3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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.