The Infrastructurist

It’s not just about reinforcement (like rebar or steel frames) but the concrete mix used. Even though it might not look it, most concrete used in buildings is flexible. The most earthquake proof building in SF is probably the Salesforce tower, which has a concrete core, not a low height timber framed house. Concrete has other great properties as well - it is waterproof, doesn’t rot, and is fireproof. On the emissions side, you can get flexibility and lower emissions by using newer air-crete mixes: https://www.infrastructurist.com/what-is-flexible-concrete/

It's been proposed and is probably feasible: http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/10/22/crazy-or-brilliant-plan-to-…

I'm Australian and have lived in Germany (Cologne), Zurich, London and (now) New York City so I'll add my perspective. I'll also add that I can't drive (because of an eye condition). Australia is very much like California. Population density is low. Almost all of Australia is car dependent. Land sizes are large. This makes public transport largely uneconomic and unworkable, with certain exceptions (eg parts of Perth, inner Sydney, Melbourne). Even then, that transport is largely limited to going into and out of the city. If you want to go somewhere else it's a huge problem. Gas taxes are much higher in Australia (petrol costs $1.40-1.50 per litre last I saw and there are ~4 litres to the gallon). I'm not sure if this covers the cost of roads and infrastructure (for the quarter acre dream) but I highly doubt it, especially once you factor in indirect costs. London is a mix of inner London where public transport is very good and outer London (Zone 5+) where you are car dependent but you absolutely can get away with using car rental when you need it most of the time. The problem is public transport largely stops at midnight (apart from night buses). Personally I found the light rail in Cologne (and Bonn) great and never felt the lack of a car. You absolutely do not need a car in Zurich or pretty much all but rural Switzerland. Intracity and intercity transport is superb. Even getting to ski resorts by train/bus is fine. Which brings me to NYC. NYC for me has the ultimate…

The reviews and objections and hearings and studies are all necessary because of the treason against the American people committed by an earlier generation of planners and engineers. A lot of the remaining neighborhoods in New York City were nearly destroyed by the Lower Manhattan Expressway in the 1960's.[1] Most American cities were well on their way to being modern Detroit thanks to planners like NY's Robert Moses and his traffic engineers. They wanted to rebuild America to be easy driving dystopias with free flowing traffic and no space for community and walking lifestyles. They did succeed in the outer parts of NYC and put freeways down both Manhattan waterfronts. There used to be freeways down the Embarcadero and through the central parts of San Francisco.[2] Tens of thousands of citizens were driven out to build them. Their entire neighborhoods were razed and traditional walkable living was on its way to eradication in America. Freeway protests started with Jane Jacobs in the 1960's, won against the freeway plans of San Francisco, and resulted in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.[3] NEPA is the model for analysis paralysis and regulations and safety procedures that block infrastructure projects across America. It continues to be necessary as you can see in most any urban freeway expansion project or wetlands infill development in America today. The Big Dig in particular proves that even NEPA isn't enough to block idiocy. The best thing for the…