The Presidio is also a beautiful oasis in San Francisco, so I think maintaining a decent amount green space would be key. Keeping the most rugged hiking parts with the oldest trees untouched might be nice. For the mixed-use parts of the little city I'd advocate for building it similar to how Ildefons Cerda originally imagined the Barcelona Eixample district, this would further integrate greenspace into each city block.
Please also remember also that access to nature is a privilege to those who have the means to travel outside the city in cars. For those that rely on public transportation green space within city is critical and related to health and well being. It’s not just “go somewhere else to find it” if you want to be equitable. Definitely other solutions than removing green space.
Love the idea of federal land in close proximity to big cities, but totally agree with Daniel that this place is pretty well loved in SF. That's not to say that there couldn't be a few more high-density living options there or in close proximity.
I think there's a way to pull it off, there's a lot of land inside the presidio. Some of the best rugged parts can be preserved and the rest built with really smart urban planning to retain green space in the built urban environment.
I lived in SFBA for two decades, raised my family there and have since left to travel and work in other bits of the world with a bit less tax burden, but it will always be the place I think of and refer to as home. In 3 yrs, my husband & I will return to retire there. We all LOVE the Presidio - best part of the city! - and have volunteered there since our kids were middle school. I love your plan for parking garages on fringes of city & make all very pedestrian friendly. SF is built for this healthy way of living bc is not too big. But whatever urban planners are engaged is critical. Since SF is a beacon of tech & innovation, any city built there should represent such a city concept as well - with as much green & trees woven into it as possible - like Singapore!!
What does “zero tolerance for crime” mean to you, Tomas? I am an admirer of your writing and thinking I have encountered, but I may have missed this aspect of your world view.
It’s not an elaborate one yet. I haven’t written on violence yet. I’d say prosecute crimes—which SF doesn’t do—and target recidivists. More than a handful of crimes, and it looks like you’re very likely to commit many more. The separation from society should be commensurate.
Sure, but not all crimes are the same. Zero tolerance smacks of the war on drugs, which to me is silly, but I guess you're talking more about murder and theft...?
Palladium Magazine put out an article with basically the same premise today; is that a happy coincidence/confluence of ideas? If there’s this much interest….
I agree with most of the forward thinking except the part about only retaining a "few green places". In all of the ability to think forward, why not include green space that ensures homes for native wildlife, insects, and plant life which ensures ecological peace for the new inhabitants that want to live in a new concrete jungle?
Not sure if you've written about this one, but I came across this recently ...it is a wonderful counter-example of where you should put a city, and how you should grow it...
Yes the idea is not to plaster it with buildings. Paris has only 6-10 floors per building. You make it 30 stories and you can leave 2/3 of space green.
"moribund" is a pretty strong word when most of San Francisco is energetic and engaging and one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Yes it has problems, as do most other large American cities and there 100% needs to be solutions found, but denigrating it is not helping at all. Offering productive solutions without saying it is a failure is helpful.
I'll edit to say it has one of the most beautiful SETTINGS in the world. :-) And there are definitely parts which are hard to deny are beautiful -- Chrissy Field and the view of the Golden Gate Bridge, many many Victorians around the city, Golden Gate Park, the views from all the hills. "Beauty" also doesn't have to mean arresting visually, but the beauty of the love the people show for their community. And there is an abundance of that in various neighborhoods.
Interesting idea. I wonder how the tax and legal jurisdiction would work.
It is federal land, so I assume that the city of San Francisco has no jurisdiction.
Does the state of California have jurisdiction? Do current residents of Presidio pay California taxes? If so, this would likely kill the idea as Presidio would have California taxes and regulations.
I assume that if it is not in the jurisdiction of California then either the President or Congress could make whatever laws they wanted. They could even exempt federal taxes to make it a tax free zone which would really kickstart development.
Hmm, I don't think that is accurate. In Oklahoma, almost all of cities are built on reservation land.There are federal, state and local taxes in these locales.
According to ChatGPT, there are 1000-1400 permanent residents in Presidio. It is under the jurisdiction of the City of San Francisco and the State of California. Residents are subject to the law and taxes of both.
ChatGPT may be wrong, but if it is correct on this, I think it will be difficult to build a new regulation-free city there. Not sure if this also applies to all federal lands, or just all National Parks, or just Presidio specifically.
Mina, agree with you, and taking it one concept further...look at the green space project called The Gathering Place in Tulsa, Ok. They look a native piece of land and actually improved it! With foresight planning and the desire to do things for the betterment of people, flora, and wildlife; The Gathering Place is a shining example.
The Presidio is also a beautiful oasis in San Francisco, so I think maintaining a decent amount green space would be key. Keeping the most rugged hiking parts with the oldest trees untouched might be nice. For the mixed-use parts of the little city I'd advocate for building it similar to how Ildefons Cerda originally imagined the Barcelona Eixample district, this would further integrate greenspace into each city block.
Remember though that the Golden Gate Park is super close by!
Please also remember also that access to nature is a privilege to those who have the means to travel outside the city in cars. For those that rely on public transportation green space within city is critical and related to health and well being. It’s not just “go somewhere else to find it” if you want to be equitable. Definitely other solutions than removing green space.
True, it definitely has less rugged hiking though
Love the idea of federal land in close proximity to big cities, but totally agree with Daniel that this place is pretty well loved in SF. That's not to say that there couldn't be a few more high-density living options there or in close proximity.
All existing places are pretty loved. That’s the NIMBY argument. But sometimes you have to sacrifice something you like for something better.
I think there's a way to pull it off, there's a lot of land inside the presidio. Some of the best rugged parts can be preserved and the rest built with really smart urban planning to retain green space in the built urban environment.
I think you'd find SF YIMBY's who'd still go to bat to protect the Presidio, but point well taken :)
I dunno about this one. The other ones were fun, and largely "blue ocean" land. This feels like ripping a part of the soul out of SF.
You are mentioning Golden Gate Park across the bridge, but that isn't conveniently accessible to most residents during working hours.
No no, Golden Gate Park is south, inside SF. And it’s big! And accessible during working hours.
there’s also a massive national park north of the golden gate.
I lived in SFBA for two decades, raised my family there and have since left to travel and work in other bits of the world with a bit less tax burden, but it will always be the place I think of and refer to as home. In 3 yrs, my husband & I will return to retire there. We all LOVE the Presidio - best part of the city! - and have volunteered there since our kids were middle school. I love your plan for parking garages on fringes of city & make all very pedestrian friendly. SF is built for this healthy way of living bc is not too big. But whatever urban planners are engaged is critical. Since SF is a beacon of tech & innovation, any city built there should represent such a city concept as well - with as much green & trees woven into it as possible - like Singapore!!
If SF allowed for higher density, it could also have many more green spaces!
This is the location of the star fleet academy in star trek. This seems the most achievable of all your proposals so far.
I hadn’t realized!
What does “zero tolerance for crime” mean to you, Tomas? I am an admirer of your writing and thinking I have encountered, but I may have missed this aspect of your world view.
It’s not an elaborate one yet. I haven’t written on violence yet. I’d say prosecute crimes—which SF doesn’t do—and target recidivists. More than a handful of crimes, and it looks like you’re very likely to commit many more. The separation from society should be commensurate.
Thank you for the sincere reply.
I often think back to this thing I read once: https://www.elysian.press/p/dont-send-addicts-to-prison
Maybe. Scott Alexander recently wrote about crime and says usually reinsertion doesn’t work
Sure, but not all crimes are the same. Zero tolerance smacks of the war on drugs, which to me is silly, but I guess you're talking more about murder and theft...?
Palladium Magazine put out an article with basically the same premise today; is that a happy coincidence/confluence of ideas? If there’s this much interest….
Mark Lutter wrote about this, as I think I mentioned, and this has new impetus because President Trump proposed to build new cities on federal land!
Amazing, very exciting things happening
I agree with most of the forward thinking except the part about only retaining a "few green places". In all of the ability to think forward, why not include green space that ensures homes for native wildlife, insects, and plant life which ensures ecological peace for the new inhabitants that want to live in a new concrete jungle?
Because across the bridge you have a huge national park that can host all these things!
I'm also liking these short bite-sized concentrated articles!
I don't find myself thinking "Right, gotta put aside an hour to read/follow the tangents of Tomas's latest in-depth..."
Then I read a few in a row anyway, like a good page-turner book so.. - wait, oohh, I see what you're doing you crafty rascal... :D
Hahaha
Episodic content, no guilt if you miss one!
Not sure if you've written about this one, but I came across this recently ...it is a wonderful counter-example of where you should put a city, and how you should grow it...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California
I discuss it later!
Assuming the soil is amendable to it, you could build a dozen skyscrapers on that golf course and leave the rest pretty undisturbed.
Was thinking about this, the golf course is such a waste
Yes the idea is not to plaster it with buildings. Paris has only 6-10 floors per building. You make it 30 stories and you can leave 2/3 of space green.
Tomas, building vertically as opposed to horizontally is one of the viable options to retaining the beauty of nature
"moribund" is a pretty strong word when most of San Francisco is energetic and engaging and one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Yes it has problems, as do most other large American cities and there 100% needs to be solutions found, but denigrating it is not helping at all. Offering productive solutions without saying it is a failure is helpful.
As a proud San Franciscan, I gotta say it is NOT one of the most beautiful cities in the world…
It COULD be, but it ain’t.
It certainly is one of the most beautiful US cities, but that bar is low.
I'll edit to say it has one of the most beautiful SETTINGS in the world. :-) And there are definitely parts which are hard to deny are beautiful -- Chrissy Field and the view of the Golden Gate Bridge, many many Victorians around the city, Golden Gate Park, the views from all the hills. "Beauty" also doesn't have to mean arresting visually, but the beauty of the love the people show for their community. And there is an abundance of that in various neighborhoods.
I wouldn't touch Presidio. Why ruin such a beautiful place? Go out to Vacaville like those other futurists where there's more room to grow.
Because it’s worth a trillion dollars, and you have nature a stonethrow away
Interesting idea. I wonder how the tax and legal jurisdiction would work.
It is federal land, so I assume that the city of San Francisco has no jurisdiction.
Does the state of California have jurisdiction? Do current residents of Presidio pay California taxes? If so, this would likely kill the idea as Presidio would have California taxes and regulations.
I assume that if it is not in the jurisdiction of California then either the President or Congress could make whatever laws they wanted. They could even exempt federal taxes to make it a tax free zone which would really kickstart development.
Think Indian reservations. No state taxes or laws.
Hmm, I don't think that is accurate. In Oklahoma, almost all of cities are built on reservation land.There are federal, state and local taxes in these locales.
That may not be true.
According to ChatGPT, there are 1000-1400 permanent residents in Presidio. It is under the jurisdiction of the City of San Francisco and the State of California. Residents are subject to the law and taxes of both.
ChatGPT may be wrong, but if it is correct on this, I think it will be difficult to build a new regulation-free city there. Not sure if this also applies to all federal lands, or just all National Parks, or just Presidio specifically.
Maybe I missed this: Are we talking about building regulation-free cities? Is this even possible?
What are reservations?
Yes, on federal land you can do this. You need a bill in Congress
Agreed. Cities need green space. and the Presidio is unique, very different from Golden Gate Park. Keep it green.
Mina, agree with you, and taking it one concept further...look at the green space project called The Gathering Place in Tulsa, Ok. They look a native piece of land and actually improved it! With foresight planning and the desire to do things for the betterment of people, flora, and wildlife; The Gathering Place is a shining example.
I used to live in Presidio Heights and ran at least once a week through the Presidio. Amazing area.
And I would not say Golden Gate park is close, but I still like your "city" idea. Keep 'em coming!
You do have to pay state taxes if you live in the Presidio. It's not on Mars.
The federal government could change that, the way you don’t pay them if you live in a reservation