That exact same argument can be made about building more high density buildings in SF. "Let's turn one of the most beautiful cities in the world into an urban jungle filled with high rises so that it blocks out the sun."

At some point something has got to give. Building more apartment buildings and decreasing the amount of "open space" to accommodate more housing makes sense.

Building apartments in cities makes sense, both economically and environmentally.

Building anything in the open space in Marin is nonsense and would create an enormous commute problem as well as harm the environment -- both directly and with secondary effects of increased commute emissions.

In the past, I heard the story that BART was blocked in Marin by wealthy NIMBY's who didn't want to share, but just recently I learned this was BS. Turns out BART canceled the Marin expansion because: 1) GG Bridge couldn't take the extra weight of another deck; 2) Building to Marin would have make the whole BART project too expensive at the time, so Marin got cut. Interesting! (Thanks to Bay Curious)

I’ve read that it was San Mateo county pulling out that made it economically unviable to include Marin (as well as disagreements between BART and the GG bridge district about the engineering viability of going across the bridge).

That's right http://www.marinij.com/article/ZZ/20100807/NEWS/100809186

Most european cities are not high rises but they seem to find ways to pack more people in. Amsterdam, for example, has loads of 5 story buildings. There is a big difference between a 2 story single family home and a 4 story duplex or apartment as far as how many people.

I think this is a common misconception people have, that that's the choice.

Go to Paris. SF needs Parisian-level density. This means six-story buildings, a few on each block. That's easily 10x the density of single-family homes, which if you spend any time in western SF, dominate the landscape.

All that space for lawns, garages, 3rd and 4th bedrooms, basements, etc. really adds up.

The choice isn't between lower Manhattan and the Outer Sunset, it's between that or Paris. Paris is just fine.

Also, incidentally, SF condo prices aren't even that bad relative to prevailing wages. It's just that everyone's so hung up on having a SFR (actual house), and the clickbait media loves talking about SFR prices to get pageviews.

The median price for a 2BR condo is over a million dollars. Even with median SF wages, I wouldn't think of that as affordable.

1. Do you have a citation on this? I don't think that's true based on my own looking around.

2. Even if that is true, it's not as bad as it looks. There are many, many couples here with incomes in the 200-300k range, as almost all families are two-income, even with kids. Considering a condo costs 4x what many families earn, it's not far out of line with other places in the US.

The reality is that SF is a primo job market, in terms of variety of positions, type of work, and tons of high-income options. If you're part of a dual-degree couple where both people want serious careers, the argument rapidly becomes, where else would we go? It's a lifestyle choice; if you want that kind of access, it's going to cost a lot, but you need to work your ass off, BOTH of you, pay a ton for housing. If you want a slower quality of life, less noise, or want to be a one-income family, probably better to live somewhere else.

I actually don't have much of a problem with this. It's like this in every country, though I'll grant the regulatory climate in SF does make it somewhat self-inflicted.

Building apartments actually PROTECTS open spaces and protects our parks.

High density living is by far the most efficient way to use land.

For every apartment building that is made, that is 100 LESS urban sprawl creating suburban houses that we need.

High density living frees up massive amounts of space that could instead be used for all the awesome things that people love.

If built right, these high-rises can be beautiful, and provide welcome shade in summer.

(Disclaimer: I live in New York.)

"Mahattanization" is used as 4 letter word in local city council meetings and letters to the editor.

Is there something wrong with Manhattan (or Chicago, or Tokyo, etc.)?

No, but it attracts specific demographics and (forcefully) repels others. To find the kind of single-family houses you see in abundance in SF within 20-30 minutes of the center, you'll be an hour or more outside of urban NYC. People just want to have their cake and eat it too: they want a city vibe and short commute, but also a yard and a garage and an unobstructed view, etc.

And other's want to have their cake and eat it too; cheap housing in one of the hottest job markets, in an interesting city. It's like the business paradox; cheap, fast, good, pick one.

You want cheap housing? Come to the Midwest. You want an ultra high paying job? Stay in Silicon Valley/Seattle etc.

It's like the model complaining that she's too skinny for her jeans.

Locals arbitrarily believe that all buildings should be sort of old, squat and humble looking, that this is a universal value, and that everyone else has to make whatever sacrifices are necessary for it.

> If built right, these high-rises can be beautiful, and provide welcome shade in summer.

“The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco.” -- Jack London

Actually, more commonly attributed to Mark Twain, but apparently he did not say it either.

Go here, to northeast, where it's +95F in the summer, and you can actually swim in the ocean! :)

Not really. Preserving open space does far more then just make life pleasant for people. Expanding housing in a place that has already displaced most of the areas natural habitat helps reduce sprawl. I'm not saying I like the idea of making SF more crowded. Personally I think its time we started looking at rural-sourcing.

how about "2nd tier" city sourcing

I hadn't heard that term before, but yeah, something like that as well.

> That exact same argument can be made about building more high density buildings in SF. "Let's turn one of the most beautiful cities in the world into an urban jungle filled with high rises so that it blocks out the sun."

That doesn't make sense because I want to live there and I can't afford to live there unless we do that.

Of course, another option is to impose rent controls on all housing to eliminate the insane market and then rationally plan how much additional space to build.

Central planning works sooo well.

there is a big difference between paving over west marin, and allowing communities near transit, the 101 and aterials to densify. Also, realistically speaking, if density controls were lifted in marin, the vast majority of changes would be subdividing mansions into 4plexes, without changing the building envelope.

> Oh yes, lets turn one of the last Bay Area counties that isn't urban sprawl into another vast wasteland of concrete and strip malls. Redwoods are overrated. Wetlands are just swampy land that need an In-n-Out. Mt.Tam would be so much nicer if it had some restaurants and gift shops.

You just described my impression of what Marin County already is. No exaggeration. The thing about Marin is that all the sprawl and strip malls are hidden behind trees and hills, but aside from the Federal park lands it's really no different than most of Alameda County or San Mateo County.

That said, Marin is Marin. I'm a homeowner in SF and I absolutely support increased development here. What Marin does or doesn't do is irrelevant to whether SF needs to densify.

Along 101 there's definitely a lot of strip malls behind a row of tress - that's basically what Corte Madera and parts of Strawberry are. However, 35% of Marin is preserved open space, and that doesn't include the Marin Agricultural Land Trust - where farmers in (generally North and West) Marin agree to preserve the farm land in exchange for immediate payments to make improvements to their farms.

There's a unique history in Marin surrounding open space and conservation, including the Marincello development and the actual creation of "national recreation areas." If you're interested, I'd encourage you to check out "Rebels With a Cause" ... there really is something special in Marin on this issue. http://rebelsdocumentary.org

That said, I totally agree that SF needs more density :)