Well written article, but I'm baffled by the decision to produce maps in which land is coloured blue and water green - the direct opposite of the convention used by every other map in existence. This really threw me when I first saw the Boston map (though I'm sure anyone familiar with the geography of the city would interpret it correctly immediately)
How much do we know about the actual environmental downside of like a marginal unit of land reclamation in a more or less median scenario, irrespective of idiosyncratic big downsides like the wetlands case? Or is it just not especially constructive to generalizing at this level of resolution due to highly place-specific geographic and ecological factors?
As someone who has spent the past 35 years living in Hong Kong, Japan and now Singapore, I was especially interested in mentions of Asian countries' land reclamation. The environmental regulation explanation makes a lot of sense, because as the writer noted, the environment mostly serves the economy across Asia.
Google pointed me to a handful of Singapore land reclamation maps, and I highly recommend the historical novel "The Great Reclamation" by Rachel Heng.
Great concept, but in a nation where it’s often difficult, if not impossible to construct public works that are two orders of magnitude less environmentally intrusive (e.g highways, pipelines, desalination, etc) the endeavor just seems so hopeless
Check out some of the other sources of the quality of land that is being reclaimed. New York after hurricane sandy returned to its 17th century shape after flooding,
I'm confident that adjustments to environmental regulations can open up land for residential, industrial and commercial use. In SF Bay the proposals in this article take us in the wrong direction. We should be reclaiming SF Bay as a world class fishery. As a side benefit, that would also put us on a road to re-establishing a coastal fishery, There are, nonetheless, good opportunities for expanding housing on SF Bay without reducing the. size of the Bay. A good place to start would be the East Bay Shoreline between Richmond and Martinez. Miles and miles of land with great views, good climate and access to the recreational opportunities on the Bay.
True, expanding the. Bay as a fishery does not provide the sudden real estable profits of filling in the Bay and wetlands, but we can get those from existing shorelines as well as a socially and environmentally valuable aquatic resource. No doubt, housing is a real crisis, but globally the destruction of aquatic resources is a bigger problem.
There are many things we can learn from China. Stewardship of the marine environment may not be one of them.
The question is, are land and building owners in the world's most expensive cities interested in new plots of land being built nearby, reducing their value? This may be a greater barrier to land reclamation than environmental restrictions.
Comprehensive article but, sorry, did I miss the part where the risk of flooding from increasingly common extreme weather events is addressed? It would seem far more prudent to actually address the risk to existing infrastructure rather than create more exposure.
Also, a quibble perhaps, but “reclamation” makes the activity sound like we’re taking back what’s rightfully ours. Makes sense if you’re talking about brownfield sites but the locations addressed in the article are naturally under-water or wetlands. In that case, we aren’t “reclaiming” we are terraforming.
In 1970s most ports near cities closed thanks to containerisation as the new ships needed bigger deeper harbours out of town with bonus of less clogged roads.
The closed ports meant large amounts of inner city land became available cheaply without need for reclamation.
Probably a partial additional explanation for halt in reclamation. Great article as always thanks.
An excellent piece; however, the lede needs a minor correction. The line "Chicago’s Northerly Island was filled in from Lake Michigan to complete Daniel Burnham’s 1909 plan of the city." should read "Chicago’s Northerly Island was filled in from Lake Michigan as part of Daniel Burnham’s 1909 plan of the city."
Burnham envisioned several offshore island/parks, of which Northerly Island was the only one completed. You can see an overview from his plan here:
Well written article, but I'm baffled by the decision to produce maps in which land is coloured blue and water green - the direct opposite of the convention used by every other map in existence. This really threw me when I first saw the Boston map (though I'm sure anyone familiar with the geography of the city would interpret it correctly immediately)
How much do we know about the actual environmental downside of like a marginal unit of land reclamation in a more or less median scenario, irrespective of idiosyncratic big downsides like the wetlands case? Or is it just not especially constructive to generalizing at this level of resolution due to highly place-specific geographic and ecological factors?
Nice job. Do you have the Boston map for Singapore?
As someone who has spent the past 35 years living in Hong Kong, Japan and now Singapore, I was especially interested in mentions of Asian countries' land reclamation. The environmental regulation explanation makes a lot of sense, because as the writer noted, the environment mostly serves the economy across Asia.
Google pointed me to a handful of Singapore land reclamation maps, and I highly recommend the historical novel "The Great Reclamation" by Rachel Heng.
https://thefunambulist.net/magazine/17-weaponized-infrastructure/37341-2
https://kawan.kontinentalist.com/making-a-map-of-land-reclamation-in-singapore/
Great concept, but in a nation where it’s often difficult, if not impossible to construct public works that are two orders of magnitude less environmentally intrusive (e.g highways, pipelines, desalination, etc) the endeavor just seems so hopeless
Check out some of the other sources of the quality of land that is being reclaimed. New York after hurricane sandy returned to its 17th century shape after flooding,
https://www.discovermagazine.com/hurricane-sandy-was-new-yorks-self-inflicted-calamity-2858
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/07/13/sandy-took-back-land-reclaimed-lower-manhattans-developers/
There is a big problem with flooding on reclaimed land as a natural disaster trend.
Why not just densify existing cities? San Francisco could definitely increase the size of its buildings in the SOMA area etc.
I'm confident that adjustments to environmental regulations can open up land for residential, industrial and commercial use. In SF Bay the proposals in this article take us in the wrong direction. We should be reclaiming SF Bay as a world class fishery. As a side benefit, that would also put us on a road to re-establishing a coastal fishery, There are, nonetheless, good opportunities for expanding housing on SF Bay without reducing the. size of the Bay. A good place to start would be the East Bay Shoreline between Richmond and Martinez. Miles and miles of land with great views, good climate and access to the recreational opportunities on the Bay.
True, expanding the. Bay as a fishery does not provide the sudden real estable profits of filling in the Bay and wetlands, but we can get those from existing shorelines as well as a socially and environmentally valuable aquatic resource. No doubt, housing is a real crisis, but globally the destruction of aquatic resources is a bigger problem.
There are many things we can learn from China. Stewardship of the marine environment may not be one of them.
This was a wonderful article and made me think about a topic I had never really thought about.
The question is, are land and building owners in the world's most expensive cities interested in new plots of land being built nearby, reducing their value? This may be a greater barrier to land reclamation than environmental restrictions.
Comprehensive article but, sorry, did I miss the part where the risk of flooding from increasingly common extreme weather events is addressed? It would seem far more prudent to actually address the risk to existing infrastructure rather than create more exposure.
Also, a quibble perhaps, but “reclamation” makes the activity sound like we’re taking back what’s rightfully ours. Makes sense if you’re talking about brownfield sites but the locations addressed in the article are naturally under-water or wetlands. In that case, we aren’t “reclaiming” we are terraforming.
This is a great argument for much of https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
In 1970s most ports near cities closed thanks to containerisation as the new ships needed bigger deeper harbours out of town with bonus of less clogged roads.
The closed ports meant large amounts of inner city land became available cheaply without need for reclamation.
Probably a partial additional explanation for halt in reclamation. Great article as always thanks.
An excellent piece; however, the lede needs a minor correction. The line "Chicago’s Northerly Island was filled in from Lake Michigan to complete Daniel Burnham’s 1909 plan of the city." should read "Chicago’s Northerly Island was filled in from Lake Michigan as part of Daniel Burnham’s 1909 plan of the city."
Burnham envisioned several offshore island/parks, of which Northerly Island was the only one completed. You can see an overview from his plan here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnham_Plan_of_Chicago#/media/File:Burnham_1909_chicago_plan.jpg