[older_guy]

Reality is what we choose to make it through government. Higher density is not inevitable - it is a choice made by urban planning. That applies to employment as well as housing. I see no problem with a new 3 story apartment complex in my neighborhood, and I find the crime argument silly. On the other hand, if we continue to increase the density and population without corresponding improvements to infrastructure (particularly transportation), then the quality of life will decline for those who live here already. That has already been observed by those of us who have lived in the bay area for a long time. The commute time in San Jose has gone from 51.6 minutes in 2008 to 67.6 minutes this year (https://sf.curbed.com/2019/8/16/20808814/san-francisco-commu...). This was in spite of a 6.3% drop in employment in 2009.

Increasing density will actually benefit homeowners more than the status quo, because then their land becomes even more valuable. If you tear down a million dollar house and put up a four unit condo complex each costing $500K, then you essentially double the value. Holding onto a house that nobody can afford has less investment value than converting your land to higher density. The fact of the matter is that people are more motivated by preserving a lifestyle than they are by money.

Of course not everyone agrees on what an ideal lifestyle is, and some people strongly desire higher density. Ultimately voters will decide what type of growth is desirable.

[jhall1468]

Higher density is inevitable in mega-cities. Geographic boundaries are just a apart of reality. I agree that transportation is key to this expansion, but the Palo Alto's and Seattle's of the US only have way way to go and that's up.