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

181–190 of 215 posts

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

#181

Post by bluGill »

SenHeng wrote: post #92
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…

Grass is always greener on the other side. Having lived and grown up in ultra-dense urban cities like Hongkong, Singapore and Tokyo, I very much prefer somewhere with a little more breathing space. Though not to the extent of American suburbs. The European cities are probably a good balance.

If you want breathing space get out to real space. I own 8 acres in the middle of nowhere. Suburbs don't give you enough space to enjoy the rural lifestyle, but you are spread out too much to enjoy the advantages of living in the city.

Of course there are not that many affordable lots with land near any jobs.

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

#182

Post by driverdan »

jartelt wrote: post #160
briandear wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supply and demand. If you increase supply, prices overall will go down. “Affordable” or other non-market schemes simply raise the prices for everyone else — including the non rich that don’t win the “affordable” lottery. More market housing everywhere solves the affordability crisis.

Yes, more housing of any type will help! But, it seems like developers are only building high end housing, which means only units priced at the very top of the market are added. It would be great if developers built normal apartments that do not include every single possible amenity. Not every renter wants to pay a premium for granite countertops, a fancy gym, a pool, bathrooms for every bedroom, etc. I just want a w…

That's still a supply problem. So long as there is an artificially limited supply forced by NIMBYs they'll continue to build higher margin housing.

If you open it up to allow 10x or even 100x more housing units you'll get ones in every price range.

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

#183

Post by MBlume »

makomk wrote: post #99
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 proposed bill I've seen people supporting - SB 827, by the SF state senator - defined "along existing transit corridors" so broadly that it covered the entirety of San Francisco and anywhere else with a vaguely functional bus service, and used state preemption of local laws to set a minimum height, remove parking minimums, and require local planners to allow dense mid-rise apartment buildings in the entire area.…

I mean, if you want to live in a suburb, don't live in San Francisco?

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

#184

Post by MBlume »

jartelt wrote: post #160
briandear wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supply and demand. If you increase supply, prices overall will go down. “Affordable” or other non-market schemes simply raise the prices for everyone else — including the non rich that don’t win the “affordable” lottery. More market housing everywhere solves the affordability crisis.

Yes, more housing of any type will help! But, it seems like developers are only building high end housing, which means only units priced at the very top of the market are added. It would be great if developers built normal apartments that do not include every single possible amenity. Not every renter wants to pay a premium for granite countertops, a fancy gym, a pool, bathrooms for every bedroom, etc. I just want a w…

If you passed a law that car manufacturers could only sell 1000 cars per year, you can bet those would be some really fancy, expensive cars. Just let them sell cars and they start doing market segmentation and producing budget cars all on their own. Same with homes.

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

#185

Post by rs999gti »

asteli wrote: post #177
narrator wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of those barriers are there for a reason. In the 90s East Palo Alto had the highest per capita murder rate in the country. Meanwhile, just across the 101, Palo Alto was the land of million dollar homes. Like the cold war, the suburbanites chose the containment strategy.

The more I dig into this, the less I realize I know. I asked, "did the slums exist before the highways and freeways that divide them from the wealthy whites?" The best I've come up with is "Sort of." Apparently, in the 50's and 60s, city officials throughout the US thought of urban freeways as "a good opportunity to get rid of the local 'niggertown.'"[1] But that attempt at clearing the local slums ended up further d…

> did the slums exist before the highways and freeways that divide them from the wealthy whites?

You mean Oakland and Vallejo? Yeah that stuff has been there before the start of SV. See MC Hammer and Too Short for references to past gang activity in Oakland.

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

#186

Post by codekilla »

zjaffee wrote: post #161
pm90 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends on where you decide to live. California in general was designed around people getting everywhere by cars. Especially the Bay Area, which is basically suburbs which suddenly became the Tech Center of the world. Like others have mentioned the downtown areas are pretty walkable: I visited a friend in Mountain View and there were so many bars/restaurants downtown, there was always something to do once y…

For what it's worth, Southern California is far less walkable than the bay area is. Much of Southern California (San Fernando Valley, Orange County, South LA, ect.) doesn't even have downtowns like you see in bay area communities, just long streets with buildings that have huge setbacks for parking. At least in the bay area the places where there are shops aren't hostile to pedestrians (although if I recall you do se…

What about Gas Lamp in San Diego? Downtown Santa Barbara? Tons of Southern California communities have walkable downtowns...more than I can list...Montrose, Fullerton, Redondo, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, Sierra Madre. Honestly, you could do a year of day trips just visiting them all. Way more than I can list here.

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

#187

Post by dsfyu404ed »

joshuamorton wrote: post #151
what_ever wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>There are pros and cons of each model. You probably won't see the cons until you experience it yourself for a few years. I'm curious what you feel the cons are. I've lived in essentially this format now in two cities in two different continents, for a while overall, and I haven't really noticed downsides, except that sometimes I would need to cross the street to go to a different "grocery store" because the one I li…

>I'm curious what you feel the cons are.

All the cons about living in an apartment/condo vs a single family home (which all basically boil down to a reduction in one's personal freedom on/in their own home).

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

#188

Post by bluehat »

rs999gti wrote: post #185
asteli wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more I dig into this, the less I realize I know. I asked, "did the slums exist before the highways and freeways that divide them from the wealthy whites?" The best I've come up with is "Sort of." Apparently, in the 50's and 60s, city officials throughout the US thought of urban freeways as "a good opportunity to get rid of the local 'niggertown.'"[1] But that attempt at clearing the local slums ended up further d…

> did the slums exist before the highways and freeways that divide them from the wealthy whites? You mean Oakland and Vallejo? Yeah that stuff has been there before the start of SV. See MC Hammer and Too Short for references to past gang activity in Oakland.

...you think MC Hammer predates SV? We started out as the site where transistors were made. That is also why the ground is so horrendously toxic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Semiconductor

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

#189

Post by dsfyu404ed »

epistasis wrote: post #134
closeparen wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And NOBODY is plopping down density in the middle of single family homes, or even proposing that. There is a fair amount of rumbling about upzoning single-family lots to permit mid-rise apartment buildings, i.e. SB827.

Those are along transit corridors, so it would be along busy routes, not in the middle of single family homes. Along rail and the very busiest bus routes is exactly where we need and want apartments that have 3-4 stories. It would make no sense to put them in the middle of single family housing because those are deserts unless you have a car, and most people that would appreciate density would love to be able to do m…

>And we shouldn't be building rail without such density, because otherwise the rail is going to underutilized. Similarly with bus routes; why send tons of buses along a route if there's no possibility to pick up lots of people?

Park and ride is a thing. That said you need whatever the "ride" is to be cost competitive for people to take advantage of that and that's a tall order given the quality of local government in many places.

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

#190

Post by dionidium »

kaycebasques wrote: post #149
radarsat1 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, after visiting the bay area, this is among my top reasons for not wanting to move there. It is so beautiful, and yet.. for someone coming from a city lifestyle, it just doesn't seem.. livable. At all. I got lost walking to my meeting from the train station in Mountain View, and people didn't even know how to give me walking directions to where I needed to go. It was crazy. It wasn't that far by a straight l…

I’ve lived up and down the peninsula and haven’t relied on a car in 10 years. Thanks to a mix of choosing strategic locations, biking, BART, Caltrain, Lyft, Zipcar / Getaround, and friends with cars. Anecdotal, I know, but just chiming in to say it’s definitely possible.

It's possible everywhere. The last two places I lived in St. Louis had Walk Scores in the 90s. If you prioritize it, you can get it. (But obviously some places have a lot more of it than others.)
Post reply on HN