12 ms·

The Bay Area Is Separating into Red and Green Zones

65 points by MagicAndi 9y ago

skybrian 9y ago
This article shows the danger of going by surface appearances and statistics in areas that you don't know. There are a lot of places that don't look like much (for someone used to rich areas) but are decent, stable communities. That run-down looking restaurant might be a stable business that serves great food.
- cwyers 9y ago
  I think there's two things that are true -- the author is kind of a glib poverty tourist, and the Bay Area is becoming increasingly stratified in income, as illustrated by some of the things he notices. He'd be more credible if he was better informed about the people he's writing about.
- tracker1 9y ago
  It's funny, but that's true in a lot of places.. I happen to live in an apartment in an older neighborhood in Phoenix, mainly because the location and pricing was great... the crime rate's very low, and it's really close to a higher end area, so nice restaurants are close as well. It's not a bad neighborhood, just older. Most of the buildings were from the 50's to early 70's. It's funny but more than one of my neighbors is in a similar boat, early 40's, works in IT, divorced, and just saving, mostly.
Apocryphon 9y ago
There's always the pat answers of "housing is the government's job", "this situation was created by public policy" but at this point shouldn't those in tech, the most lucrative and largest industry in the region, at least allot a little thought to the problem of inequality? In discussions defending Silicon Valley, "the press never covers the startups working on hard problems like human longevity or heart disease, but REAL companies that aren't frivolous apps exist" always gets trotted out. Well, how about companies that work on problems that directly impact the Bay Area? At the very least, earmark higher budgets for corporate philanthropy and community outreach.
- claytonjy 9y ago
  Sounds like a coordination problem with a first-mover disadvantage. It's in the best interest of each individual company to keep profits coming back to improve the business and it's competitiveness, rather than earmarking some for philanthropy and community outreach. The first company to do so would suffer while the others continue improving their business. This is exactly why it's a problem to solve at the government level; a higher authority, with teeth, is needed to solve these coordination problems and force market participants to all do the right thing.
  - Apocryphon 9y ago
    Certainly it should be the government's job because it is both intended to and should be most effective/efficient to fix such a tragedy of the commons type situation. But your comment is also sad because it shows how despite all of the iconoclast rhetoric, Silicon Valley companies are often far more risk-adverse, some could say, cowardly, in not willing to buck change. Not simply on matters involving social value or controversy, but more mundane topics that have been brought up before on HN such as willingness to embrace remote work, create better interview processes, etc. And that of course, is also understandable. Tech companies are only willing to disrupt the economic markets and labor practices that would lead to maximum value extraction and shareholder value. No one sincerely disrupts to "make the world a better place."
    - al3xnull 9y ago
      Isn't those exact companies and the businesses that will end up paying for it anyway through taxes along with others in the state? This certainly isn't a federal problem. I'm not sure how getting government involved fixes it as if their funds are just "free" and "exist".
    - nerfhammer 9y ago
      Tech has absolutely nothing to gain from sky high real estate prices. Casting it as an singular moral entity which you can then accuse of moral delinquency may not help in understanding or solving any particular problem. If it were in fact a hyper powerful agency that could change the landscape around itself merely through the commission of its moral will, why would it not have removed all of the anti-housing laws already? Tech workers don't want to pay millions for housing. It is not in the tech industry's best interest – therefore, the issue can't be due to tech having ill best interests.
rjbertsche 9y ago
Saying that construction is a 'basic job skill' is kind of an amazing way to say you don't understand what is going on there at all. Or that somehow it's just magic to you. Most jobs have a depth to them, and most people have to learn quite a bit to do them successfully.
- kposehn 9y ago
  Agreed. Based on the author's description, I think he basically is talking about what he sees from CalTrain or the 101 without actually looking into the areas he says are broken. I live north of San Mateo in one of these "broken" areas. It is most definitely not broken, and nor are the people. But if you go down by the CalTrain line you'll see some trash strewn about and some houses that look run down. But go 200 feet away and it is no longer that.
nostrademons 9y ago
This is fairly accurate, in my experience. I live on the border between Sunnyvale and Mountain View, and within a couple blocks is a gated street (closed to vehicular traffic) where a bunch of skateboarding teens hang out. On the Sunnyvale side of the gate are a bunch of small somewhat run-down apartment buildings, usually 4- or 8-plexes, and you can never find parking because each unit often has 3-4 working adults in it. On one side of the Mountain View street are 60s duplexes; on the other are 90s duplexes; and at the end of the street is a beautiful neighborhood with $3M homes. The one caveat, as skybrian mentions, is that you can't really judge a family's financial status from where they live. A large number of residents in the run-down areas are immigrant bargain-hunters, often with tech jobs; even the run-down areas in Silicon Valley are better than many other countries, and so they'd rather save money than flash their social status. Oftentimes it turns out that they own 3 houses and are collecting serious rent money from young American techies who think they're top of the hill in Silicon Valley. I'm curious whether this is different from other cities. When I lived in Boston, it wasn't all that different; you'd have gorgeous restored brownstones in the South End that were a few blocks away from homicides and drug deals in Dorchester and Roxbury.
- tathougies 9y ago
  To add to this, my wife and I explicitly chose to move in to a 'run-down' apartment building in order to save. Despite both of us having swanky tech jobs at the time. In fact, we conducted our apartment search mainly in spanish in order to get the best deal.
  - tsunamifury 9y ago
    If you're living in run-down conditions when you are earning enough to still be saving and living in decent conditions somewhere else -- you're fooling yourself. Likely your swanky tech job is netting you relatively less than you think.
    - nostrademons 9y ago
      Curious about your logic there? My experience has been the opposite - it's the folks who live in run-down conditions and save 50-80% of their income for decades that end up with a $5-10M net worth, while folks who live comfortably all that time leave this world with maybe a couple hundred K.
malchow 9y ago
If government had just a little more money, and controlled prices just a little more, this wouldn't be a problem anymore. . . . . .said every public office-holder in this area for the last fifty years.
jraines 9y ago
The parts I'm familiar with are painted a little more gloomy than reality. Fremont has top rated schools and a median income above 80k. Combine income with college grad percentage and it's in the 81st percentile on the "superzip" metric. Hayward has some run down areas but the median income is $54k. One the income/college grad metric it's 49th percentile. Basically average for the country. (When average is seen as a dominion of "sadness", that says something -- whether about the commentator, the state of the country, or both is up to you) The problem, as is beaten to death yet still not enough, is housing costs. In "average" Hayward, a barely adequate home for a family will run you north of $600k. What you'd expect in most places as a middle class home closer to $750k+
ppeetteerr 9y ago
I moved to the city for a few months a week ago and the poverty described in the article is apparent. Everyone you speak to is struggling to pay rent and afford more than subsistence. Perhaps it's fairer to equate San Francisco with London: most of the realestate is owned by the rich whereas everyone else is struggling to pay for inflated housing prices. A separate note: I did enjoy San Jose. It's not wealthy but it's a quaint type of lifestyle that I did not dislike. To say that it's comfortable living, however, would be a stretch.
ProfessorLayton 9y ago
This article reminds me of my coworkers who think San Mateo is sketchy "On the other side of the tracks". I've lived 90th and International in Oakland and have a pretty good idea of what "red" looks like. Speaking from personal experience, San Leandro and Hayward are nice places to live in, and the crime maps match my experience with the area [1]. I understand the article was talking about poverty and not crime, but poverty and crime are correlated [2], so a crime map is a valid proxy. I agree that some areas are a bit run down, but overall I think its the opposite, pockets of "red" surrounded by "green". [1] https://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Oakland-California/crime/ https://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Oakland-California/crime/ [2] https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137 https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137
dmode 9y ago
I have no idea what this article was about. Let's see. Somehow this individual drives from San Francisco to San Mateo and considers everything in between poor? Perhaps he should venture a little bit more ? How about driving around 280, Hillsborough, Burlingame, Milbrae up in the hills ? All of these are beautiful neighborhoods with houses > $2mn. Not sure what he is talking about. Somehow, he thinks the "stuff on water" is in San Mateo. It is actually Foster City. Then he drives south from San Mateo down south and until he reaches Palo Alto, he thinks everything is working class poor. Interesting, because between San Mateo and Palo Alto you have Belmont, Redwood City, San Carlos, Atherton, and Menlo Park. Anybody who believes only working class poor lives in these cities, not sure how to take them seriously. Then this person believes whole of San Jose is a slum. Obviously never been to Evergreen or the myriad of other neighborhoods in San Jose. Then he thinks Fremont has "promise". I actually live in Fremont and not sure if there is a working class neighborhood in Fremont. Fremont has beautiful parks and lakes and great schools. Ok, Hayward and Oakland are bit rundown. But even Hayward Hills and Oakland Hills are amazing places to live. My guess - this person drove down El Camino real in the Peninsula and concluded everything by driving down one street. He also makes an incredible claim - only 2-3% have salaries that let them live comfortably. Others are working on 2-3 jobs. I guess people are working on 2-3 jobs and paying millions for their houses. What a terrible article.
- gruglife 9y ago
  Completely agree with you. I grew up in the East Bay and to say much of the East Bay is extremely poor is rediculous. Sure Oakland and Richmond are struggling but there are numerous cities that are not (Walnut Creek, Orinda, Danville, Pleasanton, etc).
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    The whole article sounded like "Oh, my god, you don't have a brand new Tesla parked in the driveway of your beautiful single-family home in the middle of Palo Alto? I'm so sorry for how poor you are!! No high end bookstores and artisanal coffee shops? My word, how dreadful!" In reality, most of the places he described as "red zone" are far, far better than a great deal of the rest of the country. Go visit some run-down Rust Belt cities and tell me you still think San Jose is dilapidated.
RealityNow 9y ago
I think Jamie Dimon said it best, it's almost embarrassing to be an American these days. Homeless people everywhere, mentally insane people screaming on the streets, rude classless people (in the ghetto), failing infrastructure, a narcissistic demagogue trust fund kid as president. Every single major city in America has a ghetto not unlike a third world country - NYC, LA, Chicago, SF, etc. I've never understood why we tolerate this poverty in our own backyards. There was a period when we were the model nation for the world, and that period is long gone. As long as America is ruled by the mindset of "everyone for themselves" and free market fundamentalism, nothing is going to improve - and in fact things are only going to get worse as the job market tightens due to technological automation.
- sillypog 9y ago
  Although you don't seem to like the president, you have made a lot of the same points as he did in his campaign. Maybe he will fix these issues and make America great again.
  - ppeetteerr 9y ago
    Not to get political, but the president doesn't have the power to change things at this level. It's up to congress and state and municipal governments to institute the kind of change you are thinking about.
    - thephyber 9y ago
      Over the past month, I've started to consider that the people that support the president know this. They want him to champion the identity that they have and the policies don't matter nearly as much -- they just want to hear someone "defending" them. I think it's far more about identity than it is any faith they have in him being able to actually change anything via policy or legislation.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - RealityNow 9y ago
sillypog 9y ago
From the article: "Heading north from Fremont is basically sadness. Hayward, Oakland, San Leandro, Richmond, Vallejo. They’re all poverty stricken and broken. The only green zones I see out in that area are maybe in Dublin, Pleasanton, Moraga, etc., but I honestly don’t know much about those areas because I seldom get out there." Oh no, what happened to Piedmont, Berkeley, Kensington and all the other lovely East Bay towns? Perhaps the author is only seeing poverty because that's what he's looking for. To me, the suggestion that living in Dublin is preferable to living in Oakland sounds bizarre. A lot of people in these "broken" cities would rather be there than anywhere else, so they must have something going for them.
jpao79 9y ago
Highly recommend watching: Ellen Dunham-Jones: Retrofitting suburbia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_uTsrxfYWQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_uTsrxfYWQ Basically what the author (Daniel Miessler) is seeing is this suburban sprawl being selectively re-invented. Originally the Peninsula was sprawl for San Francisco in the 1940-70s. Then the housing stock slowly aged and the rich people moved on to Pleasanton, etc. At some point Oracle, Google and the dot-com bubble and associated traffic jams on 880/101 made it make sense to re-examine and subsequently re-invent/re-invest in infill locations like San Mateo and Mountain View respectively. Usually the leading indicator for re-development is the school district. Mountain View when I was growing up was were you went for well priced non-Italian/French restaurants. In fact there are some original still there on Castro street still hanging on if you look closely. It was most definitely not high end baked French goods (i.e. Alexander's Patisserie). I would say with the arrival of Box in Redwood City, it's starting to happen there too. I'd also add that in places that are not physically constrained (like in Texas or even Southern California), you just have more sprawl. It looks different but it doesn't seem any better (or any worse).

65 points by MagicAndi 9y ago

This article shows the danger of going by surface appearances and statistics in areas that you don't know. There are a lot of places that don't look like much (for someone used to rich areas) but are decent, stable communities. That run-down looking restaurant might be a stable business that serves great food.

cwyers 9y ago
I think there's two things that are true -- the author is kind of a glib poverty tourist, and the Bay Area is becoming increasingly stratified in income, as illustrated by some of the things he notices. He'd be more credible if he was better informed about the people he's writing about.
tracker1 9y ago
It's funny, but that's true in a lot of places.. I happen to live in an apartment in an older neighborhood in Phoenix, mainly because the location and pricing was great... the crime rate's very low, and it's really close to a higher end area, so nice restaurants are close as well. It's not a bad neighborhood, just older. Most of the buildings were from the 50's to early 70's. It's funny but more than one of my neighbors is in a similar boat, early 40's, works in IT, divorced, and just saving, mostly.

Apocryphon 9y ago

There's always the pat answers of "housing is the government's job", "this situation was created by public policy" but at this point shouldn't those in tech, the most lucrative and largest industry in the region, at least allot a little thought to the problem of inequality? In discussions defending Silicon Valley, "the press never covers the startups working on hard problems like human longevity or heart disease, but REAL companies that aren't frivolous apps exist" always gets trotted out. Well, how about companies that work on problems that directly impact the Bay Area? At the very least, earmark higher budgets for corporate philanthropy and community outreach.

claytonjy 9y ago
Sounds like a coordination problem with a first-mover disadvantage. It's in the best interest of each individual company to keep profits coming back to improve the business and it's competitiveness, rather than earmarking some for philanthropy and community outreach. The first company to do so would suffer while the others continue improving their business. This is exactly why it's a problem to solve at the government level; a higher authority, with teeth, is needed to solve these coordination problems and force market participants to all do the right thing.
- Apocryphon 9y ago
  Certainly it should be the government's job because it is both intended to and should be most effective/efficient to fix such a tragedy of the commons type situation. But your comment is also sad because it shows how despite all of the iconoclast rhetoric, Silicon Valley companies are often far more risk-adverse, some could say, cowardly, in not willing to buck change. Not simply on matters involving social value or controversy, but more mundane topics that have been brought up before on HN such as willingness to embrace remote work, create better interview processes, etc. And that of course, is also understandable. Tech companies are only willing to disrupt the economic markets and labor practices that would lead to maximum value extraction and shareholder value. No one sincerely disrupts to "make the world a better place."
  - al3xnull 9y ago
    Isn't those exact companies and the businesses that will end up paying for it anyway through taxes along with others in the state? This certainly isn't a federal problem. I'm not sure how getting government involved fixes it as if their funds are just "free" and "exist".
  - nerfhammer 9y ago
    Tech has absolutely nothing to gain from sky high real estate prices. Casting it as an singular moral entity which you can then accuse of moral delinquency may not help in understanding or solving any particular problem. If it were in fact a hyper powerful agency that could change the landscape around itself merely through the commission of its moral will, why would it not have removed all of the anti-housing laws already? Tech workers don't want to pay millions for housing. It is not in the tech industry's best interest – therefore, the issue can't be due to tech having ill best interests.

rjbertsche 9y ago

Saying that construction is a 'basic job skill' is kind of an amazing way to say you don't understand what is going on there at all. Or that somehow it's just magic to you. Most jobs have a depth to them, and most people have to learn quite a bit to do them successfully.

kposehn 9y ago
Agreed. Based on the author's description, I think he basically is talking about what he sees from CalTrain or the 101 without actually looking into the areas he says are broken. I live north of San Mateo in one of these "broken" areas. It is most definitely not broken, and nor are the people. But if you go down by the CalTrain line you'll see some trash strewn about and some houses that look run down. But go 200 feet away and it is no longer that.

nostrademons 9y ago

This is fairly accurate, in my experience. I live on the border between Sunnyvale and Mountain View, and within a couple blocks is a gated street (closed to vehicular traffic) where a bunch of skateboarding teens hang out. On the Sunnyvale side of the gate are a bunch of small somewhat run-down apartment buildings, usually 4- or 8-plexes, and you can never find parking because each unit often has 3-4 working adults in it. On one side of the Mountain View street are 60s duplexes; on the other are 90s duplexes; and at the end of the street is a beautiful neighborhood with $3M homes. The one caveat, as skybrian mentions, is that you can't really judge a family's financial status from where they live. A large number of residents in the run-down areas are immigrant bargain-hunters, often with tech jobs; even the run-down areas in Silicon Valley are better than many other countries, and so they'd rather save money than flash their social status. Oftentimes it turns out that they own 3 houses and are collecting serious rent money from young American techies who think they're top of the hill in Silicon Valley. I'm curious whether this is different from other cities. When I lived in Boston, it wasn't all that different; you'd have gorgeous restored brownstones in the South End that were a few blocks away from homicides and drug deals in Dorchester and Roxbury.

tathougies 9y ago
To add to this, my wife and I explicitly chose to move in to a 'run-down' apartment building in order to save. Despite both of us having swanky tech jobs at the time. In fact, we conducted our apartment search mainly in spanish in order to get the best deal.
- tsunamifury 9y ago
  If you're living in run-down conditions when you are earning enough to still be saving and living in decent conditions somewhere else -- you're fooling yourself. Likely your swanky tech job is netting you relatively less than you think.
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    Curious about your logic there? My experience has been the opposite - it's the folks who live in run-down conditions and save 50-80% of their income for decades that end up with a $5-10M net worth, while folks who live comfortably all that time leave this world with maybe a couple hundred K.

malchow 9y ago

If government had just a little more money, and controlled prices just a little more, this wouldn't be a problem anymore. . . . . .said every public office-holder in this area for the last fifty years.

jraines 9y ago

The parts I'm familiar with are painted a little more gloomy than reality. Fremont has top rated schools and a median income above 80k. Combine income with college grad percentage and it's in the 81st percentile on the "superzip" metric. Hayward has some run down areas but the median income is $54k. One the income/college grad metric it's 49th percentile. Basically average for the country. (When average is seen as a dominion of "sadness", that says something -- whether about the commentator, the state of the country, or both is up to you) The problem, as is beaten to death yet still not enough, is housing costs. In "average" Hayward, a barely adequate home for a family will run you north of $600k. What you'd expect in most places as a middle class home closer to $750k+

ppeetteerr 9y ago

I moved to the city for a few months a week ago and the poverty described in the article is apparent. Everyone you speak to is struggling to pay rent and afford more than subsistence. Perhaps it's fairer to equate San Francisco with London: most of the realestate is owned by the rich whereas everyone else is struggling to pay for inflated housing prices. A separate note: I did enjoy San Jose. It's not wealthy but it's a quaint type of lifestyle that I did not dislike. To say that it's comfortable living, however, would be a stretch.

ProfessorLayton 9y ago

This article reminds me of my coworkers who think San Mateo is sketchy "On the other side of the tracks". I've lived 90th and International in Oakland and have a pretty good idea of what "red" looks like. Speaking from personal experience, San Leandro and Hayward are nice places to live in, and the crime maps match my experience with the area [1]. I understand the article was talking about poverty and not crime, but poverty and crime are correlated [2], so a crime map is a valid proxy. I agree that some areas are a bit run down, but overall I think its the opposite, pockets of "red" surrounded by "green". [1] https://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Oakland-California/crime/ https://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Oakland-California/crime/ [2] https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137 https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137

dmode 9y ago

I have no idea what this article was about. Let's see. Somehow this individual drives from San Francisco to San Mateo and considers everything in between poor? Perhaps he should venture a little bit more ? How about driving around 280, Hillsborough, Burlingame, Milbrae up in the hills ? All of these are beautiful neighborhoods with houses > $2mn. Not sure what he is talking about. Somehow, he thinks the "stuff on water" is in San Mateo. It is actually Foster City. Then he drives south from San Mateo down south and until he reaches Palo Alto, he thinks everything is working class poor. Interesting, because between San Mateo and Palo Alto you have Belmont, Redwood City, San Carlos, Atherton, and Menlo Park. Anybody who believes only working class poor lives in these cities, not sure how to take them seriously. Then this person believes whole of San Jose is a slum. Obviously never been to Evergreen or the myriad of other neighborhoods in San Jose. Then he thinks Fremont has "promise". I actually live in Fremont and not sure if there is a working class neighborhood in Fremont. Fremont has beautiful parks and lakes and great schools. Ok, Hayward and Oakland are bit rundown. But even Hayward Hills and Oakland Hills are amazing places to live. My guess - this person drove down El Camino real in the Peninsula and concluded everything by driving down one street. He also makes an incredible claim - only 2-3% have salaries that let them live comfortably. Others are working on 2-3 jobs. I guess people are working on 2-3 jobs and paying millions for their houses. What a terrible article.

gruglife 9y ago
Completely agree with you. I grew up in the East Bay and to say much of the East Bay is extremely poor is rediculous. Sure Oakland and Richmond are struggling but there are numerous cities that are not (Walnut Creek, Orinda, Danville, Pleasanton, etc).
- ryandrake 9y ago
  The whole article sounded like "Oh, my god, you don't have a brand new Tesla parked in the driveway of your beautiful single-family home in the middle of Palo Alto? I'm so sorry for how poor you are!! No high end bookstores and artisanal coffee shops? My word, how dreadful!" In reality, most of the places he described as "red zone" are far, far better than a great deal of the rest of the country. Go visit some run-down Rust Belt cities and tell me you still think San Jose is dilapidated.

RealityNow 9y ago

I think Jamie Dimon said it best, it's almost embarrassing to be an American these days. Homeless people everywhere, mentally insane people screaming on the streets, rude classless people (in the ghetto), failing infrastructure, a narcissistic demagogue trust fund kid as president. Every single major city in America has a ghetto not unlike a third world country - NYC, LA, Chicago, SF, etc. I've never understood why we tolerate this poverty in our own backyards. There was a period when we were the model nation for the world, and that period is long gone. As long as America is ruled by the mindset of "everyone for themselves" and free market fundamentalism, nothing is going to improve - and in fact things are only going to get worse as the job market tightens due to technological automation.

sillypog 9y ago
Although you don't seem to like the president, you have made a lot of the same points as he did in his campaign. Maybe he will fix these issues and make America great again.
- ppeetteerr 9y ago
  Not to get political, but the president doesn't have the power to change things at this level. It's up to congress and state and municipal governments to institute the kind of change you are thinking about.
  - thephyber 9y ago
    Over the past month, I've started to consider that the people that support the president know this. They want him to champion the identity that they have and the policies don't matter nearly as much -- they just want to hear someone "defending" them. I think it's far more about identity than it is any faith they have in him being able to actually change anything via policy or legislation.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- RealityNow 9y ago

sillypog 9y ago

From the article: "Heading north from Fremont is basically sadness. Hayward, Oakland, San Leandro, Richmond, Vallejo. They’re all poverty stricken and broken. The only green zones I see out in that area are maybe in Dublin, Pleasanton, Moraga, etc., but I honestly don’t know much about those areas because I seldom get out there." Oh no, what happened to Piedmont, Berkeley, Kensington and all the other lovely East Bay towns? Perhaps the author is only seeing poverty because that's what he's looking for. To me, the suggestion that living in Dublin is preferable to living in Oakland sounds bizarre. A lot of people in these "broken" cities would rather be there than anywhere else, so they must have something going for them.

jpao79 9y ago

Highly recommend watching: Ellen Dunham-Jones: Retrofitting suburbia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_uTsrxfYWQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_uTsrxfYWQ Basically what the author (Daniel Miessler) is seeing is this suburban sprawl being selectively re-invented. Originally the Peninsula was sprawl for San Francisco in the 1940-70s. Then the housing stock slowly aged and the rich people moved on to Pleasanton, etc. At some point Oracle, Google and the dot-com bubble and associated traffic jams on 880/101 made it make sense to re-examine and subsequently re-invent/re-invest in infill locations like San Mateo and Mountain View respectively. Usually the leading indicator for re-development is the school district. Mountain View when I was growing up was were you went for well priced non-Italian/French restaurants. In fact there are some original still there on Castro street still hanging on if you look closely. It was most definitely not high end baked French goods (i.e. Alexander's Patisserie). I would say with the arrival of Box in Redwood City, it's starting to happen there too. I'd also add that in places that are not physically constrained (like in Texas or even Southern California), you just have more sprawl. It looks different but it doesn't seem any better (or any worse).