Why can't more housing be built in West San Mateo County? (San Francisco: to live, safe)

[arnavvr]

I was just driving down I-280 the other day and noticed the immense amount of land west of the freeway all the way to the coast that is unoccupied. I see no reason why more housing could not be built there, and the amount of land would easily let some serious housing supply be added to the market. What are your thoughts?

[roadwarrior101]

So, we pave over every last piece of open space we have here in the Bay Area? If you want that, go to LA where it is endless sprawl. Our open spaces are already disappearing rapidly.

Would prefer us to do more infill projects. There are still lots of communities where it looks far more suburban and less dense than needed. Closer to public transportation, no need to destroy more open space, etc.

[davdaven]

Challenging topography, plus the presence of the San Andreas Fault. We should concentrate development further to the east, in already existing communities with flatter (i.e., more walkable) topography, to minimize sprawl. That being said, there's probably an opportunity to build more housing along the 280 corridor in San Mateo County in the future. Said development should be done in such a way that sprawl is minimized. I suspect that would entail more development in places like Los Altos Hills and less development in places like La Honda.

[humboldtrat]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

So, we pave over every last piece of open space we have here in the Bay Area? If you want that, go to LA where it is endless sprawl. Our open spaces are already disappearing rapidly.

Would prefer us to do more infill projects. There are still lots of communities where it looks far more suburban and less dense than needed. Closer to public transportation, no need to destroy more open space, etc.

Maybe we could plow under all of Golden Gate Park in SF and replace it with high density high rise buildings. I'm sure we could squeeze in about 250,000 people, perhaps more, and the public transportation is already there. Who needs all that empty space anyway?

[basehead617]

Reservoirs/watershed and steep hills..

[edsg25]

Topography severely limits access from the coast to the bay side of The Peninsula. If one road crossing the mountains were blocked, several miles or more would have to be driven to get to the other side. How about getting to San Francisco? That is difficult enough as is. All access is by Hwy 1....which is in no sense a super highway. One can’t be widened due to business along the....not to mention that a wider, more super highway would destroy the very coastal environment that makes the place attractive in the first place. Plus the distance from the Pacific to where the land starts rising is narrow enough that you could in no way build a N S freeway which, even if it could be built, would also be an e-mail environmental disaster.

And all that is just automotive related. Public rapid transit is not feasible to build.

[gnomatic]

Originally Posted by arnavvr

I was just driving down I-280 the other day and noticed the immense amount of land west of the freeway all the way to the coast that is unoccupied. I see no reason why more housing could not be built there, and the amount of land would easily let some serious housing supply be added to the market. What are your thoughts?

I prefer more open space to more urban sprawl. That's just my personal preference though.

Some of the land along the coast in San Mateo county is protected (deliberately) from being bought up and turn into more development for the rich.

https://openspacetrust.org/what-we-do/

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

So, we pave over every last piece of open space we have here in the Bay Area?

We have millions and millions of undeveloped acres of land. Id we develop housing here than in the central valley like what's happening now.

The Bay Area wants to have its cake and eat it to. On the one hand, we want to enjoy the spoils of the tech economy but on the other hand the region doesnt want to build anywhere near the amount of housing needed for workers to live.

If you want that, go to LA where it is endless sprawl. Our open spaces are already disappearing rapidly.

Hardly. We have plenty of open space all over and its not shrinking.

Would prefer us to do more infill projects.

Those wind up being 99% for rich people.

[arnavvr]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

We have millions and millions of undeveloped acres of land. Id we develop housing here than in the central valley like what's happening now.

The Bay Area wants to have its cake and eat it to. On the one hand, we want to enjoy the spoils of the tech economy but on the other hand the region doesnt want to build anywhere near the amount of housing needed for workers to live.


Hardly. We have plenty of open space all over and its not shrinking.


Those wind up being 99% for rich people.

Exactly. I'm not advocating for getting rid of all of our open spaces, but I do think that the amount of open space that we have is quite ridiculous considering the fact that we are in midst of a housing crisis. West San Mateo County and Marin County could be built up significantly.

[Dave Coe]

Doesn't make any sense to consider building on terrain that is seismically unsafe and has ecological value when there is so much room to build in the eastern half.