[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by left of center

We definitely have a ton of land, but there is a more limited amount of land in desirable areas. Building short and squat means we burn up land faster and gentrification then pushes more people out of their homes and into further, fringe neighborhoods.

Building taller and denser will help keep people from getting pushed out of their homes, and overall keep housing prices affordable in the city. Clearly, we aren't going to be building high rises everywhere (nor should we), but in certain instances it should be encouraged, particularly anywhere near CTA/Metra stations (TOD), as well as along major commercial intersections.

Lol, while global warming worst case scenarios are thankfully a little while off (or maybe not, depending on how quickly we curb our usage of fossil fuels), we probably are poised to be a net beneficiary of rising sea levels. Of the 10 largest cities in the US (measured by metro population), 7 are coastal and the 2 that arent (Dallas and Atlanta) are in the South and may become unbearable to live in. Being on the shores of one fifth of the world's freshwater is also a huge benefit.

While I personally support gentrification, I think you have to keep in mind what I said earlier: policies of downzoning and development restriction are inherently pro gentrification and will cause displacement. As a society are we prepared to go to the mat to push that issue, or is racial and income segregation preferable? I tend to think that gentrification is the only reasonable way to break up racial and income segregation, but that's just me. I mean the vast majority of anti-growth nuts like Carlos Rosa are stupid enough to think that their anti-growth policies slow gentrification so perhaps we should all be pushing for RS-3 zoning in literally all of Chicago until the entire city is nothing but mcmansions on 3 or 4 lots.