4 ms·

yeah, perverse incentives like preserving natural beauty and avoiding untenable population density edit: but if you build larger living spaces in places that n

• IndianAstronaut 11y ago
  Building up is a perfect balance between preserving beauty and nature and price. The reality is that the real blight on nature is the single family homes which are built on forests and farmland.
• CyberDildonics 11y ago
  > untenable population density Visit Hong Kong and see what population density really looks like.
• fancyketchup 11y ago
  > avoiding untenable population density San Francisco is already at an untenable population density. You can have a livable city by going light or going dense, but being in the middle is what kills you (which is where SF is right now). The light scenario is your classic suburbia, where you drive across the street. Dense is New York City, with many amenities in walking distance and copious public transportation. The middle (San Francisco) doesn't have enough people to support good public transit (buses/trains stopping every 5 minutes or less) 24 hrs a day, but has so many people that the roads are gridlocked. SF needs to thin out or get dense if it wants to survive. What force do you think will decimate the population by 50%?