[brwr]

Can you clarify what you mean by "transit oriented development"? As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore. I don't think it makes sense to make things denser if it's going to be so ugly that no one wants to live there.

[tmh79]

> As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore

That isn't a rule of thumb at all, just your opinion...

I don't think it makes sense to make things denser if it's going to be so ugly that no one wants to live there.

Very rarely, if ever, are buildings "so ugly that no one wants to live there", especially when places to live are as scarce as they are in SFBA.

also, transit oriented development: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development

[CPLX]

> As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore.

Just FYI, people saying things like this is definitely a key part of why us New Yorkers think the Bay Area has literally gone insane.

[throwanem]

You New Yorkers have a unique perspective of your own on such matters! It's a great town, and you folks up there do a wonderful job of making a body feel welcome. But there's too many tall buildings and not enough tall trees for me to ever want to live there, and I can see why people who like SF for what it is wouldn't want it to follow your example, any more than I want Baltimore to.

[gozur88]

You couldn't pay me enough to live in NYC. Those big urban canyons are my idea of hell, and I would really not like to see SF go that direction.

[Zigurd]

You get a heck of a view from above the 10th floor. I'd live there. Opposing dense development near transit seems close to the ultimate NIMBYism.