I understand that people who buy into a neighborhood want that neighborhood to freeze in time and maintain for all eternity whatever character it had on the day they bought.

But we should be wholly unsympathetic to that view. It's a reasonable thing to wish for, but it's not a reasonable demand to give in to.

"It's a reasonable thing to wish for, but it's not a reasonable demand to give in to."

This is a brilliant sentiment, and a brilliant quote. It applies in so many conversations...

I just wanted to express my appreciation (and my intention of stealing this quote many times in the future!).

Yes, things change. But I contest the notion that adding more housing to a neighborhood is a magic bullet that will make everyone happy.

Among many issues, the fundamental attractiveness of a particular neighborhood may be tied to low population density.

In which case ripping down the neighborhood and rebuilding makes neither resident Person A nor prospective buyer Person B happy.

No, it won't, but it'll lead to the population as a whole being better off because it will allow more people to live in a very productive area, as well as leaving an out (sell and move) for those who can't stomach the thought of denser housing.

Sooner or later, the US must confront the fact that not everyone can live in a single story ranch house with a big yard in an extremely desirable part of the country, without causing massive sprawl (LA).

And a significant slice of the tech industry must confront the fact that not everyone in that industry can or should cram themselves into a narrow peninsula and a handful of other, mostly coastal, cities.

It does appear that, despite the internet, being in the same place offers some advantages. I'm all for people spreading out to different cities, but realistically, the bay area is going to be the place to be in the US, for the foreseeable future.