Even if it was, the principle that because a building didn’t fall down for a while it needs to remain forever is not one worth defending. Take pictures.

Century old isn’t historic sorry, and old shit isn’t worth preserving for the 1% to enjoy and continue the march of gentrification.

And each one could kill you in a minute :-)

Saltimus is a country mile away from Optimus wtf

With the price of housing in the Bay area, why are there any houses there? It should all be medium density minimum

Parking isn't the issue, public transport is

And that urban density is significantly more environmentally friendly than sprawling development

[removed]

Poor baby has to suffer the fact that people born after him need somewhere to live.

A few years ago I flew ANZ from Perth to LA with a stop in Auckland, couldn't fault a single part of the flight everything was perfect from the pre-boarding to the in flight services. The Auckland -> LA leg was on a 787 Dreamliner too which was cool.

We won't allow developers to destroy century old historic neighborhoods by building rental units. Go somewhere else if you can't afford to live here or go out to the suburbs so you aren't living beyond your means. That way you can still make payments on your BMW's and Audis...when you should drive a beater in order to save for a down payment on a home.

We flew to New Zealand with our one-year-old (paid for a seat for him) and upon boarding the flight crew moved us to a spacious center row behind a bulkhead and attached a bassinet to it. Our baby slept almost the entire flight. It was amazing. Air New Zealand was definitely my best flight experience, hands down.

their

​

you mean the consumers? of course consumers are going to only choose the options that are best for them. which is why having more options gives residents more options to optimize over.

Free market only knows how to make money. Improving people’s lives is not in their agenda.

>Wonder what qualifies as low income in Cali though.

It doesn't really matter. The Bay Area needs housing units en masse. After 300,000 new units have been built, we can assess whether there needs to be more targeted construction, but up until now a hyperfocus on whether the 20 new units of X project will be "low-income enough" has missed the point that 20 new units doesn't mean diddly squat, at any income level. It's the massive crushing scarcity of the entire market that's squeezing everyone.

Gatekeeping NIMBY crusaders have until now successfully derailed the conversation into the ditch of nitpicking over insignificant disputes. The real goal was to avoid large-scale changes in the housing market entirely. Fortunately it seems they have finally been thrown back.

Which historic neighborhood did you buy in? I didn't think so.

Let me guess...Gen z?

[removed]

California NIMBYs keep racking up L after L and it's honestly delicious.

Didn't even know that show existed. Will watch it tonight. Thanks.

Mr. Plow yes that's my name that name again is Mr. Plow

If people want to live in high rise, its great urban planning. The idea that housing needs to be segregated into blocks comprise of only one style is absurd, and the market has expressed deep desire to get rid of it.

>In San Diego, developers can build eight story buildings without parking 25 blocks into neighborhoods.

​

​

bummer its not 10 stories. housing for people > housing for cars

There is also the small matter of funding -- not quite "anyone"

I worked with a fresh-out-of-prison white supremacist. He talked about how he plows and does snow removal on the weekends. I suggested he name his plow “White Plower.”