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.
Doesn't really follow my comment. The Bay Area has only become dense in the past 30 years or so. So now that it has been crapped up it's a reasonable thing to make it even worse? If you are an anthill kind of person, go to NYC. Move to Japan.
Well, conversely, one can also say that if you like open spaces and low density, then move to Nebraska.
Lots more places in this country with low density than with high density.
Building more housing doesn't solve what I am attacking at all. Just exactly the opposite. Transportation infrastructure projects are pretty much bullcrap. People don't begin to use mass transit in the numbers required to alleviate the traffic congestion we live with.
I don't know but the last time I was on a NYC subway it was jammed packed.
Yes, of course there's still surface street traffic in NYC, but can you imagine how much worse it would be if there was no subway system, no trains nor buses, etc, in NYC?
High density development doesn't preserve land if it isn't allowed within commuting distance to areas overdeveloped already. I don't advocate for low density sprawl either. I don't just mean shut down development in SF and peninsula. I mean the entire Bay area. I mean all of coastal California. And the Valley as well due especially to its natural air quality limitations.
Of course things were better when I arrived. That's obvious. Of course the problem grew with population growth. What else? It's all a question of degree. There were no strained resources 50 years ago to speak of. Traffic wasn't half that of today. And BART hasn't relieved much traffic. Some, but doesn't begin to relieve the problem.
People who want low density should leave, that's true. I don't ask for low density. I suggest the insanity of over-development should cease. Density has its limits. Physical, psychological, economic, infrastructure, resourceful. Coastal California has reached, and exceeded, the limits of healthy, resourceful, sustainable development. The fact that more people can be crammed in as proven by higher density regions / cities elsewhere isn't any indication it is a good reality to pursue. It is ef'ing insane.
There's a simple solution to this: Tell all the companies in California to stop hiring people.
Either that or a massive earthquake causes Coastal California to fall into the Pacific Ocean.
You don't understand the value of historical character? It is honored all across the nation in preservation laws.
Building more housing doesn't solve what I am attacking at all. Just exactly the opposite.
Transportation infrastructure projects are pretty much bullcrap. People don't begin to use mass transit in the numbers required to alleviate the traffic congestion we live with.
SF's history as a city of dense construction doesn't mean it should become even more dense. There is no correlation from one to justifying the other.
The bell ringing will be incapable of continuing if development is halted. The area has pretty much reached its limits of space and pricing already. There's nothing wrong with California not accommodating every possible business and person who wants to live here. We don't die or implode if growth goes to Texas. All that happens is silly sophmoric people don't get to chant "We're number one!" as if at a high school football game rally. Who cares?
I don't understand what you mean by historical character. Are you referring to the mix of demographics historically in SF neighborhoods, the architecture, etc?
Halting development is just going to increase prices and drive out middle and lower income residents.
The area could have a lot more development with its space limitations. Manhattan has almost twice as many residents as SF with significantly less landmass. There is a housing crisis in the Bay Area, with impacts on the region's families, professionals, service workers, and everybody else who lives here. It won't go away by sticking our collective heads in the sand.
Yeah that's not going to happen, people still reproduce whether you think they should or not. Perhaps it would have been better for CA if it could have restricted domestic migration in the 1960's like countries restrict immigration. Would have been a good idea right?
I have no problem with people reproducing. We have discussed this before. Replacement rate is 2.1 children per couple, I believe. And California's birthrate is below that now. In fact almost all developed nations have birthrates below replacement rate. And, though sure it would have been great to restrict immigration somewhere about the mid-80's or so, I wouldn't expect or advocate for that in our free society. And I don't now. The point of these "we need to develop more dense housing" threads, including this one, is to support more development. It's obvious that if development is stopped, the place can't grow. And my argument is that is a good position to take. People are always coming and going to some extent. But expressly advancing perpetual development is killing the state now that it has matured. Just as the short-sighted love to point to greater density in Japan and Chinese cities, Singapore, etc as examples that it is possible to replicate those conditions in California, there are plenty of places in the country and world that restrict development to save their character that has matured. Just because it is possible to do something doesn't make it desirable or smart.
Try proposing new industry and housing for Monaco or the French Riviera. Hell, try proposing it for Aspen, Colorado or Greenwich, Conn. Try proposing high density housing projects on Mercer Island between Seattle and Bellevue. You won't get to the front door with your petition. NIMBYism is alive and thriving all around the world. With good reason. Go develop W. Virginia. Gorgeous mountain state. Weather's not terrible there either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Better sure but it's not like the Bay Area didn't have issues related to growth back then either. You act like only in the last 30 years has there been negative impacts of growth. Cities have experienced growing pains for centuries, this is nothing new. The Bay Area had to expand roads, build freeways, build more water storage systems, find more water sources, generate more power, etc..when you and all the other people moved here in the 60's. So lets not pretend you moving here didn't put a strain on resources. And despite growth some places actually can improve in areas like LA having cleaner air today than 40 years ago despite also having double the population. Or less traffic congestion than 25 years ago. Humans have always innovated to handle growth and density since cities began and that's not going to stop.
Yes, "better, sure" - and then some. You betcha. But had "issues related to growth" back then? Hardly. Expanding roads and freeways and water storage systems had mostly to do with investing in the future development that was projected. Not in solving any existing nightmares.
I'm pretty sure you weren't alive in the 60's even, right? You didn't drive around the Bay Area. I did. It was a relative breeze. There were no utilities issues either. My moving here did not put any strain on the region. For one thing, I was billeted military for nearly 7 years. And after that I soon transitioned to a lifestyle with such a light footprint I pretty much leave no trace.
LA did clean up its air. But traffic has not improved. Anywhere. And the improved air quality isn't a result of increased density. If the same intelligent measures were initiated without the growth experienced since, the air would be even far better.
Humans have always innovated. True. Again, that doesn't mean it's a good thing. There are no benefits to increased population and development beyond where we are now. I don't expect to reverse, nice as it would be. I am arguing that to continue to support a model that is built on perpetual development is logically suicide. It can't be done, for one thing. And shouldn't be taken to its limit for another. There is no benefit. We have to face transition to sustainability at some point. We are using resources at a vastly unsustainable rate as it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
I'm glad you agree now that people who want low density should leave. We get it, you move here and want to shut the door behind you. Very typical NIMBY attitude.
As I have said, the issue isn't really about shutting the door. It's about addressing the unsustainability of perpetual growth. What we are doing in America, with coastal California as poster child, is literally criminal.
If you don't like high density, then find a low density place. But a lot of people want high density so I don't see the point of trying to restrict people's options. Nobody's entitled to live anywhere. Also, high density is better for the environment because people on average consume less energy. If a developer offers to buy your home, would you really not cash out?
So, you didn't read my posts I guess, yet you comment. Ok. I have lived quite contentedly in mostly moderate to high density most of my adult life (and I'm nearing 70 years).
Here's a reality check for you: nearly no one "prefers high density", given a choice. The myth of millennials "preferring high density" has been studied. It was found that, given a theoretical scenario where millennials were offered sfh with yards and commutes with low traffic they overwhelmingly would chose that spacious lifestyle and suburban ambiance. The myth is based in younger generations adapting to what they see as any lack of reasonable, affordable options. They can't see affording full sized sfh within easy, relaxed driving conditions and times. So they sensibly favor what they see as possible: high density.
Humans aren't biologically well suited to living in large, dense societies. We are adaptable to it. But it runs counter to our biological design. There are various specializations within the science of anthropology you can consult in this regard.
People need their options restricted, kid. In a hurry. We are committing suicide as a species if we don't turn the page from development to sustainability.
So then what do you propose to house all the people moving here? Is having millions of people living in the streets more preferable to high density housing? Which would be the bigger "nightmare"?
Well, if you read my posts you'd see what I propose: that development be stopped - which reality would stop people from moving here beyond replacing those that leave. Why would people move here "to live in the streets?" They wouldn't. That's just stupid hyperbole. No one is being forced to move to California.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatCurve
Well, conversely, one can also say that if you like open spaces and low density, then move to Nebraska.
Lots more places in this country with low density than with high density.
True. But, as I have repeatedly said, I accept where we are. I am objecting to perpetual growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatCurve
I don't know but the last time I was on a NYC subway it was jammed packed.
Yes, of course there's still surface street traffic in NYC, but can you imagine how much worse it would be if there was no subway system, no trains nor buses, etc, in NYC?
Here's the test: with all those people crammed into the subway, are the streets uncongested? No? In other words: the subways didn't cure the problem. The fact that the streets would be worse if the subway riders didn't have their trains doesn't change the reality that the city is congested beyond sanity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatCurve
There's a simple solution to this: Tell all the companies in California to stop hiring people.
Either that or a massive earthquake causes Coastal California to fall into the Pacific Ocean.
Pretty much. But the same effect is accomplished by simply stopping development. Growth will have to go elsewhere. Texas growing like California used to won't hurt California.
Well, if you read my posts you'd see what I propose: that development be stopped - which reality would stop people from moving here beyond replacing those that leave. Why would people move here "to live in the streets?" They wouldn't. That's just stupid hyperbole. No one is being forced to move to California.
As long as there are good jobs here, people will move here regardless. During the mid-1800's gold rush, hundreds of thousands of people moved to California even though there was no housing for them. Most of them lived in tents or on the streets. It can happen again.
Nowadays, even Google engineers making 6-figure salaries are living in RVs in the parking lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
Here's the test: with all those people crammed into the subway, are the streets uncongested? No? In other words: the subways didn't cure the problem. The fact that the streets would be worse if the subway riders didn't have their trains doesn't change the reality that the city is congested beyond sanity.
The NYC subways alleviated an even much worse problem. Without the subway system there would be 5 times as many cars on the streets and it would be total gridlock 24/7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
Pretty much. But the same effect is accomplished by simply stopping development. Growth will have to go elsewhere. Texas growing like California used to won't hurt California.
Stopping development is not going to stop people from coming here. Just witness the last 5 years.
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.
