Sheer Madness: (San Francisco, Dublin, Mecca: credit, tax, to live)

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Correct. Planning and development does interface critically with traffic / transportation planning. And you know what traffic and transportation planners all agree on? "If you build it, more will come." the more lanes you add to a freeway, the heavier the traffic count becomes in short order. The more you encourage and accommodate growth, the more growth you will realize.

And still no one asks what purpose does more growth serve at this point in civilization? Or in the Bay?

I think what sav had in mind was expanding public transit, not building more lanes. If you're going to increase density, you also need to plan more transit routes.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

This forum might have people more interested in discussing the topic:

//www.city-data.com/forum/philosophy/

Which topic? I am discussing how does more growth enhance human existence - but specifically as relates to growth in the Bay Area. Now if I post that in the philosophy forum two things will happen:
1. I won't get many if any people from the Bay Area engaged probably
2. Someone - similar to you likely - will complain it's a California / SF issue and thus off topic for the philosophy forum.

Do you complain every time you see a thread contain tangential references and side issues? Or is it just me? I suspect the latter brother man

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

How about to let people live where they want to live?

Ferrari's are really terrific cars. They look great and drive like a dream thrill. Do you think the government should require Ferrari to make millions of cars that can be sold at the price of a Ford Fiesta so everyone who wants a Ferrari can buy one?

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

Or to reduce our carbon and general environmental footprint?

Growth cannot reduce carbon and general environmental footprint, by definition it uses more of everything.

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

Or to encourage economic growth to allow people to have jobs?

Jobs are being replaced by automation, not regulation. If you are concerned about jobs remaining available, you better stop growth immediately. In fact you'd better dial the WayBack machine a decade or more into the past and stop growth then. More and more is produced by fewer and fewer every year, or haven't you been noticing all the articles by economists warning of this?

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

Or to have vibrant cities that have a larger variety of businesses and destinations to enjoy?

Really? What can you not find to do in the Bay Area now - in spades? What is not fully vibrant already? How many choices do you need? How many choices can you ever possibly experience that aren't already available?

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

None of that does anything for you?

We already have everything anyone could possibly want except easy parking - and cheap rent. Neither of those issues will change for the better with growth.

With the march of automation reducing gainful employment and simultaneously creating a substantial class of very wealthy specialists and investors, and people all around the globe desiring to live in a pretty small number of coastal hotspots like the Bay, we will never see what all of you are hoping more growth will provide. Only an increase in housing costs, traffic, and use of already overburdened infrastructure - and a decrease in QoL. Especially in SF and on the Peninsula, surrounded as they are by water, and relying on bridges.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

Well for one thing, you stop encouraging people to own cars by designing buildings and cities around the idea that everyone should be expected to get everywhere everyday by driving a car by themselves and parking for free wherever they go.

With regard to this topic, it should be noted that at the same moment in history that San Francisco was being rapidly rebuilt out of smoldering rubble, the privately owned automobile was coming into fashion for average people. The "new" (post 1906) City was built to accommodate this and the densities dictated by private autos, albeit within a very compact, dense, streetcar-suburb style city plan have persisted.

[LostVector]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Ferrari's are really terrific cars. They look great and drive like a dream thrill. Do you think the government should require Ferrari to make millions of cars that can be sold at the price of a Ford Fiesta so everyone who wants a Ferrari can buy one?
Growth cannot reduce carbon and general environmental footprint, by definition it uses more of everything.
Jobs are being replaced by automation, not regulation. If you are concerned about jobs remaining available, you better stop growth immediately. In fact you'd better dial the WayBack machine a decade or more into the past and stop growth then. More and more is produced by fewer and fewer every year, or haven't you been noticing all the articles by economists warning of this?
Really? What can you not find to do in the Bay Area now - in spades? What is not fully vibrant already? How many choices do you need? How many choices can you ever possibly experience that aren't already available?
We already have everything anyone could possibly want except easy parking - and cheap rent. Neither of those issues will change for the better with growth.

With the march of automation reducing gainful employment and simultaneously creating a substantial class of very wealthy specialists and investors, and people all around the globe desiring to live in a pretty small number of coastal hotspots like the Bay, we will never see what all of you are hoping more growth will provide. Only an increase in housing costs, traffic, and use of already overburdened infrastructure - and a decrease in QoL. Especially in SF and on the Peninsula, surrounded as they are by water, and relying on bridges.

Growth is a natural outcome of our genetic imperative to reproduce. It's possible to be nihilistic about what our existence here on earth really accomplishes, but I really see no point in that. Those who reproduce will continue, and those who don't, won't. In a way the question answers itself.

As far as the city life goes, growth here allows more people to experience the rarities of city life. NIMBY's aren't going to like that, but of course it isn't entirely up to them. What does this accomplish? For each individual that answer is different. Perhaps a more bohemian lifestyle or convenience. Less time commuting and more time to pursue other interests. Variety. Closeness to old friends and new ones. For the people already here, sometimes improved density can merit investment in shared improvements like a walkable grocery store, more public transportation investment, closer retail and dining options, etc. Growth does not necessarily just drag and overburden the existing options. Sometimes it can and often does merit the creation of entirely new and better ones.

In any case, city life here is increasingly scarce and we people tend to sometimes irrationally over value what is hard to get.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Which topic? I am discussing how does more growth enhance human existence - but specifically as relates to growth in the Bay Area. Now if I post that in the philosophy forum two things will happen:
1. I won't get many if any people from the Bay Area engaged probably
2. Someone - similar to you likely - will complain it's a California / SF issue and thus off topic for the philosophy forum.

Do you complain every time you see a thread contain tangential references and side issues? Or is it just me? I suspect the latter brother man

It's not a specific Bay Area-only issue so what does it matter? Well it's not just a CA/SF specific issue and that's pretty obvious I think, but go ahead and assume away in order to make some weak argument why it's relevant in this forum.

No, just mainly when someone keeps bringing up the same question over and over that pretty much no one seems to care to discuss since it's not really a local issue at heart.

[Obamadon1]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Ferrari's are really terrific cars. They look great and drive like a dream thrill. Do you think the government should require Ferrari to make millions of cars that can be sold at the price of a Ford Fiesta so everyone who wants a Ferrari can buy one?

No, I think government should get out of the way and let property owners build densely if there is demand. If a lot of people want to pay to live some place and landowners want to build to accommodate that, local government shouldn't prevent that free transaction from occurring. I think regional and state government agencies should lessen the ability of local NIMBYs to prevent growth in their area, which when done by every city and town will inevitably result in sprawl, which everyone says they don't want.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Really? What can you not find to do in the Bay Area now - in spades? What is not fully vibrant already? How many choices do you need? How many choices can you ever possibly experience that aren't already available?
We already have everything anyone could possibly want except easy parking - and cheap rent. Neither of those issues will change for the better with growth.

There's no end to the list of more choices/vibrancy I would like to see in my city of Oakland, and Oakland is a lot more vibrant than most of the Bay Area. I'm officially on the record as being anti-NIMBY in general and in places like Marin and Lamorinda, but to the extent that their success shifts demand to Oakland, I'm fine with that.

The whole idea that your version of what people should want in their municipalities is what governments should enforce through their laws is insane.

[Obamadon1]

And the idea that NIMBYs often spout - "Move to New York if you want density and vibrancy" - I refuse to accept that this country is only big enough for one real city that is allowed to breathe and grow and be urban. 99% of this country is not city - you move anywhere in that 99% if you don't want to live in a real city.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

No, I think government should get out of the way and let property owners build densely if there is demand. If a lot of people want to pay to live some place and landowners want to build to accommodate that, local government shouldn't prevent that free transaction from occurring. ,

Exactly. I could not agree more. Density is the natural result of higher numbers of people wanting to live in the same place if technology is available to allow it.

San Francisco experienced dramatic growth during the gold rush of 1850 and the result was more housing being built, and I doubt Telemutt would argue that San Francisco did not benefit from that. Well maybe he would but I wouldn't.

[neutrino78x]

The whole concept of automation replacing jobs is also off topic, but I would submit that technology always makes the economy grow once it is able to adjust. For example the economy didn't fall apart when movable type was invented, or the airplane, or the personal computer. Some jobs become obsolete but they are replaced by others. We do need to be able to maintain education and retaining programs that are affordable.