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

201–210 of 215 posts

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

#201

Post by epistasis »

closeparen wrote: post #173
epistasis wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Take a look at the map. Most of what’s covered is exclusively or predominantly single family housing today. In SF the houses are much closer to each other than in postwar suburbia, but all along our transit corridors, it’s mostly houses. The only neighborhoods this avoid are those which don’t even have bus service. Upzoning is needed and transit is the right place to start, but we have to acknowledge that this would…

I wouldn't say "many" single family neighborhoods, it's really only San Francisco, a city. Even where there are pockets of single family houses, it's not what people usually think of as "single family home neighborhoods." Dual-unit buildings are extremely common, especially in the avenues. And in the Avenues there are plenty of tall apartment buildings sprinkled throughout the neighborhoods, they just had to be built long ago because they are illegal to build today.

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

#202

Post by freehunter »

DataWorker wrote: post #147
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…

I disagree. People want to be here despite the cost of living, the crowding and transit. Mixed use is a scam. Nobody that works in the shops at Santana Row can even approach having the income to live there. The whole justification for these strip malls with million dollar apartments above them is s farce. And it’s the only plan some local cities have for accommodating future growth (which the citizens don’t want in t…

You're contradicting yourself several times here. People want to live in SV despite all the downsides you've mentioned, which drives housing prices to such an insane level that local workers can't afford to live there, so the cities plan for more growth by building more density and more mixed-use neighborhoods to increase housing density.

All of the above is true, which you've mentioned. You then say that citizens don't want higher density living, but if citizens want more affordable housing in a housing crunch, the way to do that is to increase density. And if you want shorter commute times, the way to do that is to increase density. And if you want workers to be able to afford housing, the way to do that is to push higher income citizens into more expensive housing, freeing up the more affordable housing for those who actually need it.

You can't complain about the cost of living and then refuse to increase density. Keeping density and new construction low during a housing crunch is how you get insane housing prices.

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

#203

Post by paulie_a »

nickonline wrote: post #96
henrikschroder wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The type of housing is called "apartment", because it's a part of a larger building. A condominium is an apartment that is owned by an individual, who then pays maintenance fees to the condominium association, who in turn manages the building. If you own a condo, you may be allowed to rent it out to someone else. A more common option for rental apartments is that a landlord of some sort (an individual, a corporation,…

Is the condominium not a part of a larger building?

Generally yes, but not always.. Sometimes they are just single family homes and can skirt distance requirements/setbacks.

Other times they are just side by side "duplex" that are self-managed...is you are responsible for everything and have to depend on your neighbor to have money in the bank when the roof eventually fails

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

#204

Post by ghaff »

bluGill wrote: post #181
SenHeng wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I roll my eyes at a lot of the urban infatuation but I mostly agree. I've always felt that conventional suburbs brought together the worst of urban environments (you're in fairly close proximity with others) with the worst of rural living (you have to drive everywhere). I live in an exurb on a fair bit of land. If I were to live somewhere different it would probably be in a city or at least a town center of some sort.

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

#205

Post by tmnvix »

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…

The Guardian published a good story on this just today: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/21/roads-nowhere...

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

#206

Post by dragonwriter »

salimmadjd wrote: post #17
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…

why can't someone buy enough land and incorporate their own city?

> why can't someone buy enough land and incorporate their own city?

Because you can't just incorporate your own city because you own land. In California, you need to convince the Local Agency Formation Commission for the county you are in, and, if your land is in an existing city, also a supermajority of the residents both of the land you own and the existing city from which you are splitting.

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

#207

Post by stergios »

ghaff wrote: post #162
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.

Although aspects of this sort of separation go much further back. Being from "the wrong side of the tracks" is an expression that probably dates to the 19th century. (Of course, that was less of an actual physical barrier.)

In the case of East Palo Alto, the disparity can be traced back to at least the prohibition era (1919). EPA was the openly "wet" town during prohibition (after the now forgotten city of Mayview's speakeasies were shutdown), and I speculate the behavioral norm to overlook laws, no matter how misguided, fostered an environment where other undesirable business ventures thrived.

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

#208

Post by bluehat »

stergios wrote: post #207
ghaff wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although aspects of this sort of separation go much further back. Being from "the wrong side of the tracks" is an expression that probably dates to the 19th century. (Of course, that was less of an actual physical barrier.)

In the case of East Palo Alto, the disparity can be traced back to at least the prohibition era (1919). EPA was the openly "wet" town during prohibition (after the now forgotten city of Mayview's speakeasies were shutdown), and I speculate the behavioral norm to overlook laws, no matter how misguided, fostered an environment where other undesirable business ventures thrived.

Another way to view it would be that speakeasies thrived where the police didn't bother (or accepted discouragement) to go. Police resources are financial and political, and often stretched thin over poor or minority neighborhoods. So it is strange to divorce something and call it just "norms" when such strong economic forces are in play.

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

#209

Post by dionidium »

nugi wrote: post #196
dionidium wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Not everywhere. I live a whopping 30 minutes from the city line and no uber, no bus, no train, etc. There is a local who will drive you to the airport, and thats it. You overgeneralizing city centric viewpoint is not applicable to MOST of the world. We still need cars, and gas ones at that. Hell, I am one of the few with ACCESS to "high speed" (1.2mb) internet. I am on a major highway, not some obscure hole either.

By "everywhere" I meant "in at least one neighborhood in every major U.S. metro." I did not say (or mean to say) that it's possible anywhere in every U.S. metro, just that it's possible somewhere in every U.S. metro.

(I mentioned my experiences with high Walk Scores in St. Louis to imply that they are anomalous in the St. Louis metro, but that dense, walkable neighborhoods exist even in such car-centric MSAs.)

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

#210

Post by prawn »

dweekly wrote: post #128
ghaff wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vegas? Most of it is sprawl and the Strip (where few people live) is enormous hotels that are actually pretty spread out. I agree the Montreal core is fairly walkable. Cold is generally easier to deal with than heat. There's also a large connected Underground that people use when the weather is bad.

Vegas has wide pedestrian boulevards, escalators for elevated pedestrian crossings, throughways inside casinos, and even a pair of monorails. The Strip is mostly linear and there aren't long stretches with nothing there - food, lodging, entertainment, and (of course) gambling are never more than a few dozen feet away at any point. But I have to say, Rochester, MN - the Mayo Clinic - has to be one of the more extraord…

The monorail(s) might be more useful if they were accessibly priced and not so far from the strip. At least walking through the casinos is a fairly interesting and air-conditioned experience.
Post reply on HN