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

131–140 of 279 posts

Re: Make More Land

#131

Post by NegativeLatency »

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…

What you're describing happened accidenally outside of Anchorage at Potter Marsh. It's now a great spot to go birding and see other wildlife.

> Potter Marsh was formed when construction of the Alaska Railroad embankment limited tidal ingress to a bridge over Rabbit Creek. This embankment impounded the creek and consequently formed the marsh.

http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/plans/pottermasterplan.pdf

Re: Make More Land

#132

Post by mdemare »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #113
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://cou…

The US has 34 people/km2.

Aiming for lower population density is why the Netherlands turns sea into land.

Re: Make More Land

#133

Post by schoen »

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…

An alternative that some libertarians seem to like is the land value tax, as proposed by Henry George.

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

It has the problem that if you think existing property rights in land are legitimate, instituting it looks like a massive expropriation. Also, you can't avoid getting priced out of your home by buying it.

It apparently has some pretty large economic efficiency and incentive benefits.

Re: Make More Land

#134

Post by beerandt »

llamataboot wrote: post #53

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.

We've already been doing that since Dodd-Frank was passed. It's part of the reason we're having housing crisis' at all.

Re: Make More Land

#135

Post by gnode »

papreclip wrote: post #75

Make fewer people

I don't think the problem trying to be solved is: allow more people to exist. Rather: cluster more people in one geographic location.

The way to avoid the problem would be to not require everyone move to the bay area to be economically prosperous.

Re: Make More Land

#136

Post by ergothus »

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…

I'm not qualified to discuss the details, but I WILL say I moved to Seattle,WA 7ish years ago and was amazed at how green everything is (like, because there are trees everywhere). I've heard Portland, OR is the same.

Despite this, travel times to points of interest (theaters, stores, restaurants, etc) are LESS than I've found in other non-major cities in the US, such as Richmond, VA or Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, PA. Hard to compare to places like Boston, MA or New York City, NY.

Re: Make More Land

#137

Post by alteria »

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…

I had the same reaction.

Every time I visit/fly over places like New York and SF I'm torn. Waterfront properties are beautiful, but then I think back to the dynamic ecosystem and landscape that was there 300-600 years ago and how different it is now.

It's just interesting to think about how the land we live on now was like before us. Are we living somewhere that could have been a beautiful national park?

Re: Make More Land

#138

Post by jschwartzi »

twic wrote: post #114
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.…

Me too. I stopped reading the article after that "who cares, the birds can just move somewhere else" kind of thinking. It's supremely ironic that the author copped this attitude about land use in the Bay Area, of all places.

Re: Make More Land

#139

Post by wolco »

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…

Private ownership pushes the cost of upkeep to the property owner and charges them a yearly fee. I'm not sure society could afford to maintain those properties while cities lose their taxation ability.

It also anchors a person to society forces them to partipate.

Re: Make More Land

#140

Post by NegativeLatency »

darksaints wrote: post #127

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.

I read a really interesting article about how Paris was transformed to how it looks today

> Baron Haussmann was the man responsible for the city’s new look. The Paris prefect had no background in architecture or urban planning when he started his project in 1852 under Napoleon III.

https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/old-paris-no-mor...

Post reply on HN