California ran out of buildable coastal flatland in both the North & South in the 1970s, so urban infill was the only way to go (except for doing sprawl in central CA).
-
-
You could expand out into steeper terrain right off the coast, but that is prime wildfire territory.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
is CA physically out of buildable coastal terrain, or is that an environmental / regulatory choice? driving, say, from half-moon bay to santa cruz, it looks like there’s land.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
probably a little of both. But these are what our
@NWSBayArea red flag maps look like these days (in December of all months). https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/12/15/bay-area-weather-red-flag-fire-warning-issued-ahead-of-dry-windy-weekend/ …pic.twitter.com/BE0h6UON6B
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @interfluidity and
Kim-Mai Cutler Retweeted NatureEcoEvo
if you wanted to make those lands fire safe, you can't just go from nothing to modest/sparse density, you have to make really *dramatic* changes to make a community more firesafe.https://twitter.com/NatureEcoEvo/status/1059470661951860736 …
Kim-Mai Cutler added,
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @pcohensf and
inland a bit in the hills i see that. but right near the coast, around say Pescadero. it’s rural + untreed, sheep grazing land and touristy rusticness. my sense is that it’s a choice, not an exigency, that the coast itself is not developed (tho sea level rise/climchg mb an issue)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @interfluidity @kimmaicutler and
(apropos nothing, places in Marin i really enjoy visiting, single-family residential in Mill Valley + Larkspur, i can’t for the life of me imagine how they can remain habitable if recent wildfire conditions persist. fairy-tale maze-like roads lined w/wooden homes in the redwoods)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @interfluidity @pcohensf and
I don't have a good sense of their current risk but in other similar neighborhoods in CA, you have one Red Flag day and one errant spark and the whole neighborhood goes. There are close to 2M+ homes in CA that fit these characteristics. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/business/california-fires-insurance.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @interfluidity and
which is why if you live in a flatland area, or a basin that is somewhat buffered from sea level rise, it's imperative that we make these transit-oriented, mid-higher density choices *now*
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @pcohensf and
absolutely. i kind of wish we took a page from the Chinese and risked “ghost cities” from scratch. consider Mare Island. underdeveloped former military, with a FERRY DIRECTLY TO DOWNTOWN SF, being developed piecemeal, the north-end already single-family suburban residential.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Mare still has some sea level rise issues though. Possible on one part of the island: http://www2.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/hazmaps/Mare_Island.pdf …
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @interfluidity and
In Oregon there's still *plenty* of safely developable land fairly close to Portland. It's just buffered by miles of auto-dependent sprawl, and I have a really hard time imagining new land being developed with the kind of neighborhoods in high demand in Portland.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @stephenjudkins @kimmaicutler and
And it's not entirely that zoning won't let us build what people want, though there is some of that. There's major path-dependence: an urban, transit-oriented neighborhood seems really hard to do piecemeal next to mlles of cul-de-sacs and big box stores
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.