The old “density” versus “preservation of neighborhoods” argument is in the spotlight again here in Sodom-by-the-Bay. Proponents of the former state — correctly — that the only way to build new housing in San Francisco is to build it at a higher density than is currently utilized in most of the city. The neighborhood preservationists have a point as well, that current residents should have some say in how the city (and their part of it) develops…
Manhattan or Phoenix? My preference would be for something in between, but that’s not going to happen in San Francisco. On average, this city is home to about 15,000 people per square mile. There are no more square miles. Therefore, ANY population increase will mean more density. Only three outcomes are possible: (1) population must decrease, or (2) density must increase, or (3) housing costs in the city must grow even more unreasonable than they are now. That’s just the way it is; that’s how cities and real estate values work…
Ultimately, the low-density neighborhoods WILL change, no matter which path the city chooses. It’s inevitable; either there will be more high-density housing or the neighborhoods in question will begin — although it may take a few years — to house a far different and more affluent type of resident, because no one else will be able to afford the buy-in. That “special character” will probably be lost one way or another as it already has been in many areas…
I don’t want to live in a dense urban area where mass transit is the only option. It’s my own preference, and many good and intelligent people do not share it. San Francisco can be a city exclusively for the rich, or it can be a dense, transit-oriented urban core. It cannot, however, be a place of affordable single-family homes with yards. Neither urban planning nor whining about the “good old days” can change this fact. Those who want these things should face the inevitable and consider moving to a place where land is more plentiful and less expensive…
That’s my plan…
