4 ms·

In a sane world, the Bay Area would have the highest new-construction numbers of any metro area in the USA, and probably the developed world. Unfortunately, the

In a sane world, the Bay Area would have the highest new-construction numbers of any metro area in the USA, and probably the developed world. Unfortunately, the market is so distorted that I'm only aware of one potential large-scale buildout in the area (the Brisbane Baylands development -- and even that has a 50/50 shot of being successfully blocked). Such pointlessly wasted potential. :(

gehwartzen 9y ago
Or some of the tech companies could be distributed over a larger number of cities. It seems ironic to me that tech companies, of all industries, are placing such a huge premium on physical proximity.
- nielsbot 9y ago
  Sometimes "good, old fashioned" collaboration is best.
- robbyking 9y ago
  I'm a longtime Bay Area software engineer, and the problem is it's scary to move to a town that only has a couple tech companies. I'd love to live someplace smaller, but if I find -- and lose -- a job in a small town, I'm out of other options. Here I have recruiters knocking down my door.
  - xienze 9y ago
    So move to a town that has a lot more than a couple tech companies like Austin or Raleigh. It’s not all SV and wastelands in this country.
    - pwinnski 9y ago
      I don't live in SV, but I've worked remotely for SV companies, and have spent some time there. I think you're underestimating the gap. I wouldn't call every other city a wasteland, but it can sometimes feel like it's hard not to have a tech job in the Bay Area. It's also possible that people in SV are over-estimating the gap, but I think the reality is closer to the extreme they imagine.
  - PopsiclePete 9y ago
    Man, it's not like there's 1000 software companies in the Bay Area and 12 in the rest of the country combined. I have a hard time believing you'd be out of a job for too long in Austin or Denver/Boulder or NYC or DC or Seattle?
    - sidlls 9y ago
      It's not that extreme, but it's quite a difference. The quality just isn't there, either.
    - astura 9y ago
      The price to rent ratio in Manhattan is worse than San Francisco.
    - ashwinaj 9y ago
      As someone who was present in the so called "Silicon hills" (Austin, TX) and "Telecom corridor" (Dallas, TX) it was hard to find a tech job during the 2008 recession. These places look great from the outside (cheap, plenty of space, infrastructure etc.), but the job prospects during a downturn are radically different as compared to the Bay Area (I'm only talking about 2008, not the dotcom bubble).
gnicholas 9y ago
I heard there's a 10,000 unit development going forward in MV. Not sure if that doesn't meet your threshold of large-scale buildout. EDIT: why was this downvoted? I'm adding new information that is directly relevant to the parent comment. If what I've heard is untrue, feel free to say so.
- nradov 9y ago
  The Mountain View city council recently approved Google's proposal for additional housing and office space. http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/12/googles-massive-housing-and-office-plan-poised-for-approval/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/12/googles-massive-housin...
  - DrScump 9y ago
    That land is trapped on the Bay side of 101 with only two ways out (Shoreline and Amphitheatre Pkwy)... both of which are already gridlocked during commute hours. Residences there will be fine for Google workers (and the few other businesses on the bay side of 101), but it will be a nightmare for everyone else. I think that's why the purchase price was so cheap. I could see Google putting in a short-throw underground railroad spur or hyperloop to their campus eventually.
nradov 9y ago
I support building more housing, but we can't have much more housing without completing significant upgrades first. Our roads, schools, and popular public transit routes are now operating beyond design capacity in much of the Bay Area. We can complain about how urban planners should have foreseen the need for higher density decades ago but that doesn't change our reality today. Any major new housing developments need to be coupled with simultaneous infrastructure upgrades; if we can't find funding and political will for infrastructure then the housing will have to wait.
m0llusk 9y ago
The Brisbane Baylands is not a load of potential, it is a fetid swamp that has remained undeveloped because it is a flood prone wasteland well apart from all nearby inhabited areas. The Brisbane Baylands have remained undeveloped since the gold rush for very solid reasons. Simply adding one or two stories to permitted development in downtowns in nearby areas would open up large volumes for more development, but because of the depraved and irrational state of land use planning a fetid swamp is considered vastly more desirable than an added story in an existing and already developed downtown with transit access and all the rest. Zoom out and look at the big picture of bay area land use and this idea that the Brisbane Baylands is an absolutely critical development falls away.

gehwartzen 9y ago

Or some of the tech companies could be distributed over a larger number of cities. It seems ironic to me that tech companies, of all industries, are placing such a huge premium on physical proximity.

nielsbot 9y ago
Sometimes "good, old fashioned" collaboration is best.
robbyking 9y ago
I'm a longtime Bay Area software engineer, and the problem is it's scary to move to a town that only has a couple tech companies. I'd love to live someplace smaller, but if I find -- and lose -- a job in a small town, I'm out of other options. Here I have recruiters knocking down my door.
- xienze 9y ago
  So move to a town that has a lot more than a couple tech companies like Austin or Raleigh. It’s not all SV and wastelands in this country.
  - pwinnski 9y ago
    I don't live in SV, but I've worked remotely for SV companies, and have spent some time there. I think you're underestimating the gap. I wouldn't call every other city a wasteland, but it can sometimes feel like it's hard not to have a tech job in the Bay Area. It's also possible that people in SV are over-estimating the gap, but I think the reality is closer to the extreme they imagine.
- PopsiclePete 9y ago
  Man, it's not like there's 1000 software companies in the Bay Area and 12 in the rest of the country combined. I have a hard time believing you'd be out of a job for too long in Austin or Denver/Boulder or NYC or DC or Seattle?
  - sidlls 9y ago
    It's not that extreme, but it's quite a difference. The quality just isn't there, either.
  - astura 9y ago
    The price to rent ratio in Manhattan is worse than San Francisco.
  - ashwinaj 9y ago
    As someone who was present in the so called "Silicon hills" (Austin, TX) and "Telecom corridor" (Dallas, TX) it was hard to find a tech job during the 2008 recession. These places look great from the outside (cheap, plenty of space, infrastructure etc.), but the job prospects during a downturn are radically different as compared to the Bay Area (I'm only talking about 2008, not the dotcom bubble).

gnicholas 9y ago

I heard there's a 10,000 unit development going forward in MV. Not sure if that doesn't meet your threshold of large-scale buildout. EDIT: why was this downvoted? I'm adding new information that is directly relevant to the parent comment. If what I've heard is untrue, feel free to say so.

nradov 9y ago
The Mountain View city council recently approved Google's proposal for additional housing and office space. http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/12/googles-massive-housing-and-office-plan-poised-for-approval/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/12/googles-massive-housin...
- DrScump 9y ago
  That land is trapped on the Bay side of 101 with only two ways out (Shoreline and Amphitheatre Pkwy)... both of which are already gridlocked during commute hours. Residences there will be fine for Google workers (and the few other businesses on the bay side of 101), but it will be a nightmare for everyone else. I think that's why the purchase price was so cheap. I could see Google putting in a short-throw underground railroad spur or hyperloop to their campus eventually.

nradov 9y ago

I support building more housing, but we can't have much more housing without completing significant upgrades first. Our roads, schools, and popular public transit routes are now operating beyond design capacity in much of the Bay Area. We can complain about how urban planners should have foreseen the need for higher density decades ago but that doesn't change our reality today. Any major new housing developments need to be coupled with simultaneous infrastructure upgrades; if we can't find funding and political will for infrastructure then the housing will have to wait.

m0llusk 9y ago

The Brisbane Baylands is not a load of potential, it is a fetid swamp that has remained undeveloped because it is a flood prone wasteland well apart from all nearby inhabited areas. The Brisbane Baylands have remained undeveloped since the gold rush for very solid reasons. Simply adding one or two stories to permitted development in downtowns in nearby areas would open up large volumes for more development, but because of the depraved and irrational state of land use planning a fetid swamp is considered vastly more desirable than an added story in an existing and already developed downtown with transit access and all the rest. Zoom out and look at the big picture of bay area land use and this idea that the Brisbane Baylands is an absolutely critical development falls away.