Live data from Hacker News

Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

lax-skyline.parcelscope.net

171–180 of 192 posts

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#171
post #165
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The massive downzoning of the 1980s... To put numbers to this for those who aren't aware, LA was zoned for roughly 10 million people in the 1960s and by the 1980s it was zoned for roughly 4 million. It's part of the reason the city has had population growth slow to a crawl. It was decided some 40 plus years ago that LA should stay under 4 million people, so it has even til today. But the number of people who want to…

That 10M is a theoretical back of the napkin number. The city would have had to make multiple major infrastructure improvements, including major public transportation improvements, as well as secure major new sources of water for that to occur. To even accommodate the current modern number of people, there had to be fairly aggressive public water conservation regulations and campaigns - which amazingly did keep the w…

Do humans without lawns consume that much water? Have you worked on something where this problem came up in some unexpected way? Yes pipes need to be updated if a lot of tall complexes are built, but is total water that much at all?

I asked Claude to do the math, and it claimed reducing alfalfa use (not all use, just alfalfa) by the Colorado river by 1% per 1 million people who move from a place not already supplied by it.

I think when it comes to water a really important mental model everyone needs to have is that a human without a lawn or pool uses really tiny amounts of water at scale directly.

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#172
post #171
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That 10M is a theoretical back of the napkin number. The city would have had to make multiple major infrastructure improvements, including major public transportation improvements, as well as secure major new sources of water for that to occur. To even accommodate the current modern number of people, there had to be fairly aggressive public water conservation regulations and campaigns - which amazingly did keep the w…

Do humans without lawns consume that much water? Have you worked on something where this problem came up in some unexpected way? Yes pipes need to be updated if a lot of tall complexes are built, but is total water that much at all? I asked Claude to do the math, and it claimed reducing alfalfa use (not all use, just alfalfa) by the Colorado river by 1% per 1 million people who move from a place not already supplied…

> Do humans without lawns consume that much water?

Do you assume humans with a lawn consume more? My lawn only consumes what the sky gives it.

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#173
Could one- theoretically- after the Big One - rezone a ton of flattened land to mixed use - and have europe style appartment blocks?

https://maps.lacity.org/lahub/rest/services/Geotechnical_and...

https://public.gis.lacounty.gov/public/rest/services/LACount...

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#174
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple good things would happen without prop 13: People would move more instead of being locked in to a low effective property tax. The tax burden would be much fairer: instead of the police and schools being funded by newcomers, everyone would be contributing their fair share to fund the city, instead of the longest tenure residents mooching off the rest of us. Unproductive use of land would be discouraged. If a t…

"People would move more instead of being locked in to a low effective property tax." - this just means that older and retired people would get kicked out of stable living situations, driven by property tax assessments which are often driven by real estate market boom/bust cycles. And housing prices would be just as high as with prop 13. The bad part about prop 13, is that it never should have applied to anything othe…

Old people seem to be surviving just fine in areas where property tax is based on current market value? It sucks to move, but luckily they have an extremely valuable property to sell

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#175
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A family member lives near Pasadena. We asked if they wanted to go to a restaurant near Santa Monica. They sort of scoffed at the idea of going over to the west side unless it was really important.

To be fair, that is an hour-long trip in the best case scenario

I love how Google Maps directions for a trip like that (in the future) always estimate like 1h to 3h.

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#176
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CA has droughts, but not water shortages. Most of the water goes to highly inefficient and low value farming.

Sure, but without that farming, how would we get our almond milk lattes?

I remember a segment on the national (PBS) news like 10 years ago (a drought year).

Part of it was on a farm with a tree farmer. He was lamenting how cuts were forcing him to spend a lot on fuel to pump from the aquifer (destroying it!).

With the reporter there he fired up the well. He was just flooding the field. Just soak everything.

There are better ways to grow nut trees.

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#178
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prop13 was a big tax cut. The people behind it were minimal government conservative libertarians. And the state did slash spending in the years following. In particular funding for the university system was hit very hard.

They did not slash spending. At most the rate of increase slowed down for a year or so before continuing to rise at an even faster rate. https://dof.ca.gov/about-us/history/state-budgets/

That’s not a great measure. The state was still growing very fast. The better metric would be state expenditure as a fraction of state gdp

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Huh, yes it will? You don't need state violence to reduce wealthy farmers' water rights from 10B gallons per year to 8B, which will instantly free up water for others, more important uses. Their quality of life won't decrease if they have to switch a few plots from alfalfa to wheat, if that's what you're afraid of. Why develop local gas fields and solar when we can just invade nations with oil? The only way to win s…

> Why develop local gas fields and solar when we can just invade nations with oil? Non sequitur. Better analogy: why dig new wells when you waste half of your oil anyway? Because that's what alfalfa is: wasted water. But it's slightly more profitable to the water rights holder, so that's what they grow. Could this fresh water be used in more productive ways? Doesn't matter to them. > The only way to win sustainably i…

You're focusing on a single micro level issue, namely water and farming in the arid west, and missing the big picture.

Say we do a better job growing crops. That just kicks the can. LA grows and then we're right back here. Something needs to be done to provide for LA's growth and scale with it without teeing up future political fights.

>Utter nonsense. You pretend to despise "centrally planned financial tomfoolery" so why do you spend so much energy to support the current water rights holder?

I don't give a shit about either party to that particular dispute. I give a shit that we approach these disputes in a way that doesn't just kick the can.

>That's why a single missile costs 15M and 3 years of labor, and involves dozens of private contractors, when the US was able to build multiple planes a day during WWII under Roosevelt for pennies. So when you ask "Would putting the bloat into the public sector somehow make it less wasteful?", the answer is yes. The proof is the New Deal, how Roosevelt was able to wrestle the country back from the jaws of Capital and build public infrastructure using public workers, efficiently.

They bought the B29 straight from the blue prints. You, and everyone who thinks like you needs to stop and spend some time thinking about what roadblocks would arise, what lawsuits would fly, what waste would the system compel to occur, if a procurement short circuit like that were to be done today.

Public and private industry alike are hobbled by the same bloat (which I'll get back around to at the end of this comment) when back then neither was hobbled to anywhere near the same degree.

>What I meant, is that for-profit schools and PE-owned football clubs are responsible for jacking up prices, to feed useless middlemen that weren't there before. That's the bloat. The actual economy is growing very slowly while financial markets have 4% annual growth. Do the math.

You're getting close. What causes the demand for these middlemen that the well capitalized financial interests (for profit schools and the like) seek to make buck creating?

Say I get a borderline bullshit degree as a civil engineer from one of these degree mills. That qualifies me for an entry level job double checking beam calcs or drafting cookie cutter site plans. Where does demand for such services arise?

>You only believe in private over public because of decades of propaganda, when the reality is the government has never subcontracted more of its work and we can't get anything fucking done!

Lol. Tell me what I believe.

I've seen how this sausage is made. I've worked in defense. Government contracts this stuff because as bad as the defense industry is government is worse.

Say it costs $100 for the government to build something or provide some service. The private sector might be able to do it for $95. Looks like a $5 cost savings, right? Sure. It is. But the real problem is that the numbers would be $61 and $60.55 if both sides were not saddled with god knows how much non-productive bloat.

And the private sector will never tell you that because they make money on the spread. Nevermind the fact that we'd all be richer if we could get more of the good or service we want in the first place. You can't eat dollars.

It's tempting to complain about regulation and red tape, but IMO those are a reflection of culture, norms and values. This is a values problem.

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#180
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do humans without lawns consume that much water? Have you worked on something where this problem came up in some unexpected way? Yes pipes need to be updated if a lot of tall complexes are built, but is total water that much at all? I asked Claude to do the math, and it claimed reducing alfalfa use (not all use, just alfalfa) by the Colorado river by 1% per 1 million people who move from a place not already supplied…

> Do humans without lawns consume that much water? Do you assume humans with a lawn consume more? My lawn only consumes what the sky gives it.

That’s great! You’re an outlier in the US still.

Any tips for how you planned your landscape to work this way? I’m slowly trying to convert mine but have already gotten burned by not matching plants to the right soil or sun exposure level and it’s taking longer to get right than I expected.

Post reply on HN