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

61–70 of 215 posts

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

#61

Post by what_ever »

Larrikin wrote: post #37
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.

There are pros and cons of each model. You probably won't see the cons until you experience it yourself for a few years.

Somewhere in the middle of South Bay Suburbs and taking an elevator to grocery store would be ideal. Somewhat like European cities.

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

#62

Post by epistasis »

ryandrake wrote: post #52
kevinburke wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, read again, it wasn't "urban development" it was "renters." And that was truly the objection. It wasn't even a high density project.

This is the type of false exaggeration and straw men that is endemic to the discussion. And such straw men have to be made up, because otherwise there is no sensible objection to these projects. However the city council member wasn't being sensible, they were being bigoted. What was surprising was that they were open about the bigotry against those with less than <$300k/year incomes, usually there's at least a fig leaf of propriety.

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

#63

Post by XJOKOLAT »

lisper wrote: post #50
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.

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.

You need to pick better timing and mates.

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

#65

Post by okr »

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.

Just have been to HK at Admiralty/Center. And the stairs up and down to get anywhere over the streets is super annoying. Especially at night. But surprisingly not much traffic, and lots of buses and trams. But maybe that was due to new year.

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

#66

Post by adventured »

maksimum wrote: post #40
ex3ndr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your points are sound, however you're simply wrong about Eastern Europe not having high rise ghettos.

Bucharest has several that are among the most dangerous urban areas on earth. And Romania is better off than some of the poorer Eastern European nations such as Moldova or Bulgaria.

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

#67

Post by kevinburke »

ryandrake wrote: post #52
kevinburke wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What do you count as urban development? Would a duplex count as urban development? how about a 4-unit condo building? or a 10-unit building?

Reasons to build more densely there would include

- accounting for a growing population,

- senior citizens who want to live with their adult kids/walk to downtown

- increased property tax revenue from construction with a 2018 basis to offset budget deterioration under Prop 13

- an increased number of school students (pretty much every city on the Peninsula is slowly aging, and many are dealing with budget crises/school closures)

- provision of BMR housing (if you can build it) for city staff and other service employees, which is cheaper to build as part of a larger structure than as single family units.

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

#68

Post by StudentStuff »

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.

The Eastside is not that expensive yet, unless you want to live on the water, have a view, or buy one of the gated slums out there on Lake Sammamish.

Downtown Redmond and surrounding communities still have 1 bed, 1 bath apartments at cheap prices ($600 to $700), and a newly built apartment with 3 bedrooms near the MS campus can easily be had for $1800 to $1900 a month.

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

#69

Post by ryandrake »

epistasis wrote: post #62
ryandrake wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, read again, it wasn't "urban development" it was "renters." And that was truly the objection. It wasn't even a high density project. This is the type of false exaggeration and straw men that is endemic to the discussion. And such straw men have to be made up, because otherwise there is no sensible objection to these projects. However the city council member wasn't being sensible, they were being bigoted. What was…

Alright then, fine--I wrongly assumed you were talking about a development project since that's what the article was about. So he was objecting to renters moving into existing suburban housing. I'll concede that's not right.

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

#70

Post by StudentStuff »

bobbyi_settv wrote: post #60
nikanj wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

MS has moved so much out of Redmond, pushing employees to Downtown Bellevue & opening up a satellite office in Vancouver, BC. Its quite a change from just a decade ago, but apparently talent retention is better in Bellevue than out in the hinterlands of Redmond.

Then again, I don't think I'll ever take a job or live on the Eastside, perpetually trapped in my car!

Post reply on HN