4 ms·

Are you suggesting that we should have 1.6 million people live in the Mission district in the next few years? Currently, there are about 50,000 people living in

Are you suggesting that we should have 1.6 million people live in the Mission district in the next few years? Currently, there are about 50,000 people living in the Mission district. I think they should build new apartment complexes in the Mission, including the one at 16th and Mission. I also understand that there is pushback from community groups to any development in the area. However, I don't think it makes sense or is possible to increase the population of the district by 32 times over in the next few years. There are plenty of other sites through out the Bay Area where we appropriate transit orient development can and should occur.

conanbatt 9y ago
The demand is right there. If the supply increaseses, it will be snatched. How deep that rabbit hole goes is unknown, but I'm more than willing to wager its in the millions. Just by doubling density in san francisco you would get that. Not to mention that the small housing issue extends to the whole bay area.
- mateo411 9y ago
  The population of San Francisco is between 800,000 and 850,000. If you doubled the density in SF then you would have enough housing for 800,000 to 850,000 additional people.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Triple the density then. Renters will come, I guarantee.
landryraccoon 9y ago
> There are plenty of other sites through out the Bay Area where we appropriate transit orient development can and should occur. I think you have to name names when making claims like this. I'm open to the suggestion that we should "build somewhere else", but it's pretty disingenuous to say that without specifics. It seems to me everywhere in the bay is pretty closed to new housing development, and every city is pointing fingers at every city saying "why don't you build there instead"? Where exactly can we put all these new buildings? Personally I think the answer is "everywhere". Every single neighborhood should accept some level of increased density.

conanbatt 9y ago

The demand is right there. If the supply increaseses, it will be snatched. How deep that rabbit hole goes is unknown, but I'm more than willing to wager its in the millions. Just by doubling density in san francisco you would get that. Not to mention that the small housing issue extends to the whole bay area.

mateo411 9y ago
The population of San Francisco is between 800,000 and 850,000. If you doubled the density in SF then you would have enough housing for 800,000 to 850,000 additional people.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Triple the density then. Renters will come, I guarantee.

landryraccoon 9y ago

> There are plenty of other sites through out the Bay Area where we appropriate transit orient development can and should occur. I think you have to name names when making claims like this. I'm open to the suggestion that we should "build somewhere else", but it's pretty disingenuous to say that without specifics. It seems to me everywhere in the bay is pretty closed to new housing development, and every city is pointing fingers at every city saying "why don't you build there instead"? Where exactly can we put all these new buildings? Personally I think the answer is "everywhere". Every single neighborhood should accept some level of increased density.