Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”
by tedivm on Friday October 27, 2017 @04:43PM
(#15572083)
There is a huge difference between "lets build our denser high rises in these areas so as to protect our park" versus "lets not build any residential properties in our city at all", and trying to act as if they are the same is horribly disingenuous.
Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”
by compiler-guy on Friday October 27, 2017 @07:18PM
(#15573025)
That’s not the trade off the article proposed, and you will note that the author responded directly with an opinion much different than yours.
The bottom line is that both cities have things they value and they don’t want someone else to tell them what to do. If we are to solve the problem, everyone will have to make sacrifices. Everyone’s neighborhood will need to change. Including golden gate park.
Incidentally, “disingenuous” implies active deception. There nothing like that here. I don’t live in Brisbane or San Fran, and I support Beale every housing initiative I have been exposed to.
High rise condos around Golden Gate park wouldn't affect the usability of Golden Gate Park all that much. It would barely affect the beauty.
Yes, Brisbane ought to build more housing, but what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
And if we want Brisbane to give up its autonomy so that we can cram housing into it, and significantly change the character of the place--and we do!--then we have to be willing to cram housing into other places that will significantly change the character of that place.
As soon as one goes all sacred cow, one loses the game.