Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These are valid arguments. Ones that planners and social visionaries wrestle with. I am sticking with my position. As for bringing up the larger social issues, they are part of a larger conversation - brought into this discussion by several people who muse about the rationale for density being supported by "inevitability of growth". Continued growth is not ultimately sustainable. And that needs to be recognized in planning now.
Well if you look around at metro areas in the US that tend to have more of those lower density "solutions" and job campuses you are speaking of you will find they tend use the most resources per capita. It's iust a really bad model for any decent sized metropolitan area, especially a place like the Bay Area.
National and global population growth really is not in the realm of what local govts and planning agencies do or have any control over. Local growth and development policies and these larger social issues you bring up are really two separate issues that just aren't dealt with together in the real world at the local level as there really isn't any point.
I assume even with your young brain you do know that humans die and become unproductive for society at old age. The replacement birth rate is higher than 2 to maintain population. So someone will have to reproduce for the continuity of human civilization! And someone will have to do the job for the people who can't reproduce or chose not to reproduce. Also the entire concept of welfare state is based on an ever increasing young working population paying taxes for all promised programs. Maybe we should make a law that people who voluntarily chose not to reproduce will not get social security/medicare benefits because the taxes they pay to get these won't cover the amount they will take out in old age. So what is your vision? Cities becoming old age homes, losing population and vanishing? The notion that current level of population growth in US is damaging to the environment is utter non-sense and only environmental freaks with too little scientific knowledge and way too much emotion believe in that.
My young brain? Pretty sure I am one of the oldest posters on this forum. And your statement that old people are unproductive calls for some definitions. Are you saying that there is no worth to people who are old? At what age does this happen? Seems to me that old folks are enjoyed by many young - and their experience and wisdom is often quite useful.
Now, the replacement birthrate is indeed greater than two. Why would we want to maintain replacement rate? I just pointed out that fewer and fewer people are required to produce more and more stuff and wealth with greater efficiency all the time. That is the goal and contribution of technology - and it is accelerating at blinding speed. What will all these replacements do for work? Who will work at all? What will people do with so much leisure and no purpose to fulfill?
We can easily take care of the age imbalance during the few generations required to reduce population to levels where we are sane again. The notion that we must continue to grow to pay for the future is precisely the definition of cancer and of Ponzi. Both of which are self extinguishing.
I am not very concerned with the environment. It will exist and adapt long after humanity has extinguished itself. I am concerned with sustaining quality of human existence. And that requires space and privacy and relationship with nature for OUR peace of mind and spirit. Humans aren't designed to live in large groups. Did you know that? You are big on science? Research it. We exist with greater and greater difficulties the larger our societies expand.
I don't see increasing the numbers of housing & population as improvement of environment. The belief that people will walk and take public transit everywhere if they live here isn't a reality. A lot of people living here still choose to own motor vehicles with 4 wheels and prefer to drive because they're too snobby for public transportation. A lot of the people here these days are paranoid and complain that there are "too many crazies" on public transit, and that they prefer to drive.
All around my neighborhood people compete for parking on the street because so many people with vehicles don't have room in their garage because they're multiple vehicle households. Couples and renters with multiple roommates usually want to each own their own vehicle and park them around the neighborhood streets.
The houses and apartment buildings in my neighborhood are on average 25 feet wide, and at most only 2 small motor vehicles with 4 wheels can squeeze into the 25-foot space in front of the buildings if they block access to the driveway. A truck or mini van takes up the whole spot if it isn't blocking a driveway. Some choose to park in their short driveways and block the sidewalk for pedestrians (which is illegal here in CA and gets them a ticket each time they're reported because the SFPD isn't lenient about that anymore, probably because so many pedestrians have been getting hit & killed lately).
Another thing with increased population is the utilities consumed. Water for example. We're in a drought, and most people use a lot of water for showers, washing clothes, etc..
High-rise buildings means more views blocked and shadowing of properties around the buildings.
Imo, if San Francisco loses a lot open space & greenery, it's going to look ugly.
Why is it that so many people want to turn SF into other cities? The author of that article, for example, is a New Yorker and wants to make major changes to SF and turn SF into New York! Why don't they just stay in New York if New York is what they prefer!
The shadow ban is really pretty arbitrary. I don't understand the point of it. For what reason would someone in their right mind cut multiple inhabitable floors of a building just because it blocks the light over a park for a few days out of the year?
Increasing density in San Francisco, also, will likely not be a major detriment to the region's water supply.
Why?
Because the vast majority of people moving to these dense environments are not married or accompanied by family, but single and, in most cases, quite wealthy. So, in that case, the new demographic is not going to cause much of a greater demand for water because many of those transplants are not giving birth/producing children and are thus not going to add any noticeable strain to the water supply.
Living in the City reduces water consumption that might be spent on things like watering your lawns or golf courses out in the inland suburbs. Citylife is and always will be more efficient in determining a population's ecological footprint and impact on the environment.
Moreover, the majority of sane density advocates are not going to propose bulldozing essential parks to make way for buildings. The best way to increase the population of San Francisco is through building in underutilized areas (parking lots, garages, dilapidated warehouses, decrepit old buildings, etc.) and not by replacing healthy wildlife and urban getaways with unsuitable skyscrapers. The same rhetoric can be applied to Manhattan and New York in general- there is by no means a lack of greenery in NYC, though these locations are better maintained and function well given the density corridors that juxtapose themselves among them.
But no one ever wanted to turn San Francisco into New York.
It's a beneficial goal for every city to densify its core instead of resorting to ugly suburban sprawl- that does not mean that the aforementioned city wants to "become New York". This is a very misleading statement.
People will always want to live in San Francisco, and the City needs to learn to deal with this heavy demand for housing by building taller buildings downtown and in the surrounding vicinity. Sometimes, a city has to change with the times, and at the moment the times call for San Francisco to grow up and establish itself as a principal city rather than having its economy remain stagnant as it turns into a relic of better days yore. Density is a symptom of a healthy city. This avid opposition to it is not very open-minded, and naive as well, I must say.
Well if you look around at metro areas in the US that tend to have more of those lower density "solutions" and job campuses you are speaking of you will find they tend use the most resources per capita. It's iust a really bad model for any decent sized metropolitan area, especially a place like the Bay Area.
National and global population growth really is not in the realm of what local govts and planning agencies do or have any control over. Local growth and development policies and these larger social issues you bring up are really two separate issues that just aren't dealt with together in the real world at the local level as there really isn't any point.
What that demonstrates is failure to assess the larger issues as critical. The obvious lesson is that these are not separate issues - and that they must be dealt with at all levels. Local planning, frankly, needs to start shutting doors.
I would point out to all here that the article was linked not as a lead for conversation just about local planning. But more as a conversation starter about our local quality of life threatened by too much life. It draws all levels of philosophical musing into discussion.
Reality too real for ya. Okay. I enjoyed rebutting your arguments for the last week or so, I'm done for now.
I might point out that, as an "old timer", I have a lot more relationship with reality under my belt than you do yet, kid. I was enjoying you also until you went overboard with that other poster. Classless comments.
My young brain? Pretty sure I am one of the oldest posters on this forum. And your statement that old people are unproductive calls for some definitions. Are you saying that there is no worth to people who are old? At what age does this happen? Seems to me that old folks are enjoyed by many young - and their experience and wisdom is often quite useful.
Based on what you said I assume you do know that older people need younger people to support them.. whether their own children or hired hands. And the younger people won't come out of thin air if everyone follows your earlier recommendation and stop reproducing. Unless super lucky most people in their old age will have debilitating diseases and won't be able to survive without the help of younger people. This is how nature works! Not sure what you are confused about?
People of all age group are valuable to society but there will be no society left if everyone follows your earlier advise and stop reproducing!
What that demonstrates is failure to assess the larger issues as critical. The obvious lesson is that these are not separate issues - and that they must be dealt with at all levels. Local planning, frankly, needs to start shutting doors.
Again, what exactly do you think local govts and agencies can do about these larger social issues? Shutting the doors? What does that even mean? Not sure how local govt "shutting the doors" somehow addresses larger population growth issues related to birth rates and immigration.
Based on what you said I assume you do know that older people need younger people to support them.. whether their own children or hired hands. And the younger people won't come out of thin air if everyone follows your earlier recommendation and stop reproducing. Unless super lucky most people in their old age will have debilitating diseases and won't be able to survive without the help of younger people. This is how nature works! Not sure what you are confused about?
People of all age group are valuable to society but there will be no society left if everyone follows your earlier advise and stop reproducing!
Now, I am rather enjoying your comments here
Aside from the reality that more and more young people are living off their older parents longer and longer these days - yeah, ultimately younger help older. But do you not recognize what I just wrote a couple posts back about technology's gift? More and more is produced and managed and accomplished more easily with fewer and fewer people all the time. And that reality is accelerating.
There are over seven billion people in the world. I do not think for a nanosecond that we are anywhere close to seeing society disappear - except by overpopulation stresses. There is not enough work for all these people as it is. I suspect some of them can be engaged caring for the aging population as the shift occurs back to sane levels.
Wisdom would have it that it is not a good idea to invite 30 more people to occupy a 10 man life raft that needs bailing because it is sinking due to already having twenty people in it.
Again, what exactly do you think local govts and agencies can do about these larger social issues? Shutting the doors? What does that even mean? Not sure how local govt "shutting the doors" somehow addresses larger population growth issues related to birth rates and immigration.
By "shutting doors" I mean stop catering to new growth. Pull the welcome mat. Greater restrictions. Let the exodus happen. People chatter all the time about how many people and businesses are "fleeing in droves". Yet we are bursting at the seams with growth. It. Is. Not. Sanely. Sustainable.
I don't suggest that local governments can do anything about the larger issues. I suggest that people start recognizing those issues - and cease their vocal support for MORE of everything. The inertia behind our blind belief in growth as a perpetual need is tremendous. It is virtually in our DNA. But as with the threat of cancer, lifestyle choices and disciplines can make the difference. Government is supposed to be a function of the peoples collective will. Pretty much we see it is more and more the collective tool of business instead. Business will never regulate itself. If we are to survive, we must recognize that we have passed the age of growth, and are well into the age of confronting sustainability.
As long as the collective belief of the people remains oriented to perpetual growth, government will remain powerless to confront the need for symbiosis between society and business. My commentary is addressing the need for that understanding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
