undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdavidw9y ago0 comments

There's no need for that. Build a little bit up in a lot of places, and you'll start meeting the demand. In a few places, you can build up more, but look at, say, Paris. The density doesn't come from massive skyscrapers, but by being fairly dense all over.

Also: SF's refusal to build is having repercussions elsewhere, like here in Oregon where there is a steady stream of people who can't afford a house for their family in the bay area. In turn, they're pricing out people here, and so on.

Also, there's nothing 'extreme' about the population density of San Francisco. Density in Paris is 21,000/km^2 and in SF, 7,124/km^2

0 comments

geebee9y ago

I agree, in a way, since I really want to see the bay area engage in meaningful construction (along with expanding BART and other types of public transportation).

But if SF's refusal to build is having repercussions in Oregon, and all SF needs to do is build… well, then shouldn't Portland be able to solve its problems by doing the same thing?

Or has NIMBYism morphed into NIMSOTPNW (not in my section of the pacific northwest)?

davidwOP9y ago

It's a countrywide problem. Portland has some serious NIMBY issues of its own. For instance:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/03/charlie...

It'd probably be best if it were fixed in several places at once. For instance, Bend is a town of 80K people, and it could (and should) add a bunch of density. But if all that just goes to soaking up 1000's of "refugees" from California, it's not as effective as it could have been. In other words, California can produce many more people looking for a cheaper, better place than Bend can hope to absorb, so it'd be nice if the Bay Area fixed some of its own mess, as well as Portland, Seattle, Austin, Boulder etc...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse