[inamberclad]

Vertical is the answer. California needs to get over it's aversion to high rise apartments and invest a in flourishing downtown residential system instead of relying on a 1950's mindset of home ownership.

The current system is deliberately exclusionary and self preserving, but it will also fail the state in the long run. That, sadly, seems fine to many people.

[xmprt]

People also need to learn that vertical doesn't mean high rise apartments. There's a big gap between single story detached houses and high rise apartments. Townhomes, condos, row houses, and so on can all fill that gap.

[ryandrake]

Vertical still means “close proximity to neighbors” which is what a lot of people object to when it comes to urban living. I will never again voluntarily live in a building with a shared wall or ceiling.

[xDetoursx]

Same here. This is exactly what I don't want. Sure you can cram a lot more people into a smaller space and make it cheap if you want, but it causes more problems than it solves. Maybe in some futuristic utopia this would work, but not in this reality.

[LexGray]

I do not see that happening in California without some virtually magical building material. California is wary of earthquakes, noise, toxics, fire, and crime. Perhaps other states will create cheap high density paradises to suck the population away.

[wenc]

Here's a list of high rise buildings in a very dense, very seismically active country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_structures_in_...