I probably wrote that a little quickly. To clarify (1-3) the broader issue is to ensure an even comparison. Typical debates around this issue show very nice hi

I probably wrote that a little quickly. To clarify (1-3) the broader issue is to ensure an even comparison. Typical debates around this issue show very nice historic examples of low-rise apartments and at best mediocre high rise. Originally the density comparisons of jane jacobs who this argument derives from were arguing (very rightly) for the retention of heritage areas like grenwich village against turning into terrible 60s estates. However when comparing new with new and in todays context the result is quite different. In general terms the quality of new build high rise tends to be better than new build low rise and the streets for new build low rise dont look much like your photo (though i wish they could) (4) im all for reducing parking. But apart from a few places (which should focus on higher densities imo) SF is not approaching grenwich village levels of walkability and will need more cars. (5) not sure which part you disagree with. Any developer (big enough to be able) will tell you theyd rather build high rise. Comparative hosuing prices to other cities show that there ia huge pent up demand in SF. In hong kong it started from the other direction - huge amounts of public housing were built to ensure employers didnt have to pay workers too much. (6) 'perimeter-blocks' over a few storeys tend to strongly overshadow low levels and streets while large upper storeys get good sun all the time. Towers (or rather slender, well separated towers - like vancouver) have shadows which move around more and distribute the overahadowing more