Make More Land • Hacker News Board

Re: Make More Land

#121

Post by pjscott » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

eranima wrote: post #107

bryanlarsen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far easier to raise existing dikes 20m than to build new seawalls to protect all other coastline.

You're ignoring the fact that the water has to go somewhere . Where is it going to go? Are you willing to flood your neighbors? Are your neighbors going to let you?

Suppose that SF became 20 meters under sea-level (!), and was protected by a giant sea wall. The city's area is about 122 square km, so the total volume of water displaced by it would be around 2.5e12 liters. The ocean's surface area now is about 362 million square km, so (if I'm calculating this right) the displaced water from SF can be expected to raise the water level by about 7 micrometers. I'm not sure I see the problem here?

Re: Make More Land

#122

Post by strstr » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

I’ve always sort of wondered why we don’t also manufacture more of the rare types of environments.

Wetlands are hard to come by and getting more rare. Why not make more?

Seattle’s Union Bay Natural Area was previously underwater, then exposed by changing lake levels, then a dump, and now a natural area [0]. It’s partially wetland, partially forest. It’s a popular spot for birders now. Green Herons (rare-ish find in WA) took up the area recently.

It seems like we could, at least to an extent, compensate for clear environmental harm (paving over estuaries) by building up more elsewhere. Obviously not an easy task. Not even obviously possible (there are only so many places substantial freshwater meets the sea).

But at the moment we have substantial suffering in the Bay due to housing availability. We have clear suffering in nature due to habitat destruction (more broadly). Seems like we should at least try to engineer more interesting solutions than “build taller” or “build nothing”.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Bay_Natural_Area

Re: Make More Land

#123

Post by troutwine » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

driverdan wrote: post #60

> 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.

Hard agree. Also, realistically, what is this proposing? Should cities be totally artificial environments with bounded growth rings to demarcate human/animal boundaries? Even a totally paved artificial environment is an ecosystem: which animals are okay? If cities are not bounded, how do we justify expansion into "animal" areas?

To be clear, I'm fully onboard with no-build nature areas in countries like the US where we have lots and lots of sparsely populated land. But, environmentally integrated building is almost surely the best way forward for preserving human health and in terms of long-term maintenance of an industrial civilization.

Re: Make More Land

#124

Post by bryanlarsen » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

eranima wrote: post #107

bryanlarsen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far easier to raise existing dikes 20m than to build new seawalls to protect all other coastline.

You're ignoring the fact that the water has to go somewhere . Where is it going to go? Are you willing to flood your neighbors? Are your neighbors going to let you?

The oceans are 1.35 billion cubic kilometers. If you dike off a square kilometer with an average depth of 10 meters you've added 0.01 cubic kilometers. Spread out over the ocean's 361 million square kilometers that will raise the ocean level 30 picometers.

I don't think my neighbors would care.

Re: Make More Land

#125

Post by schoen » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

strstr wrote: post #122

I’ve always sort of wondered why we don’t also manufacture more of the rare types of environments. Wetlands are hard to come by and getting more rare. Why not make more? Seattle’s Union Bay Natural Area was previously underwater, then exposed by changing lake levels, then a dump, and now a natural area [0]. It’s partially wetland, partially forest. It’s a popular spot for birders now. Green Herons (rare-ish find in W…

I met an environmental engineer who worked on the Hamilton project in the North Bay. This is a disused military airport that was turned back into a wetland, apparently successfully from a number of points of view.

https://hamiltonwetlands.scc.ca.gov/

Re: Make More Land

#126

Post by amalcon » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 5:49 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #115

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 lea…

I've heard the argument that this is what property taxes are (usually as means to oppose property taxes). What practical thing would you expect to change, that's different from just raising property taxes?

Re: Make More Land

#127

Post by darksaints » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 5:50 PM UTC

How about stop pretending like we don't have enough land in the Bay Area. The entire population of the bay area could live within the borders of San Jose, with room for a million more, if it were built at the density of Paris. Land Use is the problem, not quantity.

Re: Make More Land

#128

Post by carapace » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 5:50 PM UTC

smileysteve wrote: post #13

Cheaper solutions; - High speed rail through the mountains to places like Modesto, Keyes etc. - More building up in Oakland, Richmond - Allow more remote work - Second headquarters in other major cities

Or build things on anchored floating barges?

Re: Make More Land

#129

Post by beerandt » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 5:51 PM UTC

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.

What do you suggest? Houston has its own set of problems.

Re: Make More Land

#130

Post by whiddershins » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 5:52 PM UTC

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…

So pay out those people! They have a legitimate concern, just not one that should stop anything new from ever happening.

Although I think, based on experience and intuition mixed with logic, most nearby property values would actually go up.