Land reclamation is a process where swamps, wetlands, or coastal waters are drained and filled to create more dry land. Despite being complex and technologically intensive, land reclamation is quite old and was common in the past. The reclamation of the Dutch lowland swamps
The San Francisco Bay is obviously a major candidate. South of San Francisco and Oakland, it's a vast expanse where the water is too dirty and cold for swimming, too polluted for fishing, and too muddy for beaches, etc., etc., and of course bordered by some of the most expensive real estate on Earth and a massive housing shortage. Would even the "Save the Bay" types really complain if someone came forward with a viable proposal to fill in 20% of it for high-density housing, parks and transit, with a substantial chunk of the revenues redirected towards cleaning and making more publicly-accesible the rest?
This was an amusing read. I'm hoping to publish something about this too soon.
I disagree with that last point ("low hanging fruit").
While it does seem the low hanging fruit has been taking in NYC, there is a ton of low hanging fruit in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Take a look at Save Our Bay. This one org of environmental extremists claims to have stopped massive projects over the years... it makes me sick to my stomach. https://savesfbay.org/our-impact/
What were the historical motivations for past successful land reclamation projects? What made them pencil out even in the absence of zoning- or environmental-review-driven housing shortages?
Coastal and High Density areas (where land reclamation is most valuable) also have the highest concentrations of Veto Powers and entrenched interests like beachfront view corridors and water access. Existing landowners are emotionally and monetarily invested in preventing reclamation projects that affect their properties in these domains.
Natural Uncertainty:
Rising sea levels, increased rates of coastal erosion, and higher frequency peak storm events point daggers at the viability of any coastal construction project. Land reclamation faces these hellish monsters at a unique disadvantage because reclaimed land necessarily has the most exposure to these forces. More-over, there is societal and institutional risk to investors that their investment will not be adequately protected by governments, or worse, private efforts to shield their project from the torrent of mother nature may be attacked by the government.
Risk of liability:
As the field of geotechnical engineering has advanced, a field of forensic soils science has emerged that has exposed investors in land reclamation projects especially to liability. This is because reclaimed land is uniquely prone to experience settlement and consolidation. Balancing these phenomena so your building settles evenly across it's foundation and doesn't end up tilted (like the millennium tower in SF, which was built on reclaimed land (read here: https://open.substack.com/pub/alltrades/p/building-on-reclaimed-land?r=ce9uk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)) is difficult enough, but consider that you also need to prevent the adjacent buildings from tilting into the the depression caused by your building. This essentially imposes a height limit in areas of land reclamation that don't have access to bedrock, limiting the payout for developers already under large risk. This is why even in the Netherlands, king of the reclaimers, most polders do not contain very tall buildings.
Great summary of the Eldritch-scale challenges preventing us from solving our own problems. Of course Cthulu has his adherents which reside on earth, long insane from his influence: NIMBYs.
The San Francisco Bay is obviously a major candidate. South of San Francisco and Oakland, it's a vast expanse where the water is too dirty and cold for swimming, too polluted for fishing, and too muddy for beaches, etc., etc., and of course bordered by some of the most expensive real estate on Earth and a massive housing shortage. Would even the "Save the Bay" types really complain if someone came forward with a viable proposal to fill in 20% of it for high-density housing, parks and transit, with a substantial chunk of the revenues redirected towards cleaning and making more publicly-accesible the rest?
This was an amusing read. I'm hoping to publish something about this too soon.
I disagree with that last point ("low hanging fruit").
While it does seem the low hanging fruit has been taking in NYC, there is a ton of low hanging fruit in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Take a look at Save Our Bay. This one org of environmental extremists claims to have stopped massive projects over the years... it makes me sick to my stomach. https://savesfbay.org/our-impact/
See also https://www.jefftk.com/p/make-more-land
What were the historical motivations for past successful land reclamation projects? What made them pencil out even in the absence of zoning- or environmental-review-driven housing shortages?
Three more circles for you:
Entrenched Interests and Veto Power:
Coastal and High Density areas (where land reclamation is most valuable) also have the highest concentrations of Veto Powers and entrenched interests like beachfront view corridors and water access. Existing landowners are emotionally and monetarily invested in preventing reclamation projects that affect their properties in these domains.
Natural Uncertainty:
Rising sea levels, increased rates of coastal erosion, and higher frequency peak storm events point daggers at the viability of any coastal construction project. Land reclamation faces these hellish monsters at a unique disadvantage because reclaimed land necessarily has the most exposure to these forces. More-over, there is societal and institutional risk to investors that their investment will not be adequately protected by governments, or worse, private efforts to shield their project from the torrent of mother nature may be attacked by the government.
Risk of liability:
As the field of geotechnical engineering has advanced, a field of forensic soils science has emerged that has exposed investors in land reclamation projects especially to liability. This is because reclaimed land is uniquely prone to experience settlement and consolidation. Balancing these phenomena so your building settles evenly across it's foundation and doesn't end up tilted (like the millennium tower in SF, which was built on reclaimed land (read here: https://open.substack.com/pub/alltrades/p/building-on-reclaimed-land?r=ce9uk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)) is difficult enough, but consider that you also need to prevent the adjacent buildings from tilting into the the depression caused by your building. This essentially imposes a height limit in areas of land reclamation that don't have access to bedrock, limiting the payout for developers already under large risk. This is why even in the Netherlands, king of the reclaimers, most polders do not contain very tall buildings.
Great summary of the Eldritch-scale challenges preventing us from solving our own problems. Of course Cthulu has his adherents which reside on earth, long insane from his influence: NIMBYs.