[ScottBurson]

Okay, maybe it shouldn't be exactly there. But we have to start building more vertically on the Peninsula -- we just have to.

And I understand fully that it's going to take a sea change in local sentiment before that can happen.

[tired_man]

You want to build vertically in an earthquake prone area?

You need to move a bit east, friend. There _is_ going to be an earthquake.

[ItsDeathball]

Earthquake resistance isn't an immediate win for low-density housing. Tall buildings can be safer in an earthquake than single-family homes and low-rise townhouses, both due to a lower structural resonance frequency and the ability to spread the cost of advanced safety features (like mass dampers) across more tenants.

[tired_man]

Yeah. We're going to disagree here.

Let's revisit this after the next big earthquake to see which buildings survived the event in a habitable condition and monitor which areas are without utilities the longest.

[ScottBurson]

This is ridiculous. It's well-known how to build taller buildings in an earthquake-safe way -- San Francisco has plenty of them, as does LA.

Anyway, we don't need to go to 40 stories to be "vertical". The vast majority of residential structures around here are 1 or 2 stories. Even 8-story buildings would start to make a difference.

Of course, they would add to traffic...