[pmwhite]

In the SF Bay Area, the East Bay may relieve growth pressure to some degree. But fundamentally that can only go so far. If we cannot figure out how to develop wisely along the transportation spine of 101/Caltrain/ElCam, then we are pretty much doomed. Replicating a failing model in other places is likely to be a vast sprawling failure, rather than a success.

[lliamander]

What constitutes a failure vs. a success? Even if we[0] permit limitless high-density housing, there's a limit to the number of people an environment[1] can hold. Pushing an environment to the limit of it's carrying capacity strikes me as a risky proposition.

[0]I say "we", but I am not a resident of the bay.

[1]by "environment" I mean not just air, water, physical space etc., but also infrastructure, good govenance, and other public goods.

[pmwhite]

To oversimplify the issue a bit, it boils down to which you believe is more auspicious for both the planet and humankind: (1) a mix of housing with more dense housing, or (2) a mix of housing with more suburban single family dwellings.

While there are many arguments for #2, I believe most of those arguments are more emotional than real. In fact, in the world of many young dual income families on the SF peninsula specifically, lots of families spend approximately zero time in their yards.

While I recognize that individual families should, of course, have the freedom to splurge their resources on dwellings that are underutilized, as a matter of social policy, it is foolish to promote a suburban lifestyle as some kind of ideal when it turns out the reality is very different.

(Due to a family health issue, I once had a year where I needed to be available at home, but I did have MUCH time to garden. It was shocking how extremely rarely most of my neighbors' yards were used. Even the majority of yards of families with children were unused, both weekdays and weekends.)