Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mountain View approves 10,000 homes by Google's North Bayshore project (2017)

bizjournals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 215 posts

Re: Mountain View approves 10,000 homes by Google's North Bayshore project (2017)

#31

Post by andys627 »

RestlessMind wrote: post #10

I hope they also invest in roads and mass transit. A lot of residents in those 10K new homes will be working outside of North Bayshore. Heck, even if one is working at Google, it could be at any other myriad campuses across Sunnyvale / San Jose / Mt View. There would also be kids, who need to be transported to schools. Without roads and transit improvements, North Bayshore can easily turn into a nightmare.

Building roads/auto-dependence will exacerbate said nightmare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

It's time for a serious change to building around transit, walking, and biking.

Re: Mountain View approves 10,000 homes by Google's North Bayshore project (2017)

#32

Post by ex3ndr »

w1ntermute wrote: post #22

10k is a drop in the bucket. We need blocks of high rises going up around all the Caltrain stops, and a corresponding increase in Caltrain capacity.

For what? To turn them into ghetto in 10 years? Examples are almost everywhere in the world.

Re: Mountain View approves 10,000 homes by Google's North Bayshore project (2017)

#33

Post by gnopgnip »

baron816 wrote: post #11

Parking would be less of a deal if they built mixed developments, which are more desirable anyway. It’s quite nice being able to walk out of your house and drop right into a coffee shop, bar, or restaurant. Walking to work or school is amazing too. People here seem to be so afraid that their neighborhoods will begin to look more like Dubai or Hong Kong. But clearly what we’re doing now isn’t sustainable, nor is it ev…

It is difficult to find developers that are experienced with building housing in the bay area, and experienced with building mixed use housing, and the location is suitable for mixed use.

Re: Mountain View approves 10,000 homes by Google's North Bayshore project (2017)

#34

Post by ryandrake »

epistasis wrote: post #29
ryandrake wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would stand up and oppose dense urban housing plopped down in the middle my suburban single-family home neighborhood, too. I guess that makes me an evil, dirty NIMBY, but oh well, I'll live with the label. When your message is "dense urban is the only acceptable way to live" don't be surprised when people who don't want their neighborhoods to turn into apartment complexes push back.

Yikes, stop with straw men. Live however you want! Nobody istearing down your house. Nobody is making you move. And NOBODY is plopping down density in the middle of single family homes, or even proposing that. But please just let me live the way I and many others want. Just stop interfering with mixed use buildings in the middle of commercially zoned areas. So you might drive by a commercial area that has housing on…

I wish it were a straw man. Whenever one of these threads starts here, half the responses are "we need high rise condos, town homes, and dense urban units everywhere in the bay area!". If that's not the message intended to be sent, it's often the message received.

I don't care what you do to an already-urbanized area. Build housing on top of retail, knock yourself out. Pack another apartment high-rise next to the last one. Just please respect the desires of people who went out of their way to find one of the fewer and fewer affordable single family neighborhoods in the Bay Area to hang on to their lifestyle, too.

Re: Mountain View approves 10,000 homes by Google's North Bayshore project (2017)

#35

Post by deepGem »

baron816 wrote: post #11

Parking would be less of a deal if they built mixed developments, which are more desirable anyway. It’s quite nice being able to walk out of your house and drop right into a coffee shop, bar, or restaurant. Walking to work or school is amazing too. People here seem to be so afraid that their neighborhoods will begin to look more like Dubai or Hong Kong. But clearly what we’re doing now isn’t sustainable, nor is it ev…

Some of the recent developments in Bangalore are heading in this direction. Mixed use is absolutely one of the better approaches to provide a good lifestyle to people. The sad drawback is that you get isolated and will lose the belongingness to the city as a whole. This is not a big deal in the short term, but in the long term, a set of isolated societies isn't that harmonious for the society.

By isolated I don't mean walled, but a natural preference to just be within your conclave.

What might rather work is super fast door to door transit, which in the present is quite unrealistic. Congestion creeps in pretty fast.

Re: Mountain View approves 10,000 homes by Google's North Bayshore project (2017)

#36

Post by throwawaybbq1 »

ex3ndr wrote: post #32
w1ntermute wrote: post #22

10k is a drop in the bucket. We need blocks of high rises going up around all the Caltrain stops, and a corresponding increase in Caltrain capacity.

For what? To turn them into ghetto in 10 years? Examples are almost everywhere in the world.

BS ... Manhattan is dense and not a ghetto. Stop scare mongering. A lot of people are sick of paying 3-5K for single-two bedrooms in Mountain View. Just because you have had yours doesn't mean the rest of us don't deserve the opportunity to live in SV.

Re: Mountain View approves 10,000 homes by Google's North Bayshore project (2017)

#37

Post by Larrikin »

baron816 wrote: post #11

Parking would be less of a deal if they built mixed developments, which are more desirable anyway. It’s quite nice being able to walk out of your house and drop right into a coffee shop, bar, or restaurant. Walking to work or school is amazing too. People here seem to be so afraid that their neighborhoods will begin to look more like Dubai or Hong Kong. But clearly what we’re doing now isn’t sustainable, nor is it ev…

Personally I can't imagine a more ideal living situation than taking an elevator down in to a grocery store. Easy access to two completely different styles of grocery stores a block or two from my home has been amazing.

Re: Mountain View approves 10,000 homes by Google's North Bayshore project (2017)

#38

Post by kevinburke »

w1ntermute wrote: post #22

10k is a drop in the bucket. We need blocks of high rises going up around all the Caltrain stops, and a corresponding increase in Caltrain capacity.

Please call your state Assemblymember and Senator about SB 827 and 828, which will allow this to happen. They are certain to be contentious bills. You can find them here: https://sankarravi.github.io/yimbyscorecard/

Caltrain capacity increase is on the way in 2-3 years thanks to electrification and a new fleet of trains.

Re: Mountain View approves 10,000 homes by Google's North Bayshore project (2017)

#39

Post by kevinburke »

Cw67NTN8F wrote: post #28

I wonder if it works: Company buys land to build office but sets apart a certain percentage for employee apartments. In essence a company town. Hires a management co to run it, no buys just lease. When the company folds, downsizes or whatever, the apartments are part of it. It costs, but it's cost of doing business. Otherwise a huge company can distort the home market . Maybe not enough land is available, especially…

Companies could certainly do more, but a lot of cities don't really want them to. Cupertino stands out in this regard; they wanted the huge office space but none of the housing for the 14,000 workers the new Apple office would generate.

Re: Mountain View approves 10,000 homes by Google's North Bayshore project (2017)

#40

Post by maksimum »

ex3ndr wrote: post #32
w1ntermute wrote: post #22

10k is a drop in the bucket. We need blocks of high rises going up around all the Caltrain stops, and a corresponding increase in Caltrain capacity.

For what? To turn them into ghetto in 10 years? Examples are almost everywhere in the world.

There are high rise "settlements" all over the former Eastern Bloc countries, and none of them have become ghettos. It's social inequality, lack of access to good health care, and education that lead to ghettos; not density and public transit.
Post reply on HN