Any time I have to ride the Caltrain I play a game of "spot places you could fit an apartment block". It's stunning how many Caltrain stations are surrounded by empty land, parking lots or single story buildings. Public transport hubs should have housing near them!
One of the reasons that cities build office space while ignoring residential is Prop 13 which fixes residential property taxes. Taxes on equivalent office space and the business it generates are a better source of revenue over time for cities than the fixed taxes from housing. This disincentivizes balanced planning.<p>One thing that also should be mentioned: while it's perfectly ok to want your city to stay the same, it's not practical to put the burden of growth on other cities. And it's also not legal. California law actually requires municipalities to plan for and support their share of new housing[1]. Something many cities are not doing.<p>[1] <a href="http://wwwww.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_203PLR.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://wwwww.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_203PLR.pdf</a>
The lack of any substantial quantity of residential development other than large single-family detached homes on large lots in cities like Santa Clara, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Cupertino, etc. is absolutely destroying the Bay Area. It forces people to commute from further away, increasing traffic, sprawl, and radically distorting the housing market. We don’t need to turn these towns into Hong Kong or Tokyo, but just build a few blocks radius of 4–6 story mixed-use low-rise apartment buildings around each transit stop, with relaxed parking requirements.<p>The response of the cities, which is basically to put their fingers in their ears and shout "La la la la we can’t hear you” is a farce. They keep pretending that they can keep indefinitely building office space without anywhere for the workers to live, while maintaining the same small town feel from when these suburbs were first built over the top of agricultural land in the middle of the last century.
We really need a regional planning authority for the Bay Area, with the power to override local zoning boards, exercise eminent domain, and with an enormous budget for building mass transit.<p>Politically, I think the only way to get there is to wait for the Big One. Plate tectonics has become the best hope for urbanism in northern California.
The East Bay should get more attention from investors and the startup community. The area includes a world-class university with huge student population (UC Berkeley), a less NIMBY atmosphere, beautiful natural settings, and proximity to San Francisco, for significantly more affordable costs. Why is that still not the case?<p>I am not sure about the NIMBYism though. It certainly exists but I feel it's less intense than in Silicon Valley proper. Could someone with more knowledge of the issues share your opinions?
I'm actually a bit surprised that offices and apartments aren't in the same building. Wouldn't it be convenient to work in the same building you live in? Getting a job at a company could come with a 'perq' of getting an apartment in the same building. It could be a very attractive recruiting tool.
We're seeing a lot of poor planning by cities. And they are being pushed hard by developers, and probably want the revenue.<p>People would be less NIMBY if they saw better planning. As it is, quality of life is suffering as we fail to balance commercial development with residential -- and address traffic/transit, schools, parks, bike routes, etc.
What are the motives of people who want to stop this development?:<p>"In July, San Jose sued to stop the project, saying it would create 25,000 jobs but provide 1,350 apartments at most. That would shift “the environmental burden and expense to support that economic development onto neighboring cities and counties”<p>If you own property, it'll increase it's value. If you live there, you'll have more jobs. If you have to pay for roads - well that bill probably goes to the property owners and developers who can build more houses to serve those people. If you want to help the economy, more jobs is good.<p>Who loses out with growth like that? The view of the skyline? Are there really that many luddites in San Jose? Surely someone must stand to lose money, but who?
Hey, this may be an unrelated question, but how come real estate developers are always villains in american TV shows and movies? All the comments here are about how there's not enough development, and people tend to agree that NIMBY attitude is bad, and yet, every time a real estate developer is portrayed on screen he's an evil scoundrel who's trying to throw people out on the street. Am I the only one who's seeing the contradiction here?
It's only fair for the state to require housing to offset new office space. In Silicon Valley, the issue is that there is no more land in cities like Palo Alto or Cupertino for more housing, more school, or more roads, and the transit agency is grossly incompetent so there is no new mass transit. Developers care only about short term profit and never look at the big picture.
i don't get it. they are not solving anything, they are just making the housing situation worse. by not providing adequate housing- and office-space the pressure on every individual will just rise and rise.