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

41–50 of 215 posts

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

#41

Post by xapata »

deepGem wrote: post #35
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 mea…

What I find worst about modern city life is not having a relationship with my neighbors. I'd much prefer a neighborhood where everything I want is within a 5-minute walk.

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

#42

Post by kevinburke »

ryandrake wrote: post #34
epistasis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 las…

The places where people are proposing new development are almost always along existing transit corridors or adjacent to job centers, like El Camino Real or Caltrain.

Even those projects generate opposition. San Mateo just rejected a 10-unit, 35 foot condo building fronting El Camino Real, that had 26 parking spaces, because... it was "too tall."

Millbrae residents fiercely oppose 5 and 8 story buildings located... adjacent to the Caltrain and BART station we paid $400 million for two decades ago.

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

#43

Post by kevinburke »

jsolson wrote: post #24
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…

If by mixed do you just mean residential over retail? Is the Bay Area actually opposed to that?

yes, it's opposed but it's not usually for that reason, more often has to do with height or traffic. two recent examples:

- adjacent to Millbrae BART/Caltrain https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/millbrae-station-p...

- adjacent to Hayward Park Caltrain in San Mateo https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/major-mixed-use-ho...

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

#44

Post by ChuckMcM »

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…

Although nearly all of the new building in some parts has been mixed use. Sunnyvale has nearly completed replacing the old mall and town and country commercial shops with mixed apartments and commercial. Ever since Santana Row in San Jose turned out to be a huge success it seems one of the few types of development that gets approved.

It will be interesting to see where it all leads. I applaud Mt. View's willingness to add 10K homes. its about a tenth of what is needed but it is a great start.

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

#45

Post by thaumasiotes »

salimmadjd wrote: post #3

(Dec 13, 2017) - This is a great start. But I think we really need more like 100,000 new units built. Just to help reverse some of the astronomical housing prices. I have no idea how a teacher would be able to live in SV and plan to have a family and everything else. At this rate, the housing costs are unsustainable. We wont be able to have a functioning city with all the needed staffing like teachers, nurses, seller…

> I have no idea how a teacher would be able to live in SV and plan to have a family and everything else.

The math teacher at my high school in Santa Cruz was a retired electrical engineer with a Ph.D. from Stanford. There's no rule that says teachers need to make a living from teaching. It's known for being pleasant work.

Granted, the school hasn't pursued that strategy since then...

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

#46

Post by [deleted] »

ryandrake wrote: post #34
epistasis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 las…

[deleted]

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

#47

Post by nikanj »

kevinburke wrote: post #39
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.

My Microsoft HQ friends tell me Redmond is in the same boat.

A lot of millionaires from Microsoft competing for a relatively small supply of homes close to the office, and everyone else commuting for miles and miles.

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

#48

Post by dlwdlw »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #25
prawn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On my first trip to Hong Kong (decades ago, as a teenager) I remember my family stayed in a hotel with a shopping centre on the lower levels. You took an elevator down from your room that literally opened out into a supermarket, food court, department store, etc. I remember thinking it was awesome. Add other facilities within enjoyable walking distance and you're laughing, for those keen to live with that density.

I don’t see why people think HK is a bad model, sure Kowloon walled City was bad, but modern HK is quite nice. I also got the impression that Dubai wasn’t very walkable, but I’ve never been there.

It takes time to build up a high density culture. Thicker skin, a bit more aloofness, etc.. many run counter to what is considered "good" in sparser area.

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

#50

Post by lisper »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #25
prawn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On my first trip to Hong Kong (decades ago, as a teenager) I remember my family stayed in a hotel with a shopping centre on the lower levels. You took an elevator down from your room that literally opened out into a supermarket, food court, department store, etc. I remember thinking it was awesome. Add other facilities within enjoyable walking distance and you're laughing, for those keen to live with that density.

I don’t see why people think HK is a bad model, sure Kowloon walled City was bad, but modern HK is quite nice. I also got the impression that Dubai wasn’t very walkable, but I’ve never been there.

I've travelled all over the world and lived in LA for 22 years. Dubai is the least walkable city I've ever seen by a wide margin. It would hold that title even if the weather did not already make it feel like hell on earth.
Post reply on HN