Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwanem | Hacker News Reader

Okay. And without boiling the ocean, what have you got that's better?

Short term - more buses, alternate day driving, increase incentives for no car ownership (tax rebate), increase penalties for car ownership (increase parking fees/fines, increase number of no-parking tow-away zones).

Medium term - Build bike lanes, convert streets to promenades, build light rail, build traffic calmers (narrow streets, speed bumps, lane bollards)

Long term - Marketing programs to encourage different business lifestyles (city vs. country, remote vs in-person). Tax incentives for moving out of the city.

Giving away money is not generally an effective solution. Where is that money going to come from?

It must be cool to have no desire for stability in your life or the life of your spouse and offspring.

Certainly I'd find that lifestyle less difficult to plan moves around. Of course, I'd also find it fulfilling and depressing.

What are you talking about?

In a world with effectively zero transportation possible beyond a range of a few miles, you need to move every time you change jobs (or never see your family because you're walking/biking/riding a bus for a huge chunk of each day).

denser, 10 - 20 story tall transit oriented development in caltrain and bart station parking lots.

Can you clarify what you mean by "transit oriented development"? As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore. I don't think it makes sense to make things denser if it's going to be so ugly that no one wants to live there.

You get a heck of a view from above the 10th floor. I'd live there. Opposing dense development near transit seems close to the ultimate NIMBYism.

> As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore

That isn't a rule of thumb at all, just your opinion...

I don't think it makes sense to make things denser if it's going to be so ugly that no one wants to live there.

Very rarely, if ever, are buildings "so ugly that no one wants to live there", especially when places to live are as scarce as they are in SFBA.

also, transit oriented development: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development

> As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore.

Just FYI, people saying things like this is definitely a key part of why us New Yorkers think the Bay Area has literally gone insane.

You couldn't pay me enough to live in NYC. Those big urban canyons are my idea of hell, and I would really not like to see SF go that direction.

You New Yorkers have a unique perspective of your own on such matters! It's a great town, and you folks up there do a wonderful job of making a body feel welcome. But there's too many tall buildings and not enough tall trees for me to ever want to live there, and I can see why people who like SF for what it is wouldn't want it to follow your example, any more than I want Baltimore to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com