"Westfield confirms $600M expansion to feature ShowPlace ICON theater in 2017, high-tech garage this year" (San Jose: sales)

[darkeconomist]

Westfield confirms $600M expansion to feature ShowPlace ICON theater in 2017, high-tech garage this year - Silicon Valley Business Journal

Westfield, which is currently 1.5 million square feet, will reach 2.2 million square feet in size when the expansion is completed. In addition to the Bloomingdale's and new theater, it's also expected to welcome dozens of new shop spaces to be constructed toward the front of the mall, along Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Oh dear god. So much for all the VTA's 880/Stevens Creek improvements.

[bigdumbgod]

Auuuugghhh!!! (as Charlie Brown would say)

This place, across 880 from our hood, is already a monstrosity after the last expansion, which happened after Satanic Row got their FauxEuro thing built across the street. And then BAREC research center got dozed for a bunch $1 million townhomes across Winchester, that aren't selling any faster than the ill-fated apartments SR attempted to sell (people shop at a mall, they don't want to live in one, geniuses). Finally, after years of raging traffic jams, they are just now completing upgrades to the 280/880 intersection there that MIGHT alleviate the daily traffic mess there.

So what comes next? Expand the friggin' mall some more! Because that's how we roll around here!


How about doing something with Vallco instead? Plenty of money and new development going up next door to support this stuff there.

[bobby_guz_man]

I don't care. I only want to know which side is Bloomingdale's gonna be on? San Jose or Santa Clara. Better be San Jose, because we need all that damn sales tax!

And not sure why everyone rages against Santana Row and Valley Fair's traffic. There's a price that comes with popularity. I'd rather have traffic jams than dead malls.

[roadwarrior101]

Its not the growth, its the lack of infrastructure. Growth in the Silicon Valley is inevitable. Santana Row/Valley Fair has hit a critical mass and they're looking to capitalize on increased demand. Vallco? I heard that they want to actually turn it into something like Santana Row, but that may not get kicked off until the Apple campus is completed. What they need to is to create better light rail and other public transportation to serve these burgeoning areas. There is a lot of increased densification and that's going to continue with the Bay Area as a whole. I'd like to see the public transportation improvements keep up.

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

Its not the growth, its the lack of infrastructure. Growth in the Silicon Valley is inevitable. Santana Row/Valley Fair has hit a critical mass and they're looking to capitalize on increased demand. Vallco? I heard that they want to actually turn it into something like Santana Row, but that may not get kicked off until the Apple campus is completed. What they need to is to create better light rail and other public transportation to serve these burgeoning areas. There is a lot of increased densification and that's going to continue with the Bay Area as a whole. I'd like to see the public transportation improvements keep up.

One problem is that voters pay some pittance of a tax to fund PT but then create rules and lawsuits that explode project costs and timelines.

Another issue is in the funding for transportation infrastructure. Who bears the burden? Who benefits from the expenditure? Does it result in a net increase in commerce or is private spending for goods and services essentially a fixed quantity and we're simply shifting it from another commercial district? I worry that taxpayers are funding road expansions that benefits businesses for whom their sales do not represent new spending, but instead represents a re-allocation of consumer's discretionary dollars from other businesses elsewhere.

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

One problem is that voters pay some pittance of a tax to fund PT but then create rules and lawsuits that explode project costs and timelines.

Another issue is in the funding for transportation infrastructure. Who bears the burden? Who benefits from the expenditure? Does it result in a net increase in commerce or is private spending for goods and services essentially a fixed quantity and we're simply shifting it from another commercial district? I worry that taxpayers are funding road expansions that benefits businesses for whom their sales do not represent new spending, but instead represents a re-allocation of consumer's discretionary dollars from other businesses elsewhere.

I agree with some of your points, but I don't believe the above bolded portion holds true for the Silicon Valley. Given the amount of boom that is occuring here (increase in population and wealth creation), the demand is actually increasing very rapidly. Will this last forever? Probably not. However, we need to recognize that the quantity is increasing, at least at this point in time.