So I’m for more building in the Bay Area and in SF. I’m for a denser SF, denser downtowns and business districts of the many Bay Area cities.
...But, you have s point. Some activists want to steamroll any and everyone. They want to go into residential neighborhoods and remake them into SoMa or Van Ness; they're often not saying, yes build in my SoMa, The Mission BkYd, no, they're saying, hey you over there with the yard, we wanna build over there! There are lots of areas prime for infill. You don’t have to go disturbing traditionally single-family-home neighborhoods and reshape them into your image.
I'm saying don't force people to change the char of their neighborhoods. If it's dense now, don't try to make it into single-family-homes. If it's single-family-homes, don't try to turn it into multi-family-housing units.
I'd say that's mostly reasonable, with some exceptions. Some BaRT stations are hemmed in in tight places and it would make things horrible. But overall, generally for a plurality of stations 6-10 in the city, 4-8 in the 'burbs.
People only say that when things go their way, otherwise the claim all kinds of things. Tyranny of majority or it was the boomers' fault, or homeowners interests, among other things.
If you want to have more people in the same area then the density has to increase somewhere. You can’t increase the number of households without somewhere becoming more dense then it was.
...But, you have s point. Some activists want to steamroll any and everyone. They want to go into residential neighborhoods and remake them into SoMa or Van Ness; they're often not saying, yes build in my SoMa, The Mission BkYd, no, they're saying, hey you over there with the yard, we wanna build over there! There are lots of areas prime for infill. You don’t have to go disturbing traditionally single-family-home neighborhoods and reshape them into your image.
reply