Isn't a huge part of the housing issue in SV the zoning? I recall reading about how large swathes of land have been zoned away from residential, largely because of the influence of the wealthy who live in and near the area. Never underestimate the politics!
And that is the paradox. In order to make cheap housing you'd have to destroy all the open space and low density zoning that made all the tech and VC people want to live here in the first place. Besides the current economy isn't permanent at all. The tech bubble will bust and this will all go back to normal in a few years. People who are living here for the long haul, and not just for the gold rush don't want it to get overbuilt and spoiled. The funny thing about the bay area is that people are not really impressed by the economic benefits of further development because collectively people have an enormous amount of money in the wealthier bay area cities and no amount of money being waved in their faces will make them give up their quality of life.
I don't think it's really true. Do you think all those parking lots and single story buildings in downtown Mountain View are the attraction for tech workers and entrepreneurs? I think replacing all that junk on the Caltrain corridor with 3 or 5 story apartments and townhouses would solve the housing problem without consuming any more open space.
It would solve the problem for tech workers and entrepreneurs. It would piss off a number of retirees who have been in Mountain View since it was fruit orchards and like it because it's not SF. The latter group currently holds a lock on the city council.
Well, I think you're oversimplifying quite a bit. There are more options than {develop nothing, develop EVERYTHING}. Through politics, the former options has been selected. But perhaps a better options lies somewhere in-between.
You should have seen it in 2002. The freeways were nice and empty and rents were cheap. Even as recent as early 2009 office rents were much much lower than they are now.
