Significant and important point right here

If the politics truly aren't there, that's the job of elected officials to compromise down from that proposal, not ours

I think my perspective is that it's not a planner's job to craft policy based on subjective preferences like shade or euphemisms like neighborhood character. It's to identify the higher level goals and then propose a regulatory environment that best facilitates those goals (using persuasion!)

But when I hear you say higher densities can negatively impact one's home and then reference your personal aesthetic preferences as support, you are doing a disservice to a profession that should be making a policy-based case for reforms not equating aesthetic concerns with policy objectives.

Very familiar with the local political process. I helped push through some of the most progressive land use reforms in the country in Sacramento on planning commission. Compromise is sometimes necessary to getting reforms passed...

Exactly. I'm a planner too and the job is not about applying equal weight to all preferences. It's about crafting policy that prioritizes the the most important objectives. Climate and affordability are simply more important than aesthetic preferences like shade--act accordingly!

Only social engineering sorry

That’s right

Skill issue

These are the high points! Don't ask what happened between those conveniently selected points in time!

Part of why these 20 years apart years are fascinating is because they are essentially generational housing peaks. The nadirs?

1995: 7.9k units, 8% attached
2011: 2.6k units, 26% attached

Which is most likely going to look like a block of largely single family homes with maybe one 4-6plex and a smattering of ADUs.

Right, totally makes sense. Plus the concern that if you allow missing middle you will get it on every lot has always been unfounded. I am quite curious though about what this analysis would yield on a hypothetical neighborhood like that envisioned in Sac's reforms...