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

191–200 of 279 posts

Re: Make More Land

#191

Post by tasuki »

thewarrior wrote: post #162
nostromo wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Disclaimer : I have only seen SF and NY in the US. Netherlands is one of the best countries I've been to. Its squeaky clean throughout with excellent infrastructure. Most of the roads, public transport systems look spanking new and are not overloaded. Its also quite green. The long distance trains are also pretty fantastic compared to the ones you might find in the UK or US. Amsterdam is one of the most liberal citie…

Futuristic, why not. Squeaky clean throughout - now that must be a different Netherlands than the Amsterdam I lived in!

Particularly after Koninginnedag or the New Year's Eve it would take days of wading through a thick layer of mush before it got cleaned. I've never seen such a mess anywhere else! (And I kind of enjoyed it. It felt... alive?)

Re: Make More Land

#192

Post by Spivak »

defterGoose wrote: post #156
whiddershins wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>So pay out those people! If you give a mouse a cookie...

If you’re talking about owners holding out for huge sums of money then honestly good for them. They clearly know the value of the land to the developer and ought to have every right to squeeze.

Re: Make More Land

#193

Post by marcus_holmes »

taurath wrote: post #183
davidw wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houston, like many American cities, massively subsidizes sprawl and an auto-centric (or auto-only) lifestyle. They may not have zoning, but they do have things like parking minimums throughout much of the city. And in their favor, it is a place where many people can afford to live, something that can't be said of places like the San Francisco bay area. Where I lived in Italy, I could walk to: * My kids' schools * A s…

Most towns downtown area, and most major metro areas. The real problem - they were seen for over 50 years by white americans as an undesirable place to live (high amount of minorities, crime), and are just now catching up and moving in. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight Its a big part of racial politics in the US - and now as all the current tech workers move back into the cities, there's a problem of g…

Australia has the same problems as America regarding sprawl and autocentrism.

I now live in Berlin, which is incredibly walkable, prioritises bicycles over cars (except on the autobahns), and has I think four different train systems (u-banh, s-banh, trams and intercity), plus a great bus service. Oh, and now about half a dozen scooter and bike hire apps, plus Uber (and clones), and at least 3 short-term car hire apps.

I lived in Perth for ~10 years without a car, and it was painful. The contrast is incredible.

Given that Berlin was completely rebuilt in the same timescale that Perth was built, it's got nothing to do with history. It's about attitude. Everyone has to expect to live in an apartment (or townhouse), without a car, near their work, and demand adequate public transport (and use it when it arrives).

It is the Holy Grail, but it's not some mythical artifact unobtainable by a rational set of people working towards the common good.

Re: Make More Land

#194

Post by beerandt »

leetcrew wrote: post #154
wolco wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not suggesting the city becomes a landlord and starts renting out apartments to people. I'm suggesting the city owns the land, you lease the land for something like twenty or fifty years and do what you want with it. next lessee gets to decide what they want to do with whatever you built there.

I get what you're saying in theory. But in practice, that's essentially no different than the simple fee system most places have today, with the exception of forcing land to be re-sold at some set interval.

(Unless you're advocating for a method of distribution / allocation other than highest bidder.)

What most people consider ownership is really just leasing from the state via yearly property tax values.

What you're suggesting would only increase property values further. It's a similar mechanism that fuels "gentrification."

Re: Make More Land

#195

Post by CydeWeys »

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…

This argument always comes up and it's always so easy to refute, because the vast majority of America is not inhabited at any meaningful level of density. You can simply ignore those parts. No one's proposing building subways in the Nevada desert, Alaskan wilderness, etc.

Most Americans live within or near cities that are populous enough to support car-free lifestyles.

Re: Make More Land

#196

Post by srmatto »

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.

Also wetlands the biome targeted for infill in the example are an especially important type of biome and are also comparatively rare.

Re: Make More Land

#197

Post by CydeWeys »

thfuran wrote: post #185
nickez wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this misleading though? Doesn't the vast majority of Americans live in higher density areas?

Massachusetts, for example, has a population density of about 340 / sq km

And the cities within it are much more highly populated still, with population centers at the East and west ends. The center is relatively less populated.

Re: Make More Land

#198

Post by CydeWeys »

leetcrew wrote: post #161
schoen wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 incenti…

LVT was part of the inspiration for this idea. > Also, you can't avoid getting priced out of your home by buying it. this is part of what I was getting at in the "land is one of the only truly scarce things" bit. I don't think the expectation that you should be able to afford to live on a specific piece of land forever is reasonable.

Plenty of people who rent even have that expectation, which I find completely unreasonable.

Re: Make More Land

#199

Post by beerandt »

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…

This is happening more and more as mitigation banks are running out of same-kind habitat.

It's also being used as a way to clean city runoff and post-treatment wastewater effluent.

It's not really rare. Just not usually newsworthy.

Re: Make More Land

#200

Post by taurath »

davidw wrote: post #186
taurath wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most towns downtown area, and most major metro areas. The real problem - they were seen for over 50 years by white americans as an undesirable place to live (high amount of minorities, crime), and are just now catching up and moving in. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight Its a big part of racial politics in the US - and now as all the current tech workers move back into the cities, there's a problem of g…

Most downtowns were built up before they got zoning laws: that's part of why they tend to be a bit better from that point of view. Also, where I lived in Italy was a suburban area and it still managed to have all those amenities.

Towns and villages in Europe are almost always highly compact compared to the US - I put it to that auto ownership was a bit lower and trains could be more efficient. Plus the relatively homogenized cultured meant there was less of a need to have sub enclaves on things other than economic class.
Post reply on HN