Article: "Hitting that number will require building more everything: Subsidized housing. Market-rate housing. Homes, apartments, condos and co-ops. Three hundred and fifteen apartments on prime parcels of towns like Lafayette."
I feel weird sort of agreeing with the wealthy home owners in outlying small towns. Why should the state adopt a "more of everything" policy? The American and California model of low-density suburban building is completely broken and "more of everything" is basically saying more of the same. A higher density approach with the building concentrated in the centralized cities and perhaps some of the "towns" surrounded by city (Menlo Park or Brisbane).
I mean, it's obvious false that "more of everything is the only way to meet the goal". Of course, you could build that much housing in higher density urban areas.
I feel weird sort of agreeing with the wealthy home owners in outlying small towns. Why should the state adopt a "more of everything" policy? The American and California model of low-density suburban building is completely broken and "more of everything" is basically saying more of the same. A higher density approach with the building concentrated in the centralized cities and perhaps some of the "towns" surrounded by city (Menlo Park or Brisbane).
I mean, it's obvious false that "more of everything is the only way to meet the goal". Of course, you could build that much housing in higher density urban areas.