U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-28-2013, 09:55 AM
 
4,070 posts, read 3,102,933 times
Reputation: 5620

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Trails View Post
Nope! I need my garden and fresh air. At least a quarter acre is most tolerable. A better arrangement would be about a 2500 square foot home on an acre. Then you can stretch out and relax!
Oh I agree with this. I have about 2500 square feet plus about 800 square feet of storage but I have almost two acres of land. I have more square footage than I need but I bought the place primarily for the location and land. Land is the most valuable asset and that is why humans have been fighting over it for 10,000 years and developers crave it in the 21st century.

I am just not one of those people who has total faith in the corporate-government paradigm for supplying goods and supplies to people. I saw too many hiccups in that paradigm when I lived just outside Boston due to deteriorating infrastructure caused by disinvestment due to government corruption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-28-2013, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Katy-zuela
4,852 posts, read 9,000,179 times
Reputation: 2364
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
2) You can't build big campuses in SF either, because office space availability is low and nobody wants to allow any more office space to be built either.
This is what happens when you treat a major city as a suburban bedroom community and the suburban bedroom community as a major city.

What is wrong with office buildings? It would be preposterous to build the suburban corporate campus of tech companies such as Google, Apple, et al. in Downtown San Francisco instead. Corporate campuses are the antithesis of environmental "Green" initiatives since they require large tracts of land, massive landscaping, and promoting auto-centric pollution over walkable grids, attractive plaza streetscaping, and commuter bus/train usage.

Oddly in Houston, corporate campuses are an exception not the rule since skyscrapers in major business districts are preferred. This is not true in neighboring regional cities such as Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and generally in medium-level metros in America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2013, 03:39 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,850,771 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown View Post
This is what happens when you treat a major city as a suburban bedroom community and the suburban bedroom community as a major city.

What is wrong with office buildings? It would be preposterous to build the suburban corporate campus of tech companies such as Google, Apple, et al. in Downtown San Francisco instead.
Google's NYC office is a 5+ acre, 15+ floor behemoth of an office building. You can't build THAT in San Francisco either, and you'd need a few of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2013, 04:10 PM
 
1,380 posts, read 1,889,079 times
Reputation: 2384
Regarding sf housing, if you owned a small and aging $900,000 property, you probably wouldn't want new housing built either. It would absolutely ruin you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2013, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,698,541 times
Reputation: 26671
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown View Post
This is what happens when you treat a major city as a suburban bedroom community and the suburban bedroom community as a major city.

What is wrong with office buildings? It would be preposterous to build the suburban corporate campus of tech companies such as Google, Apple, et al. in Downtown San Francisco instead. Corporate campuses are the antithesis of environmental "Green" initiatives since they require large tracts of land, massive landscaping, and promoting auto-centric pollution over walkable grids, attractive plaza streetscaping, and commuter bus/train usage.

Oddly in Houston, corporate campuses are an exception not the rule since skyscrapers in major business districts are preferred. This is not true in neighboring regional cities such as Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and generally in medium-level metros in America.
Salesforce.com was planning to build a huge SF campus. Instead they just bought more floors in the highrise they are in. Supposedly google is going to by the land salesforce claimed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top