3 ms·

IMO, the bay area is well beyond carrying capacity. The last time I stayed in a hotel there, the water out of the shower was a bare mist. How many people shou

• myko 4y ago
  The only reason it is beyond capacity is because the ability to expand capacity has been blocked. The bay is nowhere near maximum possible density.
  • km3r 4y ago
    "The hotel had bad water pressure so the Bay is full". I very much doubt SF is limited in expanded by water pipe capacity. Total water use, sure, but people use less water in a city then the suburbs anyways so it will be a net savings of water.
  • linuxftw 4y ago
    Traffic, transit, and the water and sewer systems disagree.
• thebradbain 4y ago
  The Bay Area has a whole is nowhere near carrying capacity, what? We "stop" where it is natural to, like any other place in human history: lack of resources, lack of space*, there's better places to move to, etc. And if the only thing holding back the Bay Area's development is artificial zoning laws -- we are certainly not at its "natural" equilibrium. While CA has had its generational water supply issues, only 10% of it is used for residential purposes; 90% of it is used for agriculture. Adding more people in SF, or Palo Alto or Berkeley, does not put special strain on CA versus anywhere else. Not to mention, single family homes often consume _much_ more water per family than those in apartments or condos (yards, many bathrooms, etc). *Lack of space, for what is a _city_, is not "it's too populated here for me to have a backyard without paying a ton of money"