Did you read the part in the article about "super commuters"? I used to have about a 4 hour commute when I lived in the bay area. All the cars and gridlock cause a lot of pollution. If the area had built up and built more urban islands where you can go for a week or more without really needing to get in a car, then there would have been less pollution.
> less crowding and noise
If you don't like crowds, go live in the suburbs, but don't force the entire damn region to be one big suburb.
> less crime
What makes you think that? A lot of crime is driven by poverty and desperation. Density allows a greater variety of housing to be available, which reduces poverty.
> more nature
Why? Hong Kong is one of the densest cities in the world, but it's surrounded by nature.
> cleaner
Tokyo is another of the densest cities in the world, and is purportedly spotless. There is literally an "SF poop map" [0].
There is an ongoing problem with small crimes damaging quality of life. When Newsom was mayor he set up a reporting system with a 311 front end reachable by phone or web where problems could be reported. This led, among other things, to the problem of trash bins being raided and dumped out being identified.
The poop map has not been that useful as there is limited push for public access toilets and it is not all that accurate but rather more of a map of where people complain about poop which is subtly different. Some public toilets have been installed and more are planned, but these are mostly for touristy commercial areas.
The map itself is mostly political fodder. Conservatives regularly post it with status updates and rage on local internet forums and conservative political forums as evidence that San Francisco is being ruined by policies that are soft on crime. Oddly enough this has not yet convinced the people of San Francisco to vote in representatives who are against Trans people and seek to limit access to abortion.
Ah yes, all those people just disappeared into the aether.
Literally a matter of, "well if I don't see any of it, it doesn't exist." Like the idiots who oppose dense urban development because of "the environment".
Indeed. San Francisco is meant to be a preserve for the upper middle class. Development can happen somewhere poor people are allowed, like Texas, or the inland desert areas of California no one with money wants to live in, that look like Nevada.
Well I'm happy about open space preservation, but imo that's really tangential to facilitating urban development. A proper investment in urban density (land use) and public transport in the last 50 years would have resulted a vastly superior situation for both economic growth and improved quality of life.
But the bay is in America so that was a long shot.
Certainly when you walk the street of San Fran today (while you are stepping over the junkies and dodging piles of human feces) the first thing that comes to mind is how great it worked out. This feeling is only reinforced when you get back to your car to find the windows smashed and your bag stolen.
The Bay Area was crowded already but for the last 10 years (until maybe the pandemic) all new companies have been flocking to SF. It doesn't make it any better.
