4 ms·

If the city was smart they'd cut a deal in which the whole site is replaced with 40 story high rise apartment buildings. And the city can purchase one and let t

If the city was smart they'd cut a deal in which the whole site is replaced with 40 story high rise apartment buildings. And the city can purchase one and let these people live there with affordable rent.

jonursenbach 11y ago
And where are those people going to live during the year or two it'll take to build that?
- rhino369 11y ago
  Good point. They could do the first building for the community, only displacing a few families. Then once they move in, go full blast on the rest. That would delay the project.
- rhaps0dy 11y ago
  They could hire this company: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/30/chinese-construction-firm-erects-57-storey-skyscraper-in-19-days http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/30/chinese-constru... It was here in HN a while ago.
  - zatkin 11y ago
    This seems risky from a safety perspective. According to Wikipedia, the status is "On Hold, Suspended until the Project passes relevant safety examinations and gains building permits."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_City_(Changsha) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_City_(Changsha)
x0054 11y ago
You are of course assuming that these people are willing to live in a 40 story high rise apartment. I am not saying they are entitled to live where they are currently living, or making any other claim like that. But you are making an assumption that just because someone enjoys living in a trailer house, they must also be ok with living in an apartment. That may not be the case, at lease that's not the case for me. Also, I am not familiar with the area in question, but isn't it quite susceptible to earthquakes? I am not saying don't build a multistory building, but 40 stories?
- stephengillie 11y ago
  Unfortunately, people are downvoting you rather than engaging with your argument. Apartments are a very different living situation than living in your own building on land. One has a lot more open area for projects, playtime, vehicle maintenance, outdoor cooking and gathering, etc. I live in apartments because I do not want a yard to have to maintain. And I know many people who do not live in apartments because they want a yard to use for projects and enjoying. It's ridiculous to assume that these people would want to live in apartments without asking them. And it's inhumane to suggest that people with fewer resources should live in the space that someone else chose for them, merely because they have fewer resources.
- charles2013 11y ago
  > But you are making an assumption that just because someone enjoys living in a trailer house, they must also be ok with living in an apartment. That may not be the case, at lease that's not the case for me. good point. a home with a private yard for the kids to play, no shared walls, a porch to sit on while you wave to neighbors on their evening stroll -- these things aren't possible in high-rise apartment buildings, which by comparison might feel like confinement. also, many people who've never lived in a trailer park, or don't know any manufactured homeowners, might not understand the sense of community that a lot of trailer park residents feel. i'm not saying that a sense of community is not possible in a high-rise apartment building, but in my experience, high-rise apartment buildings have a much different atmosphere than gated communities. > Also, I am not familiar with the area in question, but isn't it quite susceptible to earthquakes? I am not saying don't build a multistory building, but 40 stories? SF and san jose have lots of high-rises, as do other big cities near fault lines :)
- rhino369 11y ago
  I'm sure they'd rather live in the trailer, but you can't always get what you want. They are living on someone else's property. I fully expect they'd rather live in a cheap apartment in Palo Alto over a wherever the nearest empty lot large enough and cheap enough to host a trailer park. I'd imagine that's pretty far away. What will actually happen is that they will get evicted and 2 million dollar mini-mcmansions will get built there instead.
samcheng 11y ago
Some parts of Palo Alto don't even give permits for TWO story houses (to preserve the privacy and character of the surrounding one-story houses, particularly those Eichlers with the entire rear wall of the house being made of glass). Expecting a high-rise development on this property is fanciful. Expect 2,000 square-foot townhouses, selling for $2 million. That's what they built across the street. [1] http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/19506109_zpid/ http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/19506109_zpid/
- rhino369 11y ago
  I know I'm not being realistic. But if CA wasn't so anti-growth that's what would happen.
peterwoo 11y ago
This idea is absurd. First of all a high rise in this neighborhood is terrible city planning and would never work. This is the place we're talking about https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4142855,-122.129379,3a,75y,272.85h,73.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLnEiNkA08-4YZcxJdLEZ3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4142855,-122.129379,3a,75y,2... You can't just drop a 40 story building onto a residential street, even apart from it being illegal due to city ordinances. The infrastructure is not here (and you can't build it in 19 days). If somehow you got it built it would only make everyone miserable. This street already gets kind of whack during the school year since it terminates at Gunn High School (which I guess they would simply make twice as big). Second of all -- cut a deal with who? Not just Buena Vista residents, the whole city. Nobody wants that. A developer would have to be insane to even try. A few years back in a nearby neighborhood they tried to replace a community orchard with new housing. Not even displacing people, just trying to develop affordable housing on top of peoples' PLANTS. It was pushed to a referendum and Palo Alto residents rejected it. The developer had already bought the land and had to sell it.
- ScottBurson 11y ago
  Okay, maybe it shouldn't be exactly there. But we have to start building more vertically on the Peninsula -- we just have to. And I understand fully that it's going to take a sea change in local sentiment before that can happen.
  - tired_man 11y ago
    You want to build vertically in an earthquake prone area? You need to move a bit east, friend. There _is_ going to be an earthquake.
    - ItsDeathball 11y ago
      Earthquake resistance isn't an immediate win for low-density housing. Tall buildings can be safer in an earthquake than single-family homes and low-rise townhouses, both due to a lower structural resonance frequency and the ability to spread the cost of advanced safety features (like mass dampers) across more tenants.

jonursenbach 11y ago

And where are those people going to live during the year or two it'll take to build that?

rhino369 11y ago
Good point. They could do the first building for the community, only displacing a few families. Then once they move in, go full blast on the rest. That would delay the project.
rhaps0dy 11y ago
They could hire this company: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/30/chinese-construction-firm-erects-57-storey-skyscraper-in-19-days http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/30/chinese-constru... It was here in HN a while ago.
- zatkin 11y ago
  This seems risky from a safety perspective. According to Wikipedia, the status is "On Hold, Suspended until the Project passes relevant safety examinations and gains building permits."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_City_(Changsha) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_City_(Changsha)

x0054 11y ago

You are of course assuming that these people are willing to live in a 40 story high rise apartment. I am not saying they are entitled to live where they are currently living, or making any other claim like that. But you are making an assumption that just because someone enjoys living in a trailer house, they must also be ok with living in an apartment. That may not be the case, at lease that's not the case for me. Also, I am not familiar with the area in question, but isn't it quite susceptible to earthquakes? I am not saying don't build a multistory building, but 40 stories?

stephengillie 11y ago
Unfortunately, people are downvoting you rather than engaging with your argument. Apartments are a very different living situation than living in your own building on land. One has a lot more open area for projects, playtime, vehicle maintenance, outdoor cooking and gathering, etc. I live in apartments because I do not want a yard to have to maintain. And I know many people who do not live in apartments because they want a yard to use for projects and enjoying. It's ridiculous to assume that these people would want to live in apartments without asking them. And it's inhumane to suggest that people with fewer resources should live in the space that someone else chose for them, merely because they have fewer resources.
charles2013 11y ago
> But you are making an assumption that just because someone enjoys living in a trailer house, they must also be ok with living in an apartment. That may not be the case, at lease that's not the case for me. good point. a home with a private yard for the kids to play, no shared walls, a porch to sit on while you wave to neighbors on their evening stroll -- these things aren't possible in high-rise apartment buildings, which by comparison might feel like confinement. also, many people who've never lived in a trailer park, or don't know any manufactured homeowners, might not understand the sense of community that a lot of trailer park residents feel. i'm not saying that a sense of community is not possible in a high-rise apartment building, but in my experience, high-rise apartment buildings have a much different atmosphere than gated communities. > Also, I am not familiar with the area in question, but isn't it quite susceptible to earthquakes? I am not saying don't build a multistory building, but 40 stories? SF and san jose have lots of high-rises, as do other big cities near fault lines :)
rhino369 11y ago
I'm sure they'd rather live in the trailer, but you can't always get what you want. They are living on someone else's property. I fully expect they'd rather live in a cheap apartment in Palo Alto over a wherever the nearest empty lot large enough and cheap enough to host a trailer park. I'd imagine that's pretty far away. What will actually happen is that they will get evicted and 2 million dollar mini-mcmansions will get built there instead.

samcheng 11y ago

Some parts of Palo Alto don't even give permits for TWO story houses (to preserve the privacy and character of the surrounding one-story houses, particularly those Eichlers with the entire rear wall of the house being made of glass). Expecting a high-rise development on this property is fanciful. Expect 2,000 square-foot townhouses, selling for $2 million. That's what they built across the street. [1] http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/19506109_zpid/ http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/19506109_zpid/

rhino369 11y ago
I know I'm not being realistic. But if CA wasn't so anti-growth that's what would happen.

peterwoo 11y ago

This idea is absurd. First of all a high rise in this neighborhood is terrible city planning and would never work. This is the place we're talking about https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4142855,-122.129379,3a,75y,272.85h,73.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLnEiNkA08-4YZcxJdLEZ3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4142855,-122.129379,3a,75y,2... You can't just drop a 40 story building onto a residential street, even apart from it being illegal due to city ordinances. The infrastructure is not here (and you can't build it in 19 days). If somehow you got it built it would only make everyone miserable. This street already gets kind of whack during the school year since it terminates at Gunn High School (which I guess they would simply make twice as big). Second of all -- cut a deal with who? Not just Buena Vista residents, the whole city. Nobody wants that. A developer would have to be insane to even try. A few years back in a nearby neighborhood they tried to replace a community orchard with new housing. Not even displacing people, just trying to develop affordable housing on top of peoples' PLANTS. It was pushed to a referendum and Palo Alto residents rejected it. The developer had already bought the land and had to sell it.

ScottBurson 11y ago
Okay, maybe it shouldn't be exactly there. But we have to start building more vertically on the Peninsula -- we just have to. And I understand fully that it's going to take a sea change in local sentiment before that can happen.
- tired_man 11y ago
  You want to build vertically in an earthquake prone area? You need to move a bit east, friend. There _is_ going to be an earthquake.
  - ItsDeathball 11y ago
    Earthquake resistance isn't an immediate win for low-density housing. Tall buildings can be safer in an earthquake than single-family homes and low-rise townhouses, both due to a lower structural resonance frequency and the ability to spread the cost of advanced safety features (like mass dampers) across more tenants.