3 ms·

There is no trade off between climate change and housing. Those are entirely separate things. SFO is way too hung up on its past and the citizens living withi

There is no trade off between climate change and housing. Those are entirely separate things. SFO is way too hung up on its past and the citizens living within need to get over themselves and allow “evil” developers to tear down all the old crap and build up. They live in a city. Shit changes. It is astonishing how many two or three level buildings exist even within the most dense part of the city. Even more amazing is how even 5 minutes away from market street exists two story houses with garages in front. Seriously. It isn’t historic. It’s just old crap. Tear it down. Build up. Only gonna work if government can tell all the existing residents to fuck off and allow more development.

stale2002 8y ago
I'd actually argue that it is the opposite of a trade-off. The more houses that are built down town, the less urban sprawl will exist. One of the biggest contributors to climate change is everything that comes with urban sprawl, and high density housing fixes that. A basic example of the problems that urban sprawl causes is more transportation pollution. (IE, people who live near work are less likely to drive. Total average driving could be cut in half)
i_am_nomad 8y ago
Governments should work for the people, and specifically, for the people they govern. Telling “existing residents to fuck off” falls somewhat short of that.
- rdlecler1 8y ago
  Which people? The people lucky enough to get there first?
- Karishma1234 8y ago
  That begs the question of which people ? Only the homeowners ?
Karishma1234 8y ago
I have never argued it is mutually exclusive. What I am saying is that climate change is a don't care term when it comes to Bay area. Worrying about climate change and carbon footprint of bay area is like worrying about low viper fluid when your car has lost its break. Technological revolution spearheaded by bay areas has saved millions of trees in last 3 decades have having few more million people in bay area will help us completely transform the world's sustainability.

stale2002 8y ago

I'd actually argue that it is the opposite of a trade-off. The more houses that are built down town, the less urban sprawl will exist. One of the biggest contributors to climate change is everything that comes with urban sprawl, and high density housing fixes that. A basic example of the problems that urban sprawl causes is more transportation pollution. (IE, people who live near work are less likely to drive. Total average driving could be cut in half)

i_am_nomad 8y ago

Governments should work for the people, and specifically, for the people they govern. Telling “existing residents to fuck off” falls somewhat short of that.

rdlecler1 8y ago
Which people? The people lucky enough to get there first?
Karishma1234 8y ago
That begs the question of which people ? Only the homeowners ?

Karishma1234 8y ago

I have never argued it is mutually exclusive. What I am saying is that climate change is a don't care term when it comes to Bay area. Worrying about climate change and carbon footprint of bay area is like worrying about low viper fluid when your car has lost its break. Technological revolution spearheaded by bay areas has saved millions of trees in last 3 decades have having few more million people in bay area will help us completely transform the world's sustainability.