3 ms·

There's a difference between the major park in a major city that is used by thousands of people a day, and that shitty town of 5k people that doesn't want anyon

by tedivm 9y ago

There's a difference between the major park in a major city that is used by thousands of people a day, and that shitty town of 5k people that doesn't want anyone else to move in. Shit, there are more people in GGP right now than there will be all week in Brisbane. At the same time it's not like Brisbane isn't building. They just aren't building housing, because they want to build commercial so they can get the taxes without having to get the population increase.

compiler-guy 9y ago
Yes there is a difference. The difference is that Golden Gate Park is near the author's home, and Brisbane isn't. High rise condos around Golden Gate park wouldn't affect the usability of Golden Gate Park all that much. It would barely affect the beauty. Yes, Brisbane ought to build more housing, but what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. And if we want Brisbane to give up its autonomy so that we can cram housing into it, and significantly change the character of the place--and we do!--then we have to be willing to cram housing into other places that will significantly change the character of that place. As soon as one goes all sacred cow, one loses the game.
- tedivm 9y ago
  There is a huge difference between "lets build our denser high rises in these areas so as to protect our park" versus "lets not build any residential properties in our city at all", and trying to act as if they are the same is horribly disingenuous.
  - rhino369 9y ago
    You wouldn't really be protecting the park. Just a view from the edge of the park.
  - compiler-guy 9y ago
    That’s not the trade off the article proposed, and you will note that the author responded directly with an opinion much different than yours. The bottom line is that both cities have things they value and they don’t want someone else to tell them what to do. If we are to solve the problem, everyone will have to make sacrifices. Everyone’s neighborhood will need to change. Including golden gate park. Incidentally, “disingenuous” implies active deception. There nothing like that here. I don’t live in Brisbane or San Fran, and I support Beale every housing initiative I have been exposed to.

by tedivm 9y ago

compiler-guy 9y ago

Yes there is a difference. The difference is that Golden Gate Park is near the author's home, and Brisbane isn't. High rise condos around Golden Gate park wouldn't affect the usability of Golden Gate Park all that much. It would barely affect the beauty. Yes, Brisbane ought to build more housing, but what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. And if we want Brisbane to give up its autonomy so that we can cram housing into it, and significantly change the character of the place--and we do!--then we have to be willing to cram housing into other places that will significantly change the character of that place. As soon as one goes all sacred cow, one loses the game.

tedivm 9y ago
There is a huge difference between "lets build our denser high rises in these areas so as to protect our park" versus "lets not build any residential properties in our city at all", and trying to act as if they are the same is horribly disingenuous.
- rhino369 9y ago
  You wouldn't really be protecting the park. Just a view from the edge of the park.
- compiler-guy 9y ago
  That’s not the trade off the article proposed, and you will note that the author responded directly with an opinion much different than yours. The bottom line is that both cities have things they value and they don’t want someone else to tell them what to do. If we are to solve the problem, everyone will have to make sacrifices. Everyone’s neighborhood will need to change. Including golden gate park. Incidentally, “disingenuous” implies active deception. There nothing like that here. I don’t live in Brisbane or San Fran, and I support Beale every housing initiative I have been exposed to.