Make more land
post by jkaufman
score: 95 (46 votes) ·
We used to make land. We built long wharves for docking ships, and
then over time filled in the areas between them. Later we built up
mudflats wholesale to make even larger areas. Here's a map of Boston
showing how much of the land wasn't previously dry:
reproduction courtesy of the Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education
Center at the Boston Public Library)
In expensive areas, converting wetlands and shallow water into usable
land is a very good thing on balance, and we should start doing it
again. To take a specific example, we should make land out of the San
Francisco Bay, at least South of the Dumbarton Bridge:
This is about 50mi2, a bit bigger than San Fransisco. This would be
enough new central land to bring
rents down dramatically across the region. It can be built to a
higher density than SF, because no one is having their neighborhood
Manhattanized. Millions of people could live there.
So, ok, let's address some likely objections:
This would be an environmental disaster. Some of that area is a
wildlife refuge, and all of it should be protected.
The world is very large, and cities are a very small portion of it.
The land we set aside for animals should be outside of cities, where
far more land is available at far less impact to people.
Sprawl has a much larger impact on wildlife than infill, and allowing
people to live closer in is the most powerful way to address sprawl.
Additionally, sprawl leads to much higher carbon emissions through
less efficient transportation. While development of the Bay would be
harmful to the specific animals that live there today, it would be
better for animals (and people) overall.
The Bay is beautiful and this would ruin it.
This part of the Bay is primarily industrial salt ponds.
This is just a few miles from a major fault line, and made land
can liquify in earthquakes.
You do need to take fill into account to build in an earthquake-safe
way, but modern engineering is well up to the task.
Traffic would be even worse.
The biggest contribution to traffic in the Bay Area is that people
aren't allowed to live where the jobs are. The second biggest is that
BART doesn't have enough coverage to make living without a car practical
in most of the area. This would help with both of these, since this
project would allow millions of people to live closer in and would
easily fund massive subway expansion.
Wait, how many people are you saying would live there?
Here's SF's density in the 2010 census:
Relatively dense portions of the city have a density of ~40k people
per square mile, which would be ~2M people over this 50mi2 area. At a
density of ~80k people per square mile, something like NYC's East
Village, this could be ~4M people. Much higher densities are possible
but not a good idea.
This would undo decades of work aimed at preserving the Bay and
restoring its wetlands.
Sea-level rise means we shouldn't be building more in low-lying areas.
Building dikes to keep the water out is very practical. A third of
the Netherlands is below sea level, with most of that expansion
happening before modern technology. By decreasing the amount of
coastline in the Bay this project would make it easier to prevent
flooding caused by sea-level rise.
Didn't someone already propose this decades ago?
The Reber Plan
of the 1940s was a similar large project planned farther North,
primarily for the East Bay. It was intended to both make land and
create freshwater lakes, and testing with a scale-model showed major
issues. This plan is much simpler, and more similar to past
successful land reclamation projects.
There's not enough water for the people we already have; what will
There's plenty of water already, we just need to prioritize people
drinking it over crops, which would happen naturally if we priced it.
But even without that, desalination is cheap enough that a person's
daily water use would be a
matter of cents.
Is this a serious proposal?
Yes. We should do this.
(I previously suggested this kind of infill development with Boston's
Fort Point Channel.)
Comment via: facebook
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by G A (g-a)
· score: 20 (10 votes) · LW
Hi. I work in the area, and occasionally my job takes me out into this part of the bay. The author is correct...although a portion of this area is a designated wildlife refuge, the majority of it fairly useless. Most of the salt production has moved to cheaper regions. Also consider this...when the tide
is out, that portion of the bay is literally only feet deep. Seriously, on average 1-3 feet deep...it’s a giant mud flat. You can’t boat in it or use it for recreation (without sinking into the mud). I’ve tried to walk in that mud...and sank past my waist! There’s very little wildlife out there, the water is pretty stagnant and on some days very smelly. I’ve traveled out into that water (obviously during high tide) and looked at the crowded land mass in every direction and thought the same thing...this spot would be so useful if it wasn’t mud and water!
comment by bendini
· score: 17 (5 votes) · LW
The problem with this proposal is not that it's a bad idea.
The problem is that you--a smart individual with no domain experience--can come up with an extremely sensible and pragmatic way to address a problem that:
- Is causing over a trillion dollars of economic misallocation.
- Has existed for 2 decades and gotten significantly worse over time.
- Has reached a crisis point such that it has visceral effects on the day-to-day life of millionaires that they can't buy their way out of (e.g. faeces everywhere, being attacked by crazy homeless people).
- Has a laundry list of founders, VCs and tech CEOs desperately trying to solve it.
...yet is still not solved. Which should make you wonder, is a lack of sensible ideas really the main bottleneck?
comment by Liron
· score: 8 (4 votes) · LW
Awesome, I think the Western world currently has a shortage of specific ambitious proposals like this. Strong upvote.
In Zero to One, Peter Thiel calls this "definite future" mindset and specifically mentions the Reber Plan as an example.
comment by nelszzp
· score: 4 (3 votes) · LW
You could use the proceeds from this new land to put the remaining non-urban estuaries in California under permanent protection. Interesting proposition. The Dutch equivalent would be Almere, by the way.
comment by ioannes_shade
· score: 4 (3 votes) · LW
Not arguing against this proposal, but want to note that there's plenty of land in the Bay Area that's only developed to low density or hasn't been developed at all.
Changing housing policy such that it's easier to build is probably upstream of both making new land and making existing land higher density.
comment by ChristianKl
· score: 7 (4 votes) · LW
Where is the land that hasn't been developed at all?
comment by ioannes_shade
· score: 6 (5 votes) · LW
These are all abandoned:
- Oakland army base
- Oakland outer harbor
- Naval Air Station Alameda
- Yerba Buena Island coast guard base
- Most of Treasure Island
- Parts of Hunters Point
Parts of South San Francisco are undeveloped, though I don't know how that interacts with San Bruno Mountain State Park.
Large swaths of the western side of the Peninsula are undeveloped.
comment by ajh
· score: 2 (2 votes) · LW
One example: Most of Marin, immediately north of San Francisco across the Golden Gate, is devoid of development and housing. It is truly striking to see, in a place where the value of each square foot is higher than nearly anywhere else in the world.
More undeveloped land, much of it mountainous, is plainly visible in the satellite photo included in the article.
comment by romeostevensit
· score: 2 (1 votes) · LW
I feel like housing exists in equilibrium with governance quality. When the prices get high enough due to good governance, people in the area will vote in increasingly bad government until bad policies decrease house pricing.
comment by Brian Slesinsky (brian-slesinsky)
· score: 1 (1 votes) · LW
This isn't my area of expertise, but I found this quote in an article about anticipating climate change in the Netherlands to be food for thought:
If we turn the Netherlands into a fort, we will need to build gigantic dikes, but also, and perhaps more importantly, gigantic pumping stations. This is essential, because at some point we will need to pump all of the water from the Rhine, Meuse, Scheldt and Ems – which by that time will be lower than sea level – over those enormous dikes. The energy costs will be higher – but that is not the only problem, because when the enormous pumping stations pump out the fresh water, the heavier salt water will seep in under the ground. You can get rid of the water, but not the salt, which is disastrous for agriculture in its current form. Instead of a fort, it may make more sense to talk about a semi-porous bath tub.
The South Bay infill wouldn't be the same - much smaller, creeks instead of rivers (though flooding is still a concern), and probably no agriculture. But I wonder what other engineering problems are swept under the rug by assuming that "modern engineering is well up to the task?" Thinking about such questions from a very high-level view often misses important details.
This is just spitballing, but it seems like it would be prudent to build up the new land higher than the new anticipated sea level. And the very expensive land around the infill might actually end up downhill, below sea level. Which might make drainage interesting.
comment by Derek Lomas (derek-lomas)
· score: 1 (1 votes) · LW
Here is a nice map of the parts of the Netherlands that are under sea level. I live in Amsterdam. Not on the ground floor :)
People in the Netherlands are very concerned about environmentalism and climate change. But not so much about sea level rise. I imagine it has to do with the opportunity to help cities like Miami build infrastructure that can help them livel below sea level, too
comment by jkaufman
· score: 7 (4 votes) · LW
help cities like Miami build infrastructure that can help them live below sea level, too
Miami is in a terrible place, geologically, because it's built on top of porous rock:
Can We Build Levees Around Miami? -- This works for places like New Orleans and The Netherlands because these places are built on top of dense clay so the water cannot percolate through the ground easily. In the case of Miami, water is not just coming up on the beach, it is coming through the ground below us because we are built on top of limestone that is full of holes. So even if we built walls on the coast, the water will just creep in under the walls through the limestone. -- http://highwaterline.org/sea-level-rise-faqs/