4 ms·

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 th

by kylec 9y ago

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.

ng12 9y ago
Because that lifestyle conflicts with being an economic powerhouse and if you fight against it lower income people foot the bill. If that's the lifestyle you want, why not move to the midwest?
- kylec 9y ago
  This is an extremist position - that I should either live somewhere as dense as NYC or as sparse as the midwest. Moderate density has some of the benefits and drawbacks of both. However, given that the Bay Area is an "economic powerhouse" the way it is today, I don't accept the argument that it can't continue to be one without drastically increasing its population density.
  - ng12 9y ago
    I'm not saying that -- I'm saying the economy powers change and fighting against it is a losing battle where already disenfranchised groups are the casualties. I think the "I have mine" attitude is deplorable and those people should go have theirs somewhere else. > I don't accept the argument that it can't continue to be one without drastically increasing its population density. I don't see how without either limiting the economic growth or becoming a miserable place to live. I did my time in the Bay and will never move back.
  - mahyarm 9y ago
    It's a metro area of 8 million people. That population is larger than many european countries! It's one of the largest cities in the world. If you want the suburban lifestyle, go move to Sacramento.
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    As long as the area is an economic powerhouse, people are going to want to move here. The primary countervailing force is the cost of housing. Do you have some other plan for how to keep people away? Because if not, the area is going to get denser, or more expensive to live in, or some of each. Personally I'd rather see it get denser. We have a long way to go before we match SF, never mind NYC.
revelation 9y ago
But you don't. You live in a low-density area, then drive your car to the high-density area to get to work. The high-density inhabitants end up paying for your car habit.
- kylec 9y ago
  I would not call Cupertino, Santa Clara, or pretty much anywhere in the South Bay "high-density" except downtown San Jose, and there are a lot of employers and employees getting along just fine in this area. Could transit be better? Absolutely. For one, 85 could use a few more lanes and a rail line. But instead of trying to convince employers to move their office to denser areas that are currently better served by public transit, I would suggest that we invest in improving the infrastructure in the whole area.
mtalantikite 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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.
sid-kap 9y ago
It's really hard to accommodate both in one place. Quality high-frequency, low-cost (to ticket-payers and taxpayers) transit requires a certain amount of density. Otherwise you won't have frequent bus service within walking distance of every residence. Also, the infrastructure that is necessary for low-density living—parking lots (especially setbacks), wide (6-lane) roads with high (40-45mph) speed limits and few crosswalks, long (1/2 mile) blocks, highways—hurts walkability. Part of this is subjective but still legitimate imo (pedestrians prefer businesses on the street with no setback), and part of this is objective (long blocks makes crossing hard, lots of parking means places become farther apart and therefore less amenable to walking). I'm curious what you think about this as someone who presumably lives in South Bay. Do you consider South Bay a place where people can get around just walking and using transit? What changes do you think could be made there that increases support for walking/transit without impeding car travel or increasing density?

by kylec 9y ago

ng12 9y ago

Because that lifestyle conflicts with being an economic powerhouse and if you fight against it lower income people foot the bill. If that's the lifestyle you want, why not move to the midwest?

kylec 9y ago
This is an extremist position - that I should either live somewhere as dense as NYC or as sparse as the midwest. Moderate density has some of the benefits and drawbacks of both. However, given that the Bay Area is an "economic powerhouse" the way it is today, I don't accept the argument that it can't continue to be one without drastically increasing its population density.
- ng12 9y ago
  I'm not saying that -- I'm saying the economy powers change and fighting against it is a losing battle where already disenfranchised groups are the casualties. I think the "I have mine" attitude is deplorable and those people should go have theirs somewhere else. > I don't accept the argument that it can't continue to be one without drastically increasing its population density. I don't see how without either limiting the economic growth or becoming a miserable place to live. I did my time in the Bay and will never move back.
- mahyarm 9y ago
  It's a metro area of 8 million people. That population is larger than many european countries! It's one of the largest cities in the world. If you want the suburban lifestyle, go move to Sacramento.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  As long as the area is an economic powerhouse, people are going to want to move here. The primary countervailing force is the cost of housing. Do you have some other plan for how to keep people away? Because if not, the area is going to get denser, or more expensive to live in, or some of each. Personally I'd rather see it get denser. We have a long way to go before we match SF, never mind NYC.

revelation 9y ago

But you don't. You live in a low-density area, then drive your car to the high-density area to get to work. The high-density inhabitants end up paying for your car habit.

kylec 9y ago
I would not call Cupertino, Santa Clara, or pretty much anywhere in the South Bay "high-density" except downtown San Jose, and there are a lot of employers and employees getting along just fine in this area. Could transit be better? Absolutely. For one, 85 could use a few more lanes and a rail line. But instead of trying to convince employers to move their office to denser areas that are currently better served by public transit, I would suggest that we invest in improving the infrastructure in the whole area.

mtalantikite 9y ago

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 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.

sid-kap 9y ago

It's really hard to accommodate both in one place. Quality high-frequency, low-cost (to ticket-payers and taxpayers) transit requires a certain amount of density. Otherwise you won't have frequent bus service within walking distance of every residence. Also, the infrastructure that is necessary for low-density living—parking lots (especially setbacks), wide (6-lane) roads with high (40-45mph) speed limits and few crosswalks, long (1/2 mile) blocks, highways—hurts walkability. Part of this is subjective but still legitimate imo (pedestrians prefer businesses on the street with no setback), and part of this is objective (long blocks makes crossing hard, lots of parking means places become farther apart and therefore less amenable to walking). I'm curious what you think about this as someone who presumably lives in South Bay. Do you consider South Bay a place where people can get around just walking and using transit? What changes do you think could be made there that increases support for walking/transit without impeding car travel or increasing density?