This is an extremist position - that I should either live somewhere as dense as NYC or as sparse as the midwest. Moderate density has some of the benefits and drawbacks of both.

However, given that the Bay Area is an "economic powerhouse" the way it is today, I don't accept the argument that it can't continue to be one without drastically increasing its population density.

It's a metro area of 8 million people. That population is larger than many european countries! It's one of the largest cities in the world. If you want the suburban lifestyle, go move to Sacramento.

I'm not saying that -- I'm saying the economy powers change and fighting against it is a losing battle where already disenfranchised groups are the casualties. I think the "I have mine" attitude is deplorable and those people should go have theirs somewhere else.

> I don't accept the argument that it can't continue to be one without drastically increasing its population density.

I don't see how without either limiting the economic growth or becoming a miserable place to live. I did my time in the Bay and will never move back.

As long as the area is an economic powerhouse, people are going to want to move here. The primary countervailing force is the cost of housing. Do you have some other plan for how to keep people away? Because if not, the area is going to get denser, or more expensive to live in, or some of each. Personally I'd rather see it get denser. We have a long way to go before we match SF, never mind NYC.