New Series: Silicon Valley Traffic (and housing) Woes (San Mateo, Mountain View: 2014, crime)

[jade408]

Silicon Valley Business Journal did a really extensive series on SV gridlock, development policy, housing shortage, commute time and everything else.

I am currently reading through, but I thought the interactive map here was really great, did you know 32% of people who live in SF commute more than 45 minutes?!?!? Palo Alto has 3X more jobs than housing units.
Silicon Valley's best and worst commuting cities - Silicon Valley Business Journal

Full series here:
Silicon Valley gridlock: Potholes on the road to growth - Silicon Valley Business Journal

These problems are a ticking time bomb for the region! If we don't work out the housing supply issue (near jobs) and alternatives to driving to work, we've got issues!

[gnomatic]

Originally Posted by jade408

Silicon Valley Business Journal did a really extensive series on SV gridlock, development policy, housing shortage, commute time and everything else.

I am currently reading through, but I thought the interactive map here was really great, did you know 32% of people who live in SF commute more than 45 minutes?!?!? Palo Alto has 3X more jobs than housing units.
Silicon Valley's best and worst commuting cities - Silicon Valley Business Journal

Full series here:
Silicon Valley gridlock: Potholes on the road to growth - Silicon Valley Business Journal

These problems are a ticking time bomb for the region! If we don't work out the housing supply issue (near jobs) and alternatives to driving to work, we've got issues!

It's not just a housing issue. It's also an schooling issue. A lot of people I know put up with a crappy commute for the school district for their kids.

Housing alone isn't going to solve the problem, they need the proper infrastructure to support the new residences as well.

[ketch89]

So I went to my first city council meeting here in Mountain View last month. I used the public comment time to say essentially - "Hey, we have a massive housing crisis, we need to build this development at least a few stories taller. It's in a place where it won't shadow anything, so we need to take advantage and put in more units." The ensuing discussion was extremely disheartening, they just don't care if people can't afford to live in their city. Building taller than three stories is tantamount to saying you support communism or something... I wish the poor from outlying cities like Morgan Hill or Gilroy would flood the council meetings in Mountain View and Palo Alto in protest.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by ketch89

So I went to my first city council meeting here in Mountain View last month. I used the public comment time to say essentially - "Hey, we have a massive housing crisis, we need to build this development at least a few stories taller. It's in a place where it won't shadow anything, so we need to take advantage and put in more units." The ensuing discussion was extremely disheartening, they just don't care if people can't afford to live in their city. Building taller than three stories is tantamount to saying you support communism or something... I wish the poor from outlying cities like Morgan Hill or Gilroy would flood the council meetings in Mountain View and Palo Alto in protest.

I went to a San Mateo meeting last week, about a proposed 8 story development that was requesting a density exemption in the middle of downtown San Mateo. The public outcry was that the building was too big.

Meanwhile on the next block is a 15 story building.

And then people complained about the amount of parking. The parking ratio was 1.5 spots per unit and it is within a 10 minute walk (hitting every traffic light) of Caltrain and 1 block from some of the busiest Samtrans routes. And seeing that downtown SM is pretty startup happy these days, quite a few companies are in walking distance. Including mine 2 blocks away.

At least people did agree it was a good place for a housing development.

[calicoastal]

San Mateo seems to be pushing for more density where it makes sense, like near CalTrain and shopping districts. There is quite a bit of development going on in the city right now. I think the development on Central Park is very touchy because people want it done right as it is in a very prime location. I feel the extra scrutiny is justified in this case.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by calicoastal

San Mateo seems to be pushing for more density where it makes sense, like near CalTrain and shopping districts. There is quite a bit of development going on in the city right now. I think the development on Central Park is very touchy because people want it done right as it is in a very prime location. I feel the extra scrutiny is justified in this case.

I think getting a good building is important. (And an attractive one) but 8 stories isn't out of scale, considering neighboring blocks have tall buildings.

I'd like to see a transportation management district created for downtown, the amount of parking considering the location feels very high. As I was talking to my coworker about this, if you have a car and you need parking, you aren't going to try and live somewhere where parking is at a premium, if there are dozens of alternatives nearby. Why assume everyone will bring a car. They will if you provide for it. They won't if it isn't planned for, you'll just pull a different demographic.

[peninsular]

Originally Posted by ketch89

So I went to my first city council meeting here in Mountain View last month....
The ensuing discussion was extremely disheartening, they just don't care if people can't afford to live in their city. Building taller than three stories is tantamount to saying you support communism or something...

I don't think this is communism, in fact, in my opinion, this is very much capitalism talking. If you own property in a desirable area, building in it means more supply. Which leads directly to the value of your property not increasing as fast as it could. Plain and simple.

[calicoastal]

Originally Posted by peninsular

I don't think this is communism, in fact, in my opinion, this is very much capitalism talking. If you own property in a desirable area, building in it means more supply. Which leads directly to the value of your property not increasing as fast as it could. Plain and simple.

I don't feel it is plain and simple. New construction can lead to an increase in demand that outweighs the new supply, through gentrification, increased business activity, improved city services, and so forth. It needs to be done right, though, for example, increase density around business districts but keep neighborhoods intact, retain historical landmarks to keep the city's appeal, and so on.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by peninsular

I don't think this is communism, in fact, in my opinion, this is very much capitalism talking. If you own property in a desirable area, building in it means more supply. Which leads directly to the value of your property not increasing as fast as it could. Plain and simple.

Agreed. As mentioned, Palo Alto has 3x more jobs than housing units. Doubling the supply would barely put a dent on demand. But it would mean that today's $1M home won't appreciate to $2M in 5 years.

No one is advocating tearing down existing housing, but there are plenty of areas of town (across the whole bay area) that could be used a lot more efficiently.

[sonarrat]

To put Palo Alto in perspective, it gains more population during the day due to commuting, on a percentage basis, than Washington, DC. That's right.. our nation's capitol, which is rife with crime and poverty and attracts wealthy commuters from multiple other states, has a higher percentage of workers living there than Palo Alto does. Meanwhile, Palo Alto is considered a destination, and almost anyone would choose to live there if they could, but the supply is just impossibly small. That gives you a sense of their priorities. Only the sybaritic few can afford to live there because there are lots of high-paying jobs, but the city aggressively resists new housing projects. The few that happen are easily absorbed by the pent-up demand from foreign investors with deep pockets, which doesn't help matters.