2 ms·
> "Fairly dense" is all you need to vastly improve things in many places. Look at vast swaths of the bay area that are single story detached houses. Mix in some
by dpark 11y ago
> "Fairly dense" is all you need to vastly improve things in many places. Look at vast swaths of the bay area that are single story detached houses. Mix in some 2/3 story buildings in there, and you'd add a lot of supply without going 'full Hong Kong'.
Ok, but I still don't buy your argument. Seattle has a density similar to Rome. San Francisco has a density similar to Milan. Why is Italy cheaper with good public transit? It's clearly not the density, and I don't buy that it's just NIMBY-ism either (though even if so, it's still not density.).
> Also, Milan is about twice as dense as Seattle.
I was looking at the broader urban area. You're right that it is considerably denser if you only look at the 70 square mile administrative area (roughly San Francisco density).
- davidw 11y agoSure, in part Italy is cheaper due to the economy, but it's also because you can build outside of the historic areas to meet demand. And there's decent public transportation. I just don't see any relationship between decent public transportation and things being affordable or not. It's much more closely tied to density: without density, public transportation doesn't work as well.
- dpark 11y agoI think I've just been misunderstanding your point. From your original comment, I thought you were saying that density was responsible for both good transit and affordable housing in Italy. I totally agree that you need density for decent public transit.