Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
You remind me of those people on SSP who were seriously advocating destroying San Francisco's charm in order to make sure we can accomodate all the hordes of people who wish to move there currently (to the current version of SF, mind you). That's frankly nonsense of the first order. There's no need to always shoot for more and more density. The goal is to have a pleasant, functional, sustainable, appealing urban environment, not to cram the most people per square foot just to win data dick-measuring contests on internet forums.
|
Who exactly is advocating "destroying san francisco's charm" and who is doing that just for "data dick-measuring contests"?
What I see on SSP are people who actually live in SF, who advocate for increased density in appropriate areas (underdeveloped locations in neighborhoods that are already dense and well served by transit...you know, empty lots, old auto body shops, warehouses, single story commercial buildings, etc) because the city is in a housing crisis that is causing people to get pushed out unless they're wealthy.
People want to live in SF, and they're coming whether there's enough housing or not. So we should build more housing. And in a city like SF, that means increased density. And SF's charm doesn't need to be destroyed at all in order to build the necessary amount of housing...well, unless you consider midrise and highrise buildings to be inherently offensive, i guess.
edit: wait i think i remember one example of a guy who said it would be a good idea to completely bulldoze the sunset district and replace it with highrises. That's crazy, and most people don't agree with stuff like that. And it would never happen anyways, unless Generalissimo Trump orders it during his 25th term as grand emperor of the universe or something.