[wpietri]

One, I don't think asking for some modest thought and compassion in the face of glib, facile plans is the exact problem SF has. But thanks for sharing your feelings so dramatically; I hope it was cathartic for you.

And two, I think things are working out reasonably well for SF. The US has a history of absolutely terrible attempts at grand redevelopment. Read up on our "urban renewal" waves, for example. San Francisco has mostly avoided or repaired that sort of urban planning idiocy, and I think it would be monumentally dumb to let another bubble lead to big "solutions" to problems that are transitory.

If you and others would like to indulge that third-world dictator tendency to dramatic urban planning, might I suggest finding someplace else in the Bay Area? San Francisco is less than 1% of the land; there's no particular reason to do it here. Or, better, show us how it's done in, say, Texas, which has plenty of space to develop that nobody is currently occupying.

[abritinthebay]

> San Francisco has mostly avoided or repaired that sort of urban planning idiocy

If you think that then I have a bridge to sell you. A nice International Orange one.

SF is a hive of planning idiocy, from dumb height laws, to 1:1 parking requirements, to terrible permit application processes. It's practically a model for planning idiocy at this point.

[wpietri]

You do realize that "that sort" restricts the meaning of "urban planning idiocy" to the kind I mentioned in the previous sentence, right?

Assuming you do, then I guess this is just more spleen venting. Anonymous spleen venting of course; I imagine you wouldn't act this way in person: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19