[CubsFan1060]

"Everyone is different"

I think this is the root of it. You prefer higher density -- and that's great. I'm sure not everyone agrees, but I don't see any reason to take that away. In fact, I think it should be encouraged for those that like it.

The issue, IMHO, is that some folks don't like that and prefer lower density. And a lot of these changes focus on taking that away from them (i.e. changing their current neighborhood).

Also, just a comment on: "It has to create more car dependence and social isolation"

I don't think that's true. I live in a pretty traditional SFH neighborhood. Within a 12 minute bike ride, I have:

* Four grocery stores (Major chains)

* 2 gyms

* Dozens of restaurants

* Several large parks

* 2 home improvement stores

* Several large employers

* Several (non-Starbucks) coffee shops

And lots more. It's certainly possible, with bikes, to have SFH neighborhoods where cars aren't required.

[whimsicalism]

There are lots of less dense places in the US that are not major metros.

Many of the people who are pissed about more density coming to cities only moved to them in the last decade or two, especially on the east coast where white flight only recently reversed.

[bartwr]

I lived in SF for ~1.5y, and it's not NYC, and I did not like it too much, but it certainly has some of the city conveniences and is not a car-hell suburb. (I lived in a building with ~10 units in Castro, which was cool)

But my question remains - how do you scale up your approach to the already-full SF? How do you make it more affordable, as prices are insane due to demand >> supply? Or do you just envision a more sprawled, but similarly dense SF as the solution?