This should take 5 years and cost a few tens of billions.
In California, it would take several generations and ultimately bankrupt the state.
Make More Land
41–50 of 279 posts
Re: Make More Land
#42Seems to me to be the usual un-environment friendly corporate drivel. We don't need more people in San Francisco. They are the 13th ranked city by density in the USA. "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."
We do need more people in San Francisco. It's one of the most productive cities in the world.
But there's plenty of space there already: upwards. It's just illegal to use.
Re: Make More Land
#43Fun fact, the seaport district regularly floods in storms, and the flood waters are salty.
If you mean in Boston, they actually built all the new buildings in the Seaport on the assumption of floods. Everything on the first floor can be full of salt water and the building will be OK.
that will come as a surprise to all the first floor restaurants i have lunch at in those buildings.
Re: Make More Land
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
A million dollars will buy a few square feet of land in San Francisco. In the middle of nowhere it can buy a square mile. Humans might prefer the former, but most other species would prefer the latter.
Unfortunately habitats are not fungible. A square mile of dry land is unlikely to be suitable for the species which live in the wetlands of a tidal estuary.
And industrial wasteland is suitable for neither.
Re: Make More Land
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
A million dollars will buy a few square feet of land in San Francisco. In the middle of nowhere it can buy a square mile. Humans might prefer the former, but most other species would prefer the latter.
Unfortunately habitats are not fungible. A square mile of dry land is unlikely to be suitable for the species which live in the wetlands of a tidal estuary.
Why not make some additional wetlands too? Land is so expensive in SF that doubling the construction cost of this project won't really change anything.
Re: Make More Land
#46Re: Make More Land
#47Its a good think Clark Kerr helped prevent this from happening in the 60's. https://bcdc.ca.gov/planning/reports/TheSavingOfSFBay_1972.p...
This idea is dumb, we can build more tech hubs in other spaces, we don't need to destroy the gorgeous wetlands of the South Bay.
Re: Make More Land
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better mass transit needs straight lines to run on more than density. When the bus has to go down every long cul-de-sac nobody will ride because the bus takes so long, when it doesn't few people ride because of the long walk to the bus. If developments has more long straight streets down the middle there wouldn't be a long walk to a bus that runs a reasonable route. As you said, closer isn't a measure of only distanc…
It's hard when American culture seems obsessed with houses rather than flats. You can build in straight lines, but if each 4 people dwelling takes up 400 square metres of horizontal space, there is no way distances will ever be walkable- often not even those between two bus or tram stops.
I lived in an older suburb near Detroit that was a mix of single family houses and duplexes. It was fairly walkable, but that's because the houses were built on small lots with very little space between the houses. I had 2 bus lines within walking distance from my house, and I took it into work every day. In fact, I used my car so infrequently that somebody thought it was abandoned and called the city who promptly came out and issued me a move it ticket.
Re: Make More Land
#49Its a good think Clark Kerr helped prevent this from happening in the 60's. https://bcdc.ca.gov/planning/reports/TheSavingOfSFBay_1972.p... This idea is dumb, we can build more tech hubs in other spaces, we don't need to destroy the gorgeous wetlands of the South Bay.
Gorgeous?
Re: Make More Land
#50That’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?
Getting residents to agree to higher density developments is a hard political problem, but bulldozing a national wildlife refuge? Easy!