Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost • Hacker News Board

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#11

Post by guard-of-terra » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 6:04 PM UTC

sbov wrote: post #6

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Lifting all the barriers to urban growth in America could raise the country’s GDP by between 6.5% and 13.5%, or by about $1 trillion-2 trillion. It is difficult to think of many other policies that would yield anything like that. And it would also reduce the real but unaccounted-for environmental and social externalities of our sprawling homogenous suburbs. Someone living in New York has half the energy footprint o…

I can only find stats on carbon footprints. Somewhat surprisingly, California does very well on this statistic, despite its suburbs: it's just behind New York. So at least for carbon footprints, those don't necessarily seem to be linked to density. I couldn't find anything on energy footprint though.

Maybe it's because in California you don't need as much heat/conditioning as in other places?

We humans use land extremelly inefficiently, we mostly live in places outside of our temperature optimum despite no longer being busy in agriculture.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#12

Post by rwmj » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

guard-of-terra wrote: post #10

rwmj wrote: post #7

Knowledge-intensive industries such as technology and finance thrive on the clustering of workers who share ideas and expertise. So allow people to cluster in high quality virtual environments.

Is there anyone preventing you from doing that?

I use consumer video conferencing* a lot, but there are clearly huge leaps waiting to be made. It could be easier, larger, higher quality and fit more seamlessly into the environment.

My point is that fixing video conferencing is a lot cheaper than building skyscrapers in the centre of San Francisco, and certainly more politically acceptable.

If you mean, what stops me from fixing video conf, then largely it's because I have a much more interesting job already.

* So far: Skype, Hangouts, Webex, Bluejeans

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#13

Post by santaclaus » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

guard-of-terra wrote: post #11

sbov wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only find stats on carbon footprints. Somewhat surprisingly, California does very well on this statistic, despite its suburbs: it's just behind New York. So at least for carbon footprints, those don't necessarily seem to be linked to density. I couldn't find anything on energy footprint though.

Maybe it's because in California you don't need as much heat/conditioning as in other places? We humans use land extremelly inefficiently, we mostly live in places outside of our temperature optimum despite no longer being busy in agriculture.

The NY Times suggests that inefficient boilers in old buildings could be the culprit [1].

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/realestate/15cov.html

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#14

Post by dreamweapon » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 6:13 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #4

rhino369 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also the entire cause of the "gentrification" problem many are so pissed off about. Nobody wants to move into a poor area, they are forced into it because you can't build skyscraper high rises in the good areas.

You can in Manhattan. The tallest residential structure in the U.S. is going up within a few blocks of Central Park. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/432_Park_Avenue

Though its owners may sometimes crash there, it's not really a "residential" structure, per se. The primary purpose it serves is as a sophisticated portfolio diversification instrument -- or (for offshore title holders), a convenient money laundering device:

http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money-new-y...

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#15

Post by jchrisa » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 6:14 PM UTC

aurora72 wrote: post #5

The problem is not the poor land use, it's the inefficient capital use!

Also too much paved surface area.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#16

Post by brendannee » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 6:15 PM UTC

"According to one study, employment in the Bay Area around San Francisco would be about five times larger than it is but for tight limits on construction."

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#17

Post by ctdonath » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 6:22 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Lifting all the barriers to urban growth in America could raise the country’s GDP by between 6.5% and 13.5%, or by about $1 trillion-2 trillion. It is difficult to think of many other policies that would yield anything like that. And it would also reduce the real but unaccounted-for environmental and social externalities of our sprawling homogenous suburbs. Someone living in New York has half the energy footprint o…

Seriously cutting one's energy footprint is not free, it comes with serious cost increases elsewhere. The average American can't afford to live in NYC without curtailing much of what constitutes average living conditions.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#18

Post by Spooky23 » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 6:22 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #3

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Lifting all the barriers to urban growth in America could raise the country’s GDP by between 6.5% and 13.5%, or by about $1 trillion-2 trillion. It is difficult to think of many other policies that would yield anything like that. And it would also reduce the real but unaccounted-for environmental and social externalities of our sprawling homogenous suburbs. Someone living in New York has half the energy footprint o…

It is also the entire cause of the "gentrification" problem many are so pissed off about. Nobody wants to move into a poor area, they are forced into it because you can't build skyscraper high rises in the good areas.

Woah there nelly.

"Lifting the barriers" to development doesn't mean that a 50 story residential tower will be built in Central Park West. You are the barrier. Lifting them means that as a citizen, you lose control of your surroundings.

So when a big company, say Pfizer, works with the city to raze your neighborhood through an eminent domain process, you're fucked. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London)

It doesn't eliminate gentrification, it industrialized the process.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#19

Post by smutticus » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 6:23 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Lifting all the barriers to urban growth in America could raise the country’s GDP by between 6.5% and 13.5%, or by about $1 trillion-2 trillion. It is difficult to think of many other policies that would yield anything like that. And it would also reduce the real but unaccounted-for environmental and social externalities of our sprawling homogenous suburbs. Someone living in New York has half the energy footprint o…

Yes. Per-capital carbon production is lowest in dense urban environments. Suburbia and low density rural areas are the real carbon pigs on a per-capita basis.

We need to change the wrong headed notion that dense urbanity is somehow bad for the environment. On the contrary, it's how we need to build in order to save the earth.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#20

Post by ctdonath » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 6:24 PM UTC

jchrisa wrote: post #15

aurora72 wrote: post #5

The problem is not the poor land use, it's the inefficient capital use!

Also too much paved surface area.

I keep wondering when building over roads will become common. Traffic only needs a couple stories of vertical space; everything above that should be profitably/affordably usable (once ventilation is addressed).