3 ms·

I agree with that and I'm certainly not advocating that the rest of the Bay get developed as densely as SF. As a city, SF very clearly needs a lot more housing

I agree with that and I'm certainly not advocating that the rest of the Bay get developed as densely as SF. As a city, SF very clearly needs a lot more housing and a transit expansion, maybe even a merger with Oakland as a borough, with greater transit connectivity there and density to match in Oakland. The problem then becomes that the rest of the Bay would most likely get pressured to build more densely as well, just like the metro areas of NYC did. That might ruin the suburb life that you enjoy as the expanding city to the north puts pressure on the surrounding areas.

kylec 10y ago
You are correct, I expect that additional organic growth in all parts of the Bay Area will continue to increase the density, and there's not much I can do about that. However, as that does happen, I would expect that the area would continue to "sprawl" outwards, attracting employers to some of the more outlying areas because office space and employee cost of living are both cheaper, and that these areas would continue to provide the lifestyle I desire. I do, however, push back against articles like this that characterize such sprawl as bad, and that instead of allowing growth and sprawl to happen organically, seek to curb it by lobbying for policy change.