4 ms·

This is what I dislike / don't understand about Palo Alto. Look around here (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4173571,-122.1312807,3a,75y,33.22h,95.91t/data=!3m6

by soyiuz 10y ago

This is what I dislike / don't understand about Palo Alto. Look around here (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4173571,-122.1312807,3a,75y,33.22h,95.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgsHWHVJMxzcp1iq0DscK6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4173571,-122.1312807,3a,75y,...). This is 5 minutes by car to Stanford and to downtown Palo Alto. What do you see? Nothing! Empty sidewalks, empty lots, Jiffy Lubes, a lamp store. Nothing over a few stories high in sight. The entire place looks abandoned---yet this is in the center of one of Silicon Valley, where housing and space, we are told, are at a premium. The culprit I suspect is the unwillingness of local governments to permit construction that would allow for affordable housing. Space is obviously not a problem.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
I am not sure your conclusion makes sense. It's also perfectly possible that there isn't much development going on in this area because land prices are so high and the owners are waiting for someone to buy and develop. It doesn't make sense to build a $200,000 gas station on your plot of land worth $5 million dollars if someone is going to buy it within 5 years and tear down the gas station to build something catering to upper class residents living nearby. Look at the stuff in that area that is clearly new development: A nice credit union, a Starbucks, a Corner Bakery, expensive name brand clothing store, a swanky private K-8 school, an optometrist for animals - all stuff that will continue to exist and make sense 10+ years from now when that entire area is built up with new development. There are good arguments against changing commercial zoning to residential zoning. This is what creates suburbs, which I would assume Palo Alto wants to prevent.
- soyiuz 10y ago
  That could be the case. The thing to note though is the lack of density. In a free market you would see developers taking advantage of the real estate prices by building vertically. That would encourage not sub-urbanization, but urbanization proper. I am suggesting that Palo Alto residents want to prevent urbanization by artificially limiting density which is bad for... well everyone, except existing property owners. And even that is questionable, the area I link here is not at all nice to live in because it feels abandoned and the businesses it supports are sub-urban---the muffler place, a crappy donut shop, a car wash. You want to drive by and get out as soon as possible. There is no convenient public transportation to the university that is only a few miles away. There are no cute coffee shops or bars to create a neighborhood feeling.
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    The existing people living there in their $1 million plus homes don't want to live next to a bunch of high density residential. They want a small, quiet community that doesn't have traffic problems. Obviously this sucks for everyone else that wants to live there, but I am not sure "build high density residential" is such a clear-cut correct solution. Do people in a city have the right to not want to encourage further population growth? My hunch is that they do, but maybe there's an argument that could persuade me otherwise. Also, there's a bus line that does down the exact street you linked, and has many stops.

by soyiuz 10y ago

whamlastxmas 10y ago

I am not sure your conclusion makes sense. It's also perfectly possible that there isn't much development going on in this area because land prices are so high and the owners are waiting for someone to buy and develop. It doesn't make sense to build a $200,000 gas station on your plot of land worth $5 million dollars if someone is going to buy it within 5 years and tear down the gas station to build something catering to upper class residents living nearby. Look at the stuff in that area that is clearly new development: A nice credit union, a Starbucks, a Corner Bakery, expensive name brand clothing store, a swanky private K-8 school, an optometrist for animals - all stuff that will continue to exist and make sense 10+ years from now when that entire area is built up with new development. There are good arguments against changing commercial zoning to residential zoning. This is what creates suburbs, which I would assume Palo Alto wants to prevent.

soyiuz 10y ago
That could be the case. The thing to note though is the lack of density. In a free market you would see developers taking advantage of the real estate prices by building vertically. That would encourage not sub-urbanization, but urbanization proper. I am suggesting that Palo Alto residents want to prevent urbanization by artificially limiting density which is bad for... well everyone, except existing property owners. And even that is questionable, the area I link here is not at all nice to live in because it feels abandoned and the businesses it supports are sub-urban---the muffler place, a crappy donut shop, a car wash. You want to drive by and get out as soon as possible. There is no convenient public transportation to the university that is only a few miles away. There are no cute coffee shops or bars to create a neighborhood feeling.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  The existing people living there in their $1 million plus homes don't want to live next to a bunch of high density residential. They want a small, quiet community that doesn't have traffic problems. Obviously this sucks for everyone else that wants to live there, but I am not sure "build high density residential" is such a clear-cut correct solution. Do people in a city have the right to not want to encourage further population growth? My hunch is that they do, but maybe there's an argument that could persuade me otherwise. Also, there's a bus line that does down the exact street you linked, and has many stops.