U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-30-2014, 01:17 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,983 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
You're equating the recommendation of a regional housing agency that no more single-family homes are needed due to an excess of long-term supply with a ban. The document you referenced doesn't ban the construction of single-family homes, it says we don't need any more. It doesn't prevent construction of individual single-family homes, nor does it prevent purchase of the massive stock of existing single-family homes by people who want to buy them. Your disagreement with their conclusion is not evidence of fascism.

Non-exhaust pollution from cars:

We Need to Reduce Non-Exhaust Pollution from Traffic (Dust from Brakes, Tires, etc) : TreeHugger


Pollution caused by auto construction:
HowStuffWorks "Pollution Caused By Building a Hybrid Car"
Re: the non-exhaust pollution-I will defer to the engineers on here for the final arbitration, but I do believe the worst of the pollution is the exhaust. I'm not saying that like I'd say "I believe in Christianity" but as in, "I think this is true".

Re: auto construction-heck yeah! There's a lot of pollution generated by constructing all these light rail systems, too. They aren't going to be envirnonmentally neutral for decades, if every.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-30-2014, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,248 posts, read 26,220,119 times
Reputation: 11706
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
Solar energy is a good idea and should be part of the solution, but it's still just replacing one form of energy with another. Isn't it better to try to reduce our energy consumption in the first place?
Solar is a 100% clean, renewable energy source. Why would I care if someone uses solar energy to power their vacuum cleaner, washer and dryer, stereo, and blow dryer all at the same time? It's not causing any harm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
Putting solar panels on a 4000 square foot house for example, looks kinda funny to me. Why not build a smaller house in the first place? Preferably in a walkable neighborhood with good transit options so you don't have to drive everywhere you go.
You can put solar panels on any house, including a rowhouse with a flat roof in New York City.

No matter how much you may want it, we will never see 90% of Americans living in dense, walkable areas where the majority of daily trips can be accomplished (reasonably) without use of a car. So people are going to drive. And if they are going to drive, I'd rather them drive a hybrid, electric or hydrogen (fingers crossed) car rather than a gas guzzling SUV. And if they are going to run the A/C all day long, I'd rather 50% of the power come from solar, wind or nuclear rather than fossil fuels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2014, 07:45 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,556,250 times
Reputation: 4048
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Electric cars would be hard to retrofit into old, dense urban area. If recharging takes hours, and most recharge at home, only those with a garage or at least an off street parking space would find an electric vehicle practical. If electric vehicles were widespread, old urban areas would be at a disadvantage and their transportation efficiency would lessen.
How so? Dense urban areas can use other modes more efficiently than the automobile. Electric cars can also be utilized in the modern urban mode--electric taxis, electric Zipcars with charging stations for short-term use, electric delivery vehicles so you can order groceries instead of needing a car to go shopping.

A while back the idea of solar panels over roads and parking lots was pooh-poohed by the OP because they would require support structures. While there are advantages to those support structures in some places, like hot parking lots, there are other alternatives:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways

What if the road itself generated power?

The OP seems to have come up with this "non-polluting suburb" (which pollutes as much as any other suburb except for tailpipe exhaust) as a way to justify ending the Bay Area's building moratoriums and the planning practices they are utilizing to limit sprawl and facilitate public transit, rather than for any personal concern for the environment. Assuming that people buy into the idea and the Bay Area goes back to its pre-1960s sprawl pattern, levels Muir Woods to build single-family homes and starts filling in the Bay to create more developable land, does anyone think the Bay Area will become significantly less expensive? Or would an increase in development just speed the population increase in the Bay Area and make matters worse?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2014, 12:12 AM
 
1,220 posts, read 1,491,763 times
Reputation: 813
Why The Solar Roadway Is A Terrible Idea
These concerns need many inventions to overcome.

The other thing is, cut back on the aggressive tone.

Also, you seem to be again twisting what I said. I protest against the zero new SFH policy, then you twisted it into make it look like I want to use up ALL land for housing. Not all, but more than nothing. This is not binary. In other places it is not a problem to build a new district if the city grows, but in the BA it is, because there are more extreme-environmentalists here than homes built.

People would not come to the SF Bay Area just because there are new houses. They come here for 3 main reasons, or 3 types of people come here:
-Highest technology level jobs/careers in certain professions only exist here, nowhere else in the world. So anyone wanting a high career in tech has to come here.
-A big portion of US immigration is based on tech employment, and the biggest tech employers are here.
-BA is the little Asia in the US, so new Asian immigrants feel better here than in other parts of the country. They have Asian (Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean...) TV/radio stations, Chinese schools...plenty of them. They are more likely to immigrate to the BA than elsewhere in the US. One Chinese guy complained to me that they didn't like him in Texas so he moved here, as he heard of the BA Asian communities and the diverse more open population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2014, 09:24 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,556,250 times
Reputation: 4048
Thanks for the link--it looks like the person who posted this article may not like "solar roads" as the proposed concept, but they do like the idea of solar panels in shade structures over roadways or parking lots--the part you considered impractical.

I live in northern California (Sacramento) and am quite familiar with the Bay Area--my region is almost as Asian as the Bay Area, for largely the same reasons: long-term Asian immigration since the 19th century, plus local tech industry visas. We don't pay as hugely as the Bay Area (public sector doesn't pay very well), but our housing costs are about half as high, and we're still building single-family homes even though we're following the same SB375 you're claiming prohibits their construction.

There are other reasons why people move to the Bay Area, of course, like the creative/arts economy--art, music, theater--and weather, and the natural beauty of the region. The booming (and occasionally busting) tech economy is a major reason why people move there, but the high rent and land cost is a major control that prevents even more in-migration. Part of why the environmental movement started in the Bay Area is because, in the 1960s, they really were filling in San Francisco Bay to build more housing, with the long-term goal of turning the bays into narrow channels. The effects on air and water quality, as well as the loss of the natural scenic beauty of the landscape that brought many to the region in the first place, was the main reason behind the effort to curb uncontrolled sprawl and environmentally damaging practices like dumping landfill on wetlands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2014, 10:17 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
People would not come to the SF Bay Area just because there are new houses. They come here for 3 main reasons, or 3 types of people come here:
Obviously jobs a big factor, but one of the reasons I'd find the Bay Area appealing is all the open space nearby.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2014, 10:29 AM
 
1,220 posts, read 1,491,763 times
Reputation: 813
There is a lot of beautiful open space in Montana, Alaska, Colorado. Still not many people move there.

The city of Sacramento has refused to put aggressive measures based on SB375, that is why you see constructions there. They don't have that many well connected environmentalists as in the BA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2014, 10:35 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
There is a lot of beautiful open space in Montana, Alaska, Colorado. Still not many people move there.
Ok, I meant having a big city and open space nearby.

Also, I felt like you did a thread on SFHs and the Bay Area a while back ago already. Wasn't your OP meant to be something different?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2014, 11:57 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,983 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
There is a lot of beautiful open space in Montana, Alaska, Colorado. Still not many people move there.

The city of Sacramento has refused to put aggressive measures based on SB375, that is why you see constructions there. They don't have that many well connected environmentalists as in the BA.
Repost that on the Colorado forum. The big issue with environmentalists for at least the 34 years I've lived there has been "growth is bad". There will not be a big influx to the mountains, b/c there are no jobs there other than "ski bum" and gouging tourists, but there are plenty of IT jobs in the Denver/Boulder MSAs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2014, 12:14 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Repost that on the Colorado forum. The big issue with environmentalists for at least the 34 years I've lived there has been "growth is bad".
I was told on the Long Island forum that we don't need growth, the island is full.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top