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.
Even if we are now getting to building some TOD, there is a large apartment complex being built next to the light rail station 1 block from where I live for example. It is all residential. All the office parks built in the past here in Silicon Valley were not centrally located, no real transit to them. The TOD contains no offices and so people still for the most part drive to work. And you don't see anyone putting up a big office building in downtown Mt. View, downtown Palo Alto, downtown San Mateo, near the Caltrain, all major office parks are far from Caltrain, HP HQ (Page Mill Rd), Facebook HQ (near Dumbarton Bridge), Google HQ (north of 101 Mt. View), Yahoo HQ (north of 101 Sunnyvale), Moffett Towers (north of 101 Sunnyvale), Oracle HQ (Redwood Shores), EA (Redwood Shores), Metro Center (Foster City), America Center (San Jose near 237), Brocade HQ (San Jose near 237), the large offices on Great America Pkwy, Apple HQ (Cupertino), Apple's new HQ, none of these are anywhere close to Caltrain, you want to take public transit to work what I've seen is you either have to take slow light rail after you take Caltrain, or take a slow shuttle from the Caltrain station. Either way it adds so much time to the commute people don't want to take it. (I will admit that there are new office buildings in downtown Sunnyvale near the Caltrain)
If VTA for example wants people to take the BART to San Jose, they really need to put, or encourage someone to put, some office buildings in Milpitas or Berryessa when it gets there, so it is a convenient commute. I might be willing to drive to Caltrain or BART, I'm less willing to take a shuttle from Caltrain or BART to work, it is just not that efficient timewise.Especially since most companies only run a few shuttles a day, versus trains that run every 15,20, 30, or 60 minutes. Ideally I think you would have both, offices and apartments near the transit stops.
Yes, I absolutely agree with this, too.
I visited Germany and Austria several years back and they figured out how to do urban planning many decades ago. (i.e. put high density homes/businesses/retail near train/bus/transit lines). I don't know what the heck our problem is. It's really not that difficult.
Innsbruck, Austria has suburban type densities, yet it has good mass transit because everything is planned properly. (i.e. apartments are on train/bus lines, not randomly scattered throughout the city).
A recent article on Bloomberg.com mentioned the self-inflicted housing woes Los Angeles has created for itself. An apropos quote from the article:
Homebuilders have delayed, downsized or dropped plans for projects as residents thwart development using regulations such as the California Environmental Quality Act, established in 1970 to require environmental-impact reports, said Chris Thornberg, principal at Beacon Economics LLC, a Los Angeles-based research company.
“When you open it up like this, you just give people the chance to argue every stupid little point until you finally acquiesce and come up with some compromise that’s not even close to meeting the level of demand,”
The result, in addition to a complete dearth of housing that people can actually afford is this:
The number of unpermitted housing units in Los Angeles may be as high as 70,000, according to City Councilman Paul Koretz.
Kind of wondering why Southern Newark area is at risk for sprawl, nothing but an industrial area down there. Dublin is just going to explode in the next ten years however.
Dublin is exploding already driving down 580 from Livermore once you cross the border the bare hills to your right give way to homes. Pacific Homes is trying to get Doolan canyon rezoned to build thousands of homes there. I am so glad that Livermore's city council sticks to the master plan of no building on the hills. Too many other cities have had their city councils bought and sold by the developers.
Dublin is exploding already driving down 580 from Livermore once you cross the border the bare hills to your right give way to homes. Pacific Homes is trying to get Doolan canyon rezoned to build thousands of homes there. I am so glad that Livermore's city council sticks to the master plan of no building on the hills. Too many other cities have had their city councils bought and sold by the developers.
The problem is people look at this in isolation. In any one location, it seems appropriate not to build on the hills. But then in the more dense areas, people don't want more traffic in their neighborhoods, etc. Everyone only cares about THEIR priorities and almost no one looks at the needs of the whole. And then everyone complains about crazy rents and home prices and the high COL in the Bay Area, yet they don't connect the dots to see how their preferences/attitudes contribute to it.
The problem is people look at this in isolation. In any one location, it seems appropriate not to build on the hills. But then in the more dense areas, people don't want more traffic in their neighborhoods, etc. Everyone only cares about THEIR priorities and almost no one looks at the needs of the whole. And then everyone complains about crazy rents and home prices and the high COL in the Bay Area, yet they don't connect the dots to see how their preferences/attitudes contribute to it.
Yes there is the NIMBY factor but really there has to come a point where we should stop building because isn't already crowded enough. And landlords and people who already own homes don't complain about rents and home prices and both parties have a vested interest in not over building.
Yes there is the NIMBY factor but really there has to come a point where we should stop building because isn't already crowded enough. And landlords and people who already own homes don't complain about rents and home prices and both parties have a vested interest in not over building.
I don't think it's nearly crowded enough in many parts of the Bay Area. If what you're talking about is "crowded" on freeways and transit...that's really related to the development issue at hand here. It's packed on the freeways and on trains from further away because people are forced to move further and further away (sometimes with ridiculously long commutes to jobs)...Denser development in the inner parts of the Bay Area (the "core", if you will) would lesson the load on the roads and transit further out as more people could then live closer to said core (where development should be centered).
I actually don't think that much would really have to be changed. I would be in favor of more highrise development around all transit access points in the inner bay area. All "downtowns" up and down the peninsula, especially at the major stops (Milbrae, San Mateo, Hillsdale, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale), should have more dense development. Yes, some of these places have it, and are planning it...but it isn't nearly enough. All BART stops in the inner Bay Area should have a lot more mixed development right there outside of the stops. And yes, some of the stops have some of this already, but many are sorely lacking in this.
And unfortunately, much of what is being developed is still typical suburban housing...2-3 stories, max. For example, what's being developed at the Hillsdale caltrain station (the old racetrack) is really not all that dense. Yeah, it is a net positive of housing since there was previously no housing there, but it could have made a much larger impact with more densely-built housing.
The beauty with all of this is that by embracing this type of development, we would still be able to preserve the suburban element outside of these target areas (e.g. most of Palo Alto, San Mateo, etc. would not have to change at all). We would not have to develop in the hills. There is enough land right now in the inner Bay Area to improve the housing situation without needing to develop more in the exurbs or in the hills (neither of which being something I think we should or have to do). All we have to do is think smartly about how and where we develop with the land we already have developed. And think towards the future.
It will never get better if we keep pretending that the entire Bay Area outside of SF and parts of Oakland/Berkeley should be filled with only SFH...We need to embrace reality and plan smartly. I don't think things would have to change that much to make a difference (which is great for NIMBYs).
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 10-21-2014 at 05:13 PM..
I think what's needed is simply more extensive public transportation. The husband and I work in SF, but don't want to live in the city.
Unfortunately, relying on the most affordable/frequent transit option, BART, severely limits our options when it comes to where to live. We'd love to live in Larkspur or Danville, and we can afford it, but we'd need a car.
We're trying to avoid buying a car, because although we can drive, we both feel uncomfortable driving since we haven't driven much..we're both from cities where owning a car is more of a liability than an asset.
This limits our options to not only a handful of cities (most of which we find too sketchy), but we have to live within walking distance from a BART station.
I'm sure we're not the only ones. This leads to a lot more people crammed in a handful of places, or having to drive and contribute to traffic.
Your wish list (to live in Larkspur or Danville) is pretty incompatible from a land use perspective. Those places are not dense and designed around car usage. They will never have frequent or useful transit, the distances are too far.
A recent article on Bloomberg.com mentioned the self-inflicted housing woes Los Angeles has created for itself. An apropos quote from the article:
Homebuilders have delayed, downsized or dropped plans for projects as residents thwart development using regulations such as the California Environmental Quality Act, established in 1970 to require environmental-impact reports, said Chris Thornberg, principal at Beacon Economics LLC, a Los Angeles-based research company.
“When you open it up like this, you just give people the chance to argue every stupid little point until you finally acquiesce and come up with some compromise that’s not even close to meeting the level of demand,”
The result, in addition to a complete dearth of housing that people can actually afford is this:
The number of unpermitted housing units in Los Angeles may be as high as 70,000, according to City Councilman Paul Koretz.
People are using CEQA to come up with bs reasons not to be developed. It needs to be reformed. The environmental regulations are the problem. The problem is that people are ysing the environment as a justification of their nimbyism.
I don't think it's nearly crowded enough in many parts of the Bay Area. If what you're talking about is "crowded" on freeways and transit...that's really related to the development issue at hand here. It's packed on the freeways and on trains from further away because people are forced to move further and further away (sometimes with ridiculously long commutes to jobs)...Denser development in the inner parts of the Bay Area (the "core", if you will) would lesson the load on the roads and transit further out as more people could then live closer to said core (where development should be centered).
I actually don't think that much would really have to be changed. I would be in favor of more highrise development around all transit access points in the inner bay area. All "downtowns" up and down the peninsula, especially at the major stops (Milbrae, San Mateo, Hillsdale, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale), should have more dense development. Yes, some of these places have it, and are planning it...but it isn't nearly enough. All BART stops in the inner Bay Area should have a lot more mixed development right there outside of the stops. And yes, some of the stops have some of this already, but many are sorely lacking in this.
And unfortunately, much of what is being developed is still typical suburban housing...2-3 stories, max. For example, what's being developed at the Hillsdale caltrain station (the old racetrack) is really not all that dense. Yeah, it is a net positive of housing since there was previously no housing there, but it could have made a much larger impact with more densely-built housing.
The beauty with all of this is that by embracing this type of development, we would still be able to preserve the suburban element outside of these target areas (e.g. most of Palo Alto, San Mateo, etc. would not have to change at all). We would not have to develop in the hills. There is enough land right now in the inner Bay Area to improve the housing situation without needing to develop more in the exurbs or in the hills (neither of which being something I think we should or have to do). All we have to do is think smartly about how and where we develop with the land we already have developed. And think towards the future.
It will never get better if we keep pretending that the entire Bay Area outside of SF and parts of Oakland/Berkeley should be filled with only SFH...We need to embrace reality and plan smartly. I don't think things would have to change that much to make a difference (which is great for NIMBYs).
Some people really freak out about the idea of allowing bona fide high rises / skyscrapers near the transit hubs, because ... gasp ... we may actually end up looking a bit like ... LA!!!
Yes there is the NIMBY factor but really there has to come a point where we should stop building because isn't already crowded enough. And landlords and people who already own homes don't complain about rents and home prices and both parties have a vested interest in not over building.
People will keep coming so long as the jobs market is hot. Limiting housing has not and will not halt the crowding. Meanwhile, limiting housing has pushed up prices for everyone while diffusing infrastructure demand over a broad geographic area; we'd be better off with a lot more development along BART and CalTrain and the Capitol Corridor.
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.
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.
