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

51–60 of 215 posts

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

#51

Post by fyfy18 »

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…

Outside of the downtown areas, a lot of Dubai is like this too (low rise developments). From one side of the city to the other is more than 60km / 40 miles, so there is a lot of urban sprawl.

IMO Dubai is a pretty poor example of what cities should aim for, as you can’t get to a lot of places without a car. Public transport is good to the main tourist areas of the city, but if you want to go somewhere slightly further afield you need to walk (good luck doing that in the summer) or take a taxi.

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

#52

Post by ryandrake »

kevinburke wrote: post #42
ryandrake wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... ad…

The original comment was about someone in Scotts Valley opposing urban development. Why does Scotts Valley need urban housing, when there are plenty of already-urban areas in the Bay Area that can continue to be built up? It makes much more sense to build up in front of El Camino Real or Caltrain.

I don't live in Scotts Valley, so don't have a horse in that race--I'm merely picturing myself in that person's shoes. Is it that surprising that someone who went out of their way to move somewhere far from an urban area, probably having to suffer a 2 hour commute because of it, would oppose nearby urban development?

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

#53

Post by ShorsHammer »

dlwdlw wrote: post #48
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've seen people run to strangers aid in the biggest cities on earth. Perhaps "aloofness" is just more acceptable to some.

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

#54

Post by freyr »

moonman272 wrote: post #7
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…

It’s not the industries issue, it’s the NIMBYism that has been at the heart of the Bay Area for decades, especially the peninsula.

Despite the reputation of the Bay Area as a liberal and progressive region, the reality is that almost everyone who “makes it” here quickly changes their tune to “I got mine, now screw you.”

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

#55

Post by epistasis »

bamboozled wrote: post #49

No mention of high density apartment blocks. I find the fascination with urban sprawl in California really unusual. Maybe I'm missing something but why not built up instead of out and focus on better transport etc?

Though there are many that agree with you, all it takes is a small minority to completely block development. And if it's not completely blocked, it can be delayed with enough changes of plans to significantly increase building costs.

Why cause such problems for others? There are some people, even in this thread, that view the existence of such options as threats against their way of life. See for example the quotes in this opinion column about a San Francisco project in its 26th (!) public meeting:

https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/a-housing-crisis-c...

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

#56

Post by tormeh »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #45
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...

Teaching? Pleasant work? I've tried it and it's worse than the ops job I have now. Very stressful. Even teachers I know agree. You do get long vacations to compensate, but it's not all good.

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

#57

Post by cycrutchfield »

ryandrake wrote: post #23
epistasis wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately Scotts Valley and Santa Cruz have anti-housing factions similar to everywhere else in the Bay Area, and the pro-housing faction is in earlier stages of organization than in the Bay Area. Scotts Valley City Council actually had a member say in open meeting that they don't want "those type of people" living there, in reference to renters and presumably others without the means to buy a home. Santa Cruz is…

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.

Not just an evil, dirty NIMBY, but an ignorant, misinformed NIMBY. Nobody is suggesting that they are going to tear down the house next to yours and put in a high-rise condo.

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

#58

Post by what_ever »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #44
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 t…

Probably not a tenth. MTV's population in 2013 was around 77k. Adding 100k homes would get the city to s standstill. As much as I want more housing here so I can buy something myself, the infrastructure is nowhere close to handle that right now.

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

#59

Post by [deleted] »

epistasis wrote: post #14
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…

Unfortunately Scotts Valley and Santa Cruz have anti-housing factions similar to everywhere else in the Bay Area, and the pro-housing faction is in earlier stages of organization than in the Bay Area. Scotts Valley City Council actually had a member say in open meeting that they don't want "those type of people" living there, in reference to renters and presumably others without the means to buy a home. Santa Cruz is…

[deleted]

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

#60

Post by bobbyi_settv »

nikanj wrote: post #47
kevinburke wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When I worked at MS in Redmond, I lived in Seattle and my commute was 25 minutes. I knew people who had houses in Redmond, and their commute was around 5 minutes. This is not "the same boat" as Cuptertino and MV.
Post reply on HN