Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

VeterinarianOk5370 t1_j5p4jub wrote

Seems like building up, instead of out, maybe the solution. Can’t have urban houses in all directions until there is no land left, definitely store water too I mean California is a desert.

But everyone in California seems desperate to have their own plot of asphalt.

25

SirBMsALot t1_j5pciqf wrote

You build up and suddenly there’s earthquakes to worry about. Sure there’s pretty good technology for that but it’s still a risk. I know that in San Francisco there was a problem with buildings sinking into the ground due to crappy foundation and the ground being essentially sand

5

ocmaddog t1_j5q0ezo wrote

There’s a lot of room between skyscraper and single family home that is not earthquake prone. “Building Up” mostly means 3 to 6 story buildings in certain areas.

7

SirBMsALot t1_j5q78s3 wrote

I see. Having lived in SF, the “building up” to a third story is very expensive unfortunately

−1

ocmaddog t1_j5qaxp3 wrote

I don't doubt it it's difficult to build there, but the rents you'd be able to charge in SF far exceed the seismic expense. Housing isn't built in SF because it is illegal or practically illegal to build there. It's a policy choice made by SF voters.

That's pretty much the story everywhere in California since 1980

4

blacksheep1492 t1_j5tft78 wrote

San Francisco built some of its foundations from the ships that were abandoned back during the gold rush.

1

SirBMsALot t1_j5u79dt wrote

That’s the Embarcadero and it’s literally a foundation of trash

1

moldyfishfinger t1_j5rst21 wrote

Building up is naturally expensive to build and maintain, until an area is sufficiently urbanized to demand it. In suburban areas, you can build some up and some out - and maintain proper green spaces, but it's almost impossible to do in an area that is as car centric as the US.

1