Make More Land • Hacker News Board

Re: Make More Land

#211

Post by beerandt » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:14 PM UTC

viburnum wrote: post #167

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.

I’ve read that every street in the Netherlands is completely rebuilt every thirty years. One good thing about density is you need a lot less infrastructure. America way too much infrastructure and its poor state of repair shows it.

Almost all infrastructure should be designed with a 30-year life- it's the limit of practical amortization.

Re: Make More Land

#212

Post by jefftk » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:14 PM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #69

I was once with a map of areas that, in the absence of dikes, would get flooded by rising sea levels. Outside places in Florida / Louisiana / Southeast Texas, the only major city I saw that would experience significant flooding was Boston. Now I know why. Of course, as the author mentions, dikes work perfectly fine (especially in an area like the Bay Area that isn't prone to hurricanes).

Dikes would also work much better in the Bay than in Boston because the perimeter to area is better.

Re: Make More Land

#213

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:22 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…

>"I own property here, and if we do this, the value of my property will fall. Therefore, we shouldn't do it".

Everyone acts like this is about value as money, but it isn't. The value comes from a variety of factors. If you started pouring sewage into my bedroom, you can bet the value of my place is going to fall, and that's why I'd be strongly opposed to it, but it's not about the money. The dollar value would fall because it'd make it a worse place to live, which is the real cause of the objections. The dollar value going down is (often) a symptom, not a cause.

Re: Make More Land

#214

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:24 PM UTC

jefftk wrote: post #209

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.

(author here) I'm also strongly in favor of abolishing the restrictive zoning that prohibits building up, but in many ways it's less politically practical to increase density in built-out areas than build new dense areas. If we don't use small amounts of land close to cities to build new housing we'll continue with our default of using large amounts of land far from cities. This destroys more of the environment, poll…

Why not extend the development in a direction that's already dry?

Re: Make More Land

#215

Post by romwell » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

jupp0r wrote: post #56

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?

Because that plan has not been working so well.

Yeah, but this one surely will real soon now.

Re: Make More Land

#216

Post by nostrademons » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #90

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.

" . . . America's oldest city . . ." Santa Fe, Newport News, Hampton, Albany, and Jersey City would disagree.

He could mean that in the sense of "first to declare independence from European colonists and fall under control of the political body that would become the United States."

Re: Make More Land

#217

Post by headcanon » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

Wetlands are some of the most ecologically valuable land around, not just for local wildlife but for humans too, since they keep the surrounding water and ground healthy, and act as a buffer against flooding. So you can't build condos on it, but the condos surrounding it are in a much better spot overall with the wetland than without it.

Any modern land management solution needs to include wetlands. We should be building more of them, not less.

Re: Make More Land

#218

Post by thewarrior » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:29 PM UTC

tasuki wrote: post #191

thewarrior wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

Well generally it’s not like that Atleast whenever I’ve been there. Or try comparing the Caltrain or buses in the US with ones in the Netherlands.

Re: Make More Land

#219

Post by romwell » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

darth_avocado wrote: post #169

How about instead of trying to create land, use the land we already have in a less wasteful manner? Most of the bay area is horizontal and refuses to build vertical. And most of bay area also refuses to participate in public transit reform. Just those two items can fix most of the problems with a much less economical and ecological cost.

No way the thing that works literally in every other country on Earth will work (or is possible) in the Bay Area.

No, we should fill the Bay, build more single-family units, and hope that whatever reasons we have for not having functional transit magically won't apply in the newly-minted suburb.

Re: Make More Land

#220

Post by mrfusion » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:38 PM UTC

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…

That’s exactly our problem. Even on hacker news, check out the top comment on any new proposal or technology. It’s always negatively mentioning the downsides and unintended consequences.