> ...why would you want to destroy a nice city full of historic buildings... I say this as someone who adores the interior architecture of the 1960s through th

> ...why would you want to destroy a nice city full of historic buildings... I say this as someone who adores the interior architecture of the 1960s through the early 1980s: Have you been in the housing out on the west-northwestern part of the city? I've had the opportunity to visit many friends out in those districts. Some of the single- and multi-family homes out there are really nice and totally worth preserving. A not-insubstantial slice of them are either nothing special, or are slowly mouldering because of landlords who refuse to do even the legally required maintenance unless forced to by The City. Hell, due to the lack of market pressures, even the once-gorgeous historic multi family dwelling in which I rent grows more dirty and poorly maintained by the month. If you want to see what a conversion of sections of the city to apartment towers would look like, go down to FiDi on a non-holiday weekday around lunch time. Notice the abundant sunshine and foot traffic. :) > ...just to cram more people in? The point is that the crammming would stop. Because anyone in their mid-twenties or older would be able to reasonably afford a place with one actual bedroom per occupant, packing 2+ people into a bedroom and having landlords declare that what should be a living room or a dining room is a bedroom would stop.