by nostromo »

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…

The Netherlands is futuristic? Now I'm wondering if there's another Netherlands somewhere I haven't yet visited.

I love the Netherlands in part because it feels like it was frozen in time in the 1800s.

Re: Make More Land

#112

Post by bwanab »

xefer wrote: post #104
bwanab wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the subjects of Boston, its new-ish Seaport District and "Make more land": was it ever under discussion to simply fill in the Fort Point Channel completely? That could have potentially knitted the Seaport development into the city itself. If I recall correctly, during the "Big Dig" work they had to jump through all sorts of hoops to run the new harbor tunnel road under the channel and deal with the water, and mud,…

Go there on any Saturday night and it won't feel car-centric or cut off from the city. Very robust pedestrian night life.

I'd be the wrong person to ask about Fort Point Channel. I love it and it's full of history which in Boston is a big deal.

Re: Make More Land

#113

Post by jelliclesfarm »

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…

america has 350 million people. california, for example, has 40 million people.

netherlands has 17 million people. india has 1300 million people. population density of netherlands is 488 people/km2. population density of india is 416 people/km2.

usa is 98 people/km2. we are not netherlands or india.

https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/netherlands/ind... : netherlands and india country comparison.

https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/netherlands/usa : netherlands and usa country comparison

https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/india/usa : india and usa country comparison

continual improvement is aka constant readjustments for optimal function. america functions just fine because of our less than highly dense population/km2. stability is not a negative point. change and progress occurs with stability too. perhaps india and netherlands ought to consider stability and aim for lesser population density.

Re: Make More Land

#114

Post by twic »

seiferteric wrote: post #35

> 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. Wetlands in particular are pretty rare and environmentally valuable places though. The fact that you would fill them in and "set aside" some probably less valuable land somewhere else is not very reassuring.

This is where i cringed hardest. Wetlands are, as you say, disproportionately valuable in ecological terms. Not just for wildlife, but for nutrient recycling.

Wetlands are mostly found around bays and estuaries.

Now, where are major cities found? That's right, around bays and estuaries! Because that's where you can build ports and lowest bridging points, and those are fundamental drivers of the development of cities.

There's something about this failure to consider basic geography and ecology that complicates an otherwise shockingly bold and simple plan that is characteristically LessWrong.

Re: Make More Land

#115

Post by leetcrew »

marvin wrote: post #73

Here's the biggest objection, that would hold true for many expensive areas of the Western world, and any policy that will dramatically increase the supply of real estate: "I own property here, and if we do this, the value of my property will fall. Therefore, we shouldn't do it". This is the real motivation, but bring up some environmental concerns, something about retaining the character of the area, something about…

I tend to lean libertarian on most issues, but I am starting to think it just doesn't make very much sense for people to own land privately. it's one of the only things in the world that is truly scarce (ie, you can't make more plots in the upper east side), and the value of land tends to be based much more on improvements to the surrounding area than improvements to the land itself. also, land ownership seems to lead to all sorts of perverse incentives to lobby for laws that distort the housing market.

sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better to take a snapshot of all property values at a certain point in time, pay out the owners at the current value, and switch land over exclusively to long term leases from the government (where the lessee is allowed to sublet).

Re: Make More Land

#116

Post by dsalzman »

marvin wrote: post #73

Here's the biggest objection, that would hold true for many expensive areas of the Western world, and any policy that will dramatically increase the supply of real estate: "I own property here, and if we do this, the value of my property will fall. Therefore, we shouldn't do it". This is the real motivation, but bring up some environmental concerns, something about retaining the character of the area, something about…

I think the property values directly near this area would dramatically increase. The development of this 50 square mile area would also take 10-20 years and be completed in many phases. Most large property developers manage lots this way in order to manage pricing.

Re: Make More Land

#117

Post by bluntfang »

bwanab wrote: post #112
xefer wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the subjects of Boston, its new-ish Seaport District and "Make more land": was it ever under discussion to simply fill in the Fort Point Channel completely? That could have potentially knitted the Seaport development into the city itself. If I recall correctly, during the "Big Dig" work they had to jump through all sorts of hoops to run the new harbor tunnel road under the channel and deal with the water, and mud,…

Go there on any Saturday night and it won't feel car-centric or cut off from the city. Very robust pedestrian night life. I'd be the wrong person to ask about Fort Point Channel. I love it and it's full of history which in Boston is a big deal.

>Go there on any Saturday night and it won't feel car-centric or cut off from the city.

Going there is the part that makes you feel cut off from the city.

Re: Make More Land

#118

Post by carapace »

tony_cannistra wrote: post #94

"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" Perform a thought experiment in which human systems are part of nature, not separate from it; that land isn't set aside for nature, but that nature is everywhere. This frame will encourage systematic thinking of the sort that…

Indeed!

Combine C. Alexander's Pattern Language and "Living Neighborhoods" with Permaculture.

Build arcologies.

Use biomimetic technology like the New Alchemy Institute's "Living Machines" bioreactors.

https://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/bln-exp.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Alchemy_Institute

https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-new-alchemy-institut...

http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu16se/uu16se0d.ht...

Re: Make More Land

#119

Post by gowld »

davidw wrote: post #96
beerandt wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, this is basically what zoning was designed to do. For the most part, it's working as intended.

Yeah, unfortunately, for values of 'working' that signify huge costs for people, cities and the environment.

"Working as intended" is often a euphemism for "broken as designed"

Re: Make More Land

#120

Post by tomatotomato37 »

kragen wrote: post #71
derefr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but it is an argument against that part of the bay being, say, a valuable fishery, or valuable marshland for birds, or anything else people might think they’re protecting. Industrial salt ponds aren’t “nature” in the same sense you’d expect a water body to represent. They’re essentially already a sterile, man-made structure.

They're not sterile; their brilliant colors are produced by halophile archaea and in some cases bacteria and algae that flourish in environments that would kill anything else.

If a piece of industrial environment is so fucked that only extremophile bacteria can live there than it is sterile for all societal purposes.
Post reply on HN