I have two solutions to the San Francisco housing problem: fire or earthquake. Unlikely that NIMBYs could stop it from being rebuilt high-density. Let us propitiate Hephæstus and Poseidon, because only a disaster can make SF great again.
-
Yeah. In Christchurch, after the earthquakes, they banned tall buildings because they figured nobody would want to live in a tall building after an earthquake. Maybe San Fran has better government so that wouldn't happen. Our mess: https://nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/reports/recipe-for-disaster-building-policy-on-shaky-ground/ …
Well, that would be a hideously terrible result. Let's pray for a fire then, because a bias against wood buildings is a bias for growth. But also, SF skyscrapers are built for earthquakes, and wouldn't fall down, so I think people would have higher confidence after quake.
-
-
Sure. But a couple will fail anyway. Demolishing or fixing the others takes forever. And city planners can't resist playing SimCity when they think they've tabula rasa and have eminent domain powers. Earthquakes get a zero star rating from me. Wouldn't trade again.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.