3 ms·
San Francisco basically has done exactly what you suggest. Most city residents don't believe that anything should be built (or if it should, it definitely shou
by reality_czech 11y ago
San Francisco basically has done exactly what you suggest. Most city residents don't believe that anything should be built (or if it should, it definitely shouldn't be in their neighborhood.) http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/04/sfs_population_is_growing_way_faster_than_its_housing_stock.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/04/sfs_population_is_g... As a consequence, it is "focusing on quality of residents, not quantity" (the "quality" that they're looking for is the green stuff).
- hugh4 11y agoAnd San Francisco is a nice place. So what's the problem? Sure, not everyone who wants to live there can afford to live there, but that's always the way it is in desirable places, otherwise we'd all live in Vanuatu or something.
- jessaustin 11y agoSan Francisco is a nice place. It will probably get nicer, as more and more grubby natives are replaced by nice presentable dot-commers. It's just that some people object to that process. Including, seemingly, people who live and vote in SF. They believe they can have a city that limits overall housing supply while simultaneously growing housing supply for the homeless, for the working poor, and for everyone else. San Francisco is a nice place.