
Can the Bay Area Kick the Sprawl Habit? - atsneed
https://www.citylab.com/design/2017/04/can-silicon-valley-kick-the-sprawl-habit/524262/
======
atarian
It really bums me out to see Silicon Valley in the state it is today. I got a
chance to visit Korea, and one of the things that really impressed me was the
rate and scale they were building high-rise apartments:

[http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/17/asia-
pacific/soc...](http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/17/asia-
pacific/social-issues-asia-pacific/after-decades-of-growth-south-korea-is-now-
a-land-full-of-apartments/)

In addition, public trans is extensive and incredibly well-planned and
executed.

Unfortunately, I realize this can only happen when the government has
sufficient power to make these kind of changes. This will never happen in
Silicon Valley as far as I can tell since local homeowners have the upper-
hand.

~~~
JustAnotherPat
those apartment blocks look like something you'd see out of the USSR.

~~~
pound
is it good or bad thing?

~~~
dalfonso
Definitely bad. That's exactly the type of image I would use as a current
home/land owner of a neighborhood to discourage urbanization and building more
housing. "See what our neighborhood could become!!" /s

Even the residents don't like them:

>>“There isn’t much design inspiration. They’re just stacked up,” said Park
In-seok, an architecture professor at Myongji University. He described a
paradox in which the apartments are mocked for their appearance but coveted
for their convenience. “Almost everybody hates the apartment,” Park said. “But
everybody wants to live in one.”

~~~
epistasis
It's funny, I thought I would hate those too, but after a recent visit to
Ukraine, the "suburbs" that consist of those apartment highrises with lots of
greenspace in between have their charms. You get the open spaces, you get the
tons of small commerce, you get the public transit to city center and
elsewhere, and you get local and larger community. I thought I would hate it,
but it's pretty damn awesome.

>“But everybody wants to live in one.”

This was the part that I didn't understand until I experienced it. If they
were more visually appealing from the outside, and in the stairways, people
may stop hating them.

~~~
Veratyr
I was thinking the exact same thing. In my suburban part of the east bay area,
the nearest real parks are about a 45 minute walk away, through bland boring
suburban streets, the nearest schools would require a car to reach, the
closest supermarket is about a 20 minute walk away and there's essentially
zero public transit (slow buses about once an hour).

The small town my wife is from in the North Caucasus region of Russia has
green _everywhere_. It also has schools, kindergartens, small grocery stores
and parks within ~5-10 min walking distance of pretty much the entire city and
public transit everywhere, roughly one bus per route every 5 minutes.

Sure the buildings are arguably uglier but the area as a whole is beautiful
and far more livable.

------
agitator
It wouldn't all be so bad if the transportation infrastructure in the bay area
wasn't such a joke. When I first moved here I was surprised that a region
known for it's innovation, had roads and public transportation systems that
looked like people just gave up trying in the 80s.

~~~
squiguy7
At least you have public transit like rail or BART. There is nothing like that
down in LA and OC. My commute is only 11 miles one way and it takes me 45
minutes to 1 hour thanks to the traffic. The trains here have enough stops
that it would be just as long as if I had driven.

~~~
acchow
Do you ride a bicycle? Tho I guess it would be too hot in LA for that most
days.

~~~
squiguy7
I used to ride one to my old job, yes. There aren't many accessible paths to
the new one though. It was nice to get outside and be able to have that
though.

------
dopeboy
For those in SF want to get organized around this issue, this is a good place
to start: [https://www.eventbrite.com/o/sf-
yimby-13476049611](https://www.eventbrite.com/o/sf-yimby-13476049611)

------
kylec
I do not like living in high-density areas. I like being able to drive and
park wherever I need to go - work, the grocery store, restaurants, etc. One of
the things I like about being in the South Bay is that it allows me to live
this way.

I welcome additional investment in our transportation infrastructure - both
rail, bus, and road - but I take issue with the idea that everyone would
prefer to live and work in a high-density environment. I don't see why we
can't accommodate both preferred lifestyles.

~~~
mtalantikite
The reality is that the majority of the areas of the United States are like
the environments that you prefer -- low-density environments built around the
car. Personally, I prefer a high density, walkable city, yet really my only
option in the United States is NYC (where I live), as other cities that come
close (SF, Chicago, Boston, DC, etc) don't run their transit 24 hours, or
require some use of a car as neighborhoods aren't well connected by that
transit.

I think it's completely reasonable to want to have a second city in the United
States that can compare to NYC and all the benefits that come with a high
density, multi-zoned, well connected city. Whenever I think about where else I
could find this if I were to leave NYC I end up finding it really would mean
moving abroad.

~~~
kylec
I think at this point it's useful to disentangle the city of San Francisco and
the much less dense surrounding Bay Area. If you want to live in a high-
density city, in this area that would be San Francisco. Its employers and
residents (and prospective residents) should certainly push for 24 hour
transit, more complete transit coverage, and whatever else is necessary for
living in such an environment.

However, the rest of the Bay Area isn't really city-like. Much of the existing
infrastructure has been built around cars as the mode of transportation.
Building a second high-density city out of nothing somewhere in this area and
convincing employers and employees to move there doesn't seem like it would be
well received. If the employers and employees in this area wanted to be
located in a high-density city they'd already be in San Francisco. Many are -
but many are not.

~~~
mtalantikite
I agree with that and I'm certainly not advocating that the rest of the Bay
get developed as densely as SF. As a city, SF very clearly needs a lot more
housing and a transit expansion, maybe even a merger with Oakland as a
borough, with greater transit connectivity there and density to match in
Oakland.

The problem then becomes that the rest of the Bay would most likely get
pressured to build more densely as well, just like the metro areas of NYC did.
That might ruin the suburb life that you enjoy as the expanding city to the
north puts pressure on the surrounding areas.

~~~
kylec
You are correct, I expect that additional organic growth in all parts of the
Bay Area will continue to increase the density, and there's not much I can do
about that. However, as that does happen, I would expect that the area would
continue to "sprawl" outwards, attracting employers to some of the more
outlying areas because office space and employee cost of living are both
cheaper, and that these areas would continue to provide the lifestyle I
desire.

I do, however, push back against articles like this that characterize such
sprawl as bad, and that instead of allowing growth and sprawl to happen
organically, seek to curb it by lobbying for policy change.

------
davidw
Not looking that way:

[http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/28/cupertino-adopts-
proce...](http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/28/cupertino-adopts-process-for-
single-story-overlay-districts/)

------
mmanfrin
The Bay Area is not the same as Silicon Valley. The East Bay (bay side of the
hills) and SF have been building upwards. The South Bay and the past-the-hills
East Bay are ruining things with sprawl. San Jose/SC/MV/etc are horrendous in
terms of upward building and it comes down to an extremist form of NIMBYism
passing laws preventing proper upward development.

~~~
tzs
The San Jose urbanized area is the third most densely populated in the
country, at 5820 people per square mile. That's only slightly behind the San
Francisco-Oakland urbanized area, which is #2 at 6266 people per square mile.
(#1 is Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim at almost 7000 per square mile).

Source:
[https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_censu...](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html)

~~~
sid-kap
These are looking at the densities of entire metropolitan areas, which doesn't
mean much.

In the NY-NJ metro area there are lots of high-density cities, like Manhattan
at 70,000/sq. mi.; Brooklyn, Union City, Hoboken, at 40,000/sq. mi.; Queens at
20,000/sq. mi. There is empty space between these cities, which lowers the
density of the metro area, but that doesn't really matter.

On the other hand, SV cities (Mountain View, Sunnyvale, San Jose), actually
are at densities of 5,000-6,000/sq. mi.

The figure we should actually be looking at is weighted population density,
not population density.

------
shriphani
Another solid example of regulatory capture. The nouveau riche in the bay area
have begun piling on the poor.

Feels quite horrible to look at people who work retail jobs commuting 1hr each
way to work. Just because soccer-moms who have no business organizing cities
are now in charge of exactly that.

I mean just look at Cupertino - world capital of the soccer mom. So much money
and they have managed to make it look like a giant walmart.

We need a Robert Hooke type to come in and take a good look at the problem.
And deliver to us a London or a Rome.

~~~
ng12
The overwhelming response you'd receive is "we don't want to be Rome". At this
point I'm rooting for the tech industry to declare bankruptcy and found a new
city somewhere ala NYC and the transatlantic trade.

~~~
shriphani
Nobody ever says "When in Cupertino" do they?

It is surprising to me how in one dimension one can take so much pride in
their work (tech etc) and in another way be so satisfied and desire such
mediocrity (civilization, architecture, quality of life for all).

------
RangerScience
It feels like the other major issue is that the _housing_ isn't on those hubs.
Everyone wants to live in the same three parts of SF - the parts near
Caltrain.

Like LA, it seems like there needs to be another train line. For us it's
Hollywood/Beverly Hills. For the Bay, it'd be, maybe Sunset down the 101.

But maybe I'm wrong, and two options just mean you're more likely to be
incorrect on either side?

~~~
ng12
Another train line would be a waste -- take the window seat on Caltrain and
look how utterly empty it is the second you leave SF. The whole way down the
peninsula the train is flanked by flat, low-density construction spotted with
breaks of wide open space. You don't see any real high-density housing until
you get to San Jose.

------
bcheung
Not everyone wants that lifestyle.

Being a photographer and also someone who tends to do a lot of Maker and
gardening projects I find SF near impossible to live for my lifestyle. It's
really hard to load and unload photo gear when you have to make 4 trips to the
truck that is a 5 minute walk away and go up 10 stories each time. Not to
mention paying $40 for parking. I couldn't do what I do without a truck and SF
is extremely unfriendly towards cars.

I do like being able to walk to lunch from an office though. When I was
working in downtown Sunnyvale I found it really convenient. The parking back
then was decent but now it is overcrowded and you're lucky if you can find a
spot. You have to wait in long lines for lunch now too. It's gotten much worse
IMO.

When I worked in Redwood City I tried to take Caltrain but it adds another 2
hours to your commute every day and the train schedules are extremely limited
the further south you live. Ended up getting a motorcycle just for commuting.

------
Animats
With electric cars coming along, and already here in many Silicon Valley
parking lots, is this really a problem?

Downtown Redwood City has suddenly become very urban. The city is well over a
century old, but until five years ago, had few tall buildings. Now, 5 to 10
story buildings are filling up downtown blocks. The downtown redevelopment
plan actually worked.

~~~
nostrademons
The same thing is happening to downtown Sunnyvale (4-5 story condos going up
on top of street-level retail) and Mountain View (10 story towers going up
around San Antonio, with the giant strip mall being converted into mixed-use
condos + shops). The same may happen with North Bayshore - Google's building
its new tent campus, and the plan includes up to 10-story residential
buildings on street-level retail. There's still a lot of resistance from local
residents, but the development tide seems to have turned.

With everybody complaining about how expensive SF is and how terrible the
commute is, it seems to me like a more likely solution is to bring the city to
Mountain View rather than bring all the workers from the city to Mountain
View.

~~~
hkmurakami
Thank goodness they finally developed San Antonio shopping center. Been going
there since I was a child when there was a Payless drugs store (I think?)
where the Safeway now is, and it had been basically dead for a decade between
2003-2013 or thereabouts.

Of course there are many many more places like this along El Camino, and
Vallco is probably never getting redeveloped due to resident opposition
against mixed use develeopment including high density housing.

------
kevinburke
You don't have to be a bystander in this process... the incentives might be
for cities to listen to their current homeowners and to add more parking and
prefer office parks, but we can organize for change and more density.

Here are some steps you can take:

\- The Brisbane City Council is deciding whether to build 4400 units of
housing on 600 acres south of San Francisco, about the same number of units SF
built in total last year. The Brisbane Planning Commission recommended
building an office park instead. Contact them and ask them to build the
housing version of the project.

\- The Mountain View City Council is deciding whether to build 2000 units or
8000 units of housing next to Google. They are leaning toward the low end -
2000 units would be tough to support a grocery store or frequent transit.
Contact them (or show up to their board meeting - tonight!) and ask them to
build the high-housing version of the plan.

\- The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering a plan to require 28%
of all new developments to be below market rate. When you consider the unit
costs to build in SF, that would make it _extremely_ difficult to justify new
housing starts here. Please contact your Supervisor and ask them to oppose the
Peskin/Kim Prop C plan.

\- Call your CA State Assemblymember and ask them to oppose AB 915 (makes it
harder to build affordable units)

\- Call your CA State Assemblymember and ask them to support AB 71 (higher
property taxes on second homes, money goes to affordable housing)

\- Call your CA State Senator and ask them to support SB 167, which would put
teeth in the state's Housing Accountability Act. (for more on this see
carlaef.org)

\- Call your CA State Senator and ask them to support SB 35 (would remove the
ability of local government to block projects that meet certain criteria -
near transit, have a high % of affordable units, use union construction labor)

\- Email your VC's and C-level executives and tell them how hard it is to find
housing in the area and how ridiculous the parking requirements are. Tell them
about your awful commutes and the difficulty of finding good school districts
for your kids. Ask them to get more involved politically in pro-housing
causes. Ron Conway is a good example here.

NIMBY's are really well organized and things don't change unless we do
something about them. All of these changes listed above will go a long way to
support the development of housing in the Bay Area, which should help lower
prices, and help keep families here and teachers in our neighborhoods.
[https://kev.inburke.com/kevin/sf-housing-
politics/](https://kev.inburke.com/kevin/sf-housing-politics/)

------
valuearb
It's easy. Just ban individual homes, make everyone live in small apartments
along rail routes.

What would we lose?

~~~
hkmurakami
Well for starters that's probably illegal and would get challenged in court by
various jurisdictions.

~~~
TJ-14
Municipalities could easily accomplish that with zoning restrictions.

~~~
mahyarm
They already do, for the opposite. Ban apartments and legislate only single
family homes.

------
mmagin
Not as bad as many other metro areas in the US. It's just that in the upper
parts of a bubble (e.g. now), the infrastructure can't cope with the traffic.

------
cletus
No.

