Hacker News Reader

> The reason why we won't have NYC or SF looking like Star Trek¹ is that the people are already wealthy and they chose to live here in the way it is so the people who would want Star Trek SF won't come to present-day SF to make it into Star Trek SF

I'm not so sure about this -- the people who've moved to SF in the last 10 years have absolutely changed SF, and did not move to SF because they liked the way it is; they moved here because of work.

I think we see a slowdown in creating of "iconic" buildings in the US because of reasons like this - not just NIMBYism but because there's less need to replace stuff that's already built - but I think you overlook a couple things (in addition to the ongoing construction in NY discussed below):

1) A lot of what makes up Manhattan or SF today won't last forever. Cramming new stuff in is hitting points of diminishing returns. But as those buildings get more and more aged and/or obsolete, there's gonna be a higher need that doesn't exist today.

2) The Star Trek time frame is really long! NIMBY's a hundred or two hundred years from now will probably have very different tolerances for what they'd be willing to see created.

> All new skyscrapers will come only in high-growth places, not high-wealth places. IMHO that's because high-wealth places will settle down to generalized universal veto and stagnation.

How would we reconcile that prediction with Billionaires Row in Manhattan that was a high-wealth place but not a high-growth place that has built a number of residential skyscrapers recently. What's changed from the example that disproves your hypothesis to the near future?

We would reconcile it by saying that the hypothesis as it stands is falsified. HAHA

That's a bad bet to take, if only because of black swan events. If an earthquake or something decimates SF, it'll have a much higher chance of being rebuilt differently.

Well, what you're saying is it's a bad bet to make. But that's what makes bets interesting. So, interested on taking the other side?

Looks like I'd just lose money on this one because of NYC.

Isn't the more accurate way of saying this 'My argument is wrong'?

I like my style of writing and I'll probably stick to it. I think it's more enjoyable.

But if it's not clear for any reason, here we go: I was wrong.

I'm not really commenting on your style, just that the operative thing is the wrongness, not the existence of New York, that's all.

Haha, I thought it was quite clear that the statement was an amusing way to say "NYC proves the wrongness" but your feedback is welcome. Thank you.

If I'm not mistaken, even in Star Trek (at least Enterprise) Marin County has still been NIMBYed and has basically no development.

??? NYC is full of skyscrapers.

It may not have 'ultra high' buildings, but those exist for different reasons and the economics are different.

SF has earthquakes and a shifty foundation which is material.

Right, my claim is that NYC will not get many more tall towers. It's settling down into a state where there will be few more.

I believe your hypothesis is not entirely correct. 9 of the 10 tallest buildings in NYC are to be completed between 2000 and 2021.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_N...

In Europe, if you exclude Russia from the top 20 tallest buildings, the UK (2), Germany (2) and Spain (2) have the tallest buildings, with the UK and Spain buildings built in the 2000s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_E...

Welp! Thank you! Boy am I glad no one fleeced me on the bet, eh?

You have a refreshing way of accepting when you are wrong, it is a joy to witness on these here pipes.

New York City has built 50 new skyscrapers in the last 5 years.[1] Including 432 Park Avenue, taller than the Empire State Building. It's an apartment building. Modeled after a trash can.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_N...

I like 432 Park Ave! It looks very cool, in my opinion, like a rendering error. The 50 new skyscrapers does directly falsify my idea, though. Let me quickly edit so I don't get taken for a ride on the bet.

Only a small part of nyc has skyscrapers.

It may no longer be true, but it used to be that one could map the underlying geology via the bioturbation, observing the skyline: the part of Manhattan with skyscrapers was the part with near-surface bedrock.

The right explanation for New York might be that what the "already wealthy people who choose to live in New York the way it is" already expressed their preference, and it's for a city full of skyscrapers.

The theory makes some sense if you have a wealthy city that's remained stubbornly low-rise (Paris?). But if you love NYC you probably like the skyscrapers, rather than viewing them as a necessary evil.

Empire State Building for example, was built in 1930 and finished a year or so later. NYC predates the nimby movement but not the industrial revolution.

> SF has earthquakes and a shifty foundation which is material.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your post? Skyscrapers are possible in SF. The Salesforce tower is 1,070 feet tall. They did have to go down 300 feet to anchor to bedrock, though.