News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How shortsighted neighborhood activism fuels SF's housing... by Arnt on Wednesday January 27, 2016 @03:24AM (#10978922)
Tall isn't the answer, dense is. The proper question is "when you give up 1km² of farmland, how many beds and offices do you get in return?" (or a little more sophisticated). Tall doesn't actually correlate very well with dense, because it tends to be a small part of the ground.

IIRC Bldgblog wrote that the US has about four ground-level parking spots per car. (Can't find the posting again now, but http://www.bldgblog.com/2007/10/greater-los-angeles/ and everything it links to is a fine place to start.) If you build some highrises, plus big flat malls and office parks, plus four parking spots for each car owner that's expected to move in, plus enough streets, then the highrises don't matter. You could build them half or twice as high and it wouldn't make a real difference to the density.

Re:How shortsighted neighborhood activism fuels SF's housing... by Arnt on Wednesday January 27, 2016 @03:40AM (#10978964)
... which reminds me about a story of a suburb in the seventies.

When Grorud (IIRC) in Oslo was built, the planners wanted tall buildings for density. An architect whose name momentarily escapes me came up with a counterproposal, namely copying the houses you see here (the most popular in the country at the time), and adding three large parks. http://www.agderposten.no/polopoly_fs/1.1060255.1397321665!/...

The counterproposal had the same density, despite the three additional parks. Guess what was built though.