This was written in reply to the dialogue between Ed Clark and myself on the HALA proposal to change Seattle’s single family housing ordinances. LINK
Maureen Bean Ui Lassig There is FAR more to the issue than just supplying additional dwelling units per acre. The situation here, in the SF Bay Area, is analogous to Seattle’s. We are hemmed in by the coastal hills on one side and the water on the other. All the economically feasible areas have been built upon, and the only way to increase housing is by increasing density. The NIMBY reaction is predictable and warranted, for the reason you both mention: preservation of “neighborhood.” And that means more than just the housing.
Aside from retaining the diversity, you want to avoid increased congestion. While the former has been achieved here, through the use of selective infill and the encouragement of second units on appropriate lots, the latter is terrible now. Not only have our streets and highways become nearly impassible during commute hours (even with our mass transit systems in place for more than 40 years), there is nowhere for all the additional cars to park when the drivers get home! So we have “parking wars” on many formerly peaceful residential streets. And don’t get me started on the pressure on all other areas of use, such as parks and recreation, schools, hospitals and simple grocery shopping. It is getting bad enough that we are considering relocating. frown emoticon