4 ms·
But why put the onus on a small village when the city of SF itself is unwilling to allow normal city development & construction. If anyone are assholes, it's t
by pizzetta 9y ago
But why put the onus on a small village when the city of SF itself is unwilling to allow normal city development & construction. If anyone are assholes, it's the city of SF itself --who, by the way, typically rally behind "we don't want to Manhattanize SF." If SF is unwilling to do their part, why would we expect a small village compensate ofr the city's unwillingness to support development?
- deathanatos 9y agoI (as someone who supports building more in the Bay Area) don't want the onus to be just on Brisbane. I want it to be on the whole Bay Area, and all of its townships. That one of the major issues I think the Bay Area faces: each township passes the buck to the next: "Why should we build housing, when township X is completely unwilling to do so?" Yes, and they say the same thing about you! With this attitude, nothing will ever get built, anywhere.
- pizzetta 9y agoI think we should recognize that SF and Brisbane are not in the same league. Anything Brisbane would build would be a drop in the bucket. SF can potentially add a hundred thousand units --two hundred thousand units, no problem without changing the character from village to full-blown city. 4,00 units more than doubles the pop of Brisbane. If we added 200,000 units to _only_ SF, that would add 25% to their pop. Another 200,000 would add 20% to SJ. The Problem is SF, Oakland and SJ --localities which can/could build if they wanted to but simply don't.
- wbl 9y agoIt also increases the built area of Brisbane.
- closeparen 9y agoOakland seems to be approving residential towers at a decent clip. I'm not sure it belongs in the same breath as SF and SJ.