A real red herring and irrelevant to the discussion referencing "bad urban planning."
Is any sane person going to resort to applying "good" planning now and wipe out all of the San Francisco Downtown area and a good portion of other residential areas near water? San Francisco is surrounded by water on three sides.
It is not reasonable to even suggest that entire towns and cities (and their infrastructure) be erased or moved to areas where there are no risks.
The best we can do is update constructrion methods and design skills as we gain knowledge and experience.
But nothing can ever be totally safe anywhere.
"Planners" are most of what ails communities and large areas. They are political animals, clueless about the consequences of their social engneering, or any engineering for that matter. Yet they are allowed to sway Councils and Supervisors everywhere, who are even more clueless than they are to pursue truly flawed ideas.
Plenty of good points.
However, I fail to understand how
greedy, self-serving, thoughtless, ignorant
LACK of planning
is inherently
and/OR significantly
BETTER
than greedy, self-serving, corrupt, politicized planning.
You’ve shown us that you don’t even know what a ‘red herring’ is.
I don’t give a damn what happens to Frisco, its a cesspool anyway, but the issue is not the proximity to water; Its building multi-story buildings on fill. Much of the Marina was once a part of the bay, but was filled in with the debris of the ‘06 quake, and then marketed as land to build on.
Don’t cry when thousands die in the rest of those mud based doll houses.