3 ms·

"These boards should all take a field trip to places like NYC and Tokyo where the buildings are tall and the density is high." I lived in Japan, and I live in

by timr 9y ago

"These boards should all take a field trip to places like NYC and Tokyo where the buildings are tall and the density is high." I lived in Japan, and I live in New York. Tokyo is mostly low-rise buildings. Outside of a few areas in the center of Tokyo, the city is a sprawling mass of 1-5 story buildings. The vast majority of New York (outside of Manhattan) is the same. Even in Manhattan, most of the residential neighborhoods are under ten stories. Silicon valley can clearly stand to increase density, but it doesn't help to misrepresent what density looks like.

pkaye 9y ago
A lot of the new housing I've seen in SV has been 3 story condos, townhouses and apartments. Is what is being proposed higher density than this or just more of it?
- timr 9y ago
  I can't possibly generalize across all of the bay area, let alone the entire state of California. I can speak with confidence about SF: the eastern third of the city (the part everyone always wants to "build up") is already pretty dense, by any standard. Building skyscrapers is not making housing cheaper, just taller. Meanwhile, the western two-thirds (the parts nobody ever talks about) are like McMansion suburbia. The general problem with this debate on HN is that everyone gets fixated on a select few areas where 20-something nerdbros want to live and go drinking (e.g. the Mission), and imagines turning it into some vision of Tokyo out of Blade Runner, when the real solution is that we should be building more 3 story condos in Sunnyvale. If you wanted to make the bay area resemble Tokyo as it actually exists, you'd cover every flat part of the bay in 1-5 story buildings, and connect it all by excellent transit. It has little to do with skyscrapers, as such.
  - epistasis 9y ago
    I'm not sure where you're seeing that type of discussion on HN. But this bill was precisely the thing that would have opened up the Avenues in SF without touching the eastern side very much. And totally agreed on 4/5 stories everywhere; those are what can be built with less expensive wood construction, and what really increase density. High rises and sky scrapers are usually brought up by the NIMBYs as a straw man to argue against.
    - timr 9y ago
      "I'm not sure where you're seeing that type of discussion on HN." Everywhere. The comment I originally replied to (upthread) has a delusional vision of New York and Tokyo, and "the problem" is (ostensibly) that the bay doesn't look like that. Any facts that are inconvenient to this narrative will be downvoted into invisibility. "But this bill was precisely the thing that would have opened up the Avenues in SF without touching the eastern side very much." While I sympathize with the stated goals, this bill was little more than grandstanding by Weiner. It never had a prayer of becoming law. You probably couldn't pass a rule like this in San Francisco itself, let alone the entire state.
      - epistasis 9y ago
        If I'm understanding you, the "delusional" part was calling Tokyo buildings "tall"? What you describe Tokyo as, 4-5 story buildings, IS tall by local Bay Area standards. In fact, to those who harangue planning commissions and set zoning standards, 4-5 stories is horrifyingly tall, and something that is fought against. You are not downvoted because you are inconvenient to the narrative, but because you seem to be misunderstanding the discussion. Similarly, you seem to misunderstand this: > You probably couldn't pass a rule like this in San Francisco itself, let alone the entire state. because passing a bill in San Francisco is orders of magnitude more challenging than passing it at the State level. Local decision makers are incredibly vulnerable to small voting blocs, whereas State lawmakers are more free to serve the entire community rather than a few special interests. And that's what happened last year when Jerry Brown pushed hard on more housing and a ton of affordable housing bills were passed. Impossible at the local level, but possible at the state level. Calling this "grandstanding" is kind of an outrageous interpretation too. It seems to reveal a huge bias. Do you think he didn't want this? Did you think that it wasn't an honest attempt? He sacrificed a ton to rounds of amendments, and it was still a close committee vote.
        timr 9y ago
        "What you describe Tokyo as, 4-5 story buildings, IS tall by local Bay Area standards." Entirely depends on the neighborhood. In Palo Alto, yes, they're going to be horrified by 5-story construction. In Oakland, not so much. The "delusional" part of said comment was the characterization of Tokyo as a place where all of the buildings are tall. In fact, take a train a couple of stops outside the Yamanote line, and you'll likely find yourself standing in the middle of a community of detached, 1-2 story homes that would evoke large parts of the bay area. Tokyo is not especially dense, or tall. Tokyo simply sprawls, and most people on HN have never been outside of Shinjuku enough to know the difference. Don't believe me? I dropped a pin at random in an area of Tokyo about 10 minutes west of Shinjuku by train: https://goo.gl/maps/6vXn2KqUK4P2 https://goo.gl/maps/6vXn2KqUK4P2 I'm not cherry picking. This is what Tokyo actually looks like, when you get out of the business/tourist districts. "Do you think he didn't want this? Did you think that it wasn't an honest attempt? He sacrificed a ton to rounds of amendments, and it was still a close committee vote." Sacrificed? LOL. He threw a half-baked bill over the fence. In exchange, he got his name in the press for months, and convinced a bunch of his (more credulous) voters that he's an effective politician. This was pure political upside for him, and "amendments" don't even factor into it. Read his public comments; he all but admits that the bill never had a chance of passing.
- philca 9y ago
  Indeed it looks like there are more and more buildings, dare I say of course housing is a problem, but imho the infrastructure is more an issue, the roads are terrible, completely packed the local tramway is more than 45 years old and it shows, the question become more who want to invest with such poor infrastructures.
  - pkaye 9y ago
    Yes infrastructure is a big issue. Many long time residents in my city are complaining about the traffic. Cars are diverting on the local streets to get around the traffic in Fremont for example. Mission blvd between 880 and 680 is under consideration to be made an underpass to reduce red lights but then expectation is it will take 10 years taking into account design, approvals, funding and construction.
  - DrScump 9y ago
    What "local tramway" is 45 years old? VTA light rail barely started 30 years ago. And I wouldn't say the trams look worn, primarily because hardly anyone rides them.
    - philca 9y ago
      You are correct VTA is 30 years old, not really efficient The cost to carry one passenger round trip, $11.74, is 83 percent more than the U.S. average. Speed in San Jose 10mph and an utterly disappointment for the creators. I was thinking more about BART that have a speed of 55mph, and have questionable trains. I really think the infrastructure is an issue, it takes a bit more than a decade to build an exit at the Oakland bridge, roads are packed traffic is getting worst, roads are aged, most concrete (very noisy) not asphalt.

by timr 9y ago

pkaye 9y ago

A lot of the new housing I've seen in SV has been 3 story condos, townhouses and apartments. Is what is being proposed higher density than this or just more of it?

timr 9y ago
I can't possibly generalize across all of the bay area, let alone the entire state of California. I can speak with confidence about SF: the eastern third of the city (the part everyone always wants to "build up") is already pretty dense, by any standard. Building skyscrapers is not making housing cheaper, just taller. Meanwhile, the western two-thirds (the parts nobody ever talks about) are like McMansion suburbia. The general problem with this debate on HN is that everyone gets fixated on a select few areas where 20-something nerdbros want to live and go drinking (e.g. the Mission), and imagines turning it into some vision of Tokyo out of Blade Runner, when the real solution is that we should be building more 3 story condos in Sunnyvale. If you wanted to make the bay area resemble Tokyo as it actually exists, you'd cover every flat part of the bay in 1-5 story buildings, and connect it all by excellent transit. It has little to do with skyscrapers, as such.
- epistasis 9y ago
  I'm not sure where you're seeing that type of discussion on HN. But this bill was precisely the thing that would have opened up the Avenues in SF without touching the eastern side very much. And totally agreed on 4/5 stories everywhere; those are what can be built with less expensive wood construction, and what really increase density. High rises and sky scrapers are usually brought up by the NIMBYs as a straw man to argue against.
  - timr 9y ago
    "I'm not sure where you're seeing that type of discussion on HN." Everywhere. The comment I originally replied to (upthread) has a delusional vision of New York and Tokyo, and "the problem" is (ostensibly) that the bay doesn't look like that. Any facts that are inconvenient to this narrative will be downvoted into invisibility. "But this bill was precisely the thing that would have opened up the Avenues in SF without touching the eastern side very much." While I sympathize with the stated goals, this bill was little more than grandstanding by Weiner. It never had a prayer of becoming law. You probably couldn't pass a rule like this in San Francisco itself, let alone the entire state.
    - epistasis 9y ago
      If I'm understanding you, the "delusional" part was calling Tokyo buildings "tall"? What you describe Tokyo as, 4-5 story buildings, IS tall by local Bay Area standards. In fact, to those who harangue planning commissions and set zoning standards, 4-5 stories is horrifyingly tall, and something that is fought against. You are not downvoted because you are inconvenient to the narrative, but because you seem to be misunderstanding the discussion. Similarly, you seem to misunderstand this: > You probably couldn't pass a rule like this in San Francisco itself, let alone the entire state. because passing a bill in San Francisco is orders of magnitude more challenging than passing it at the State level. Local decision makers are incredibly vulnerable to small voting blocs, whereas State lawmakers are more free to serve the entire community rather than a few special interests. And that's what happened last year when Jerry Brown pushed hard on more housing and a ton of affordable housing bills were passed. Impossible at the local level, but possible at the state level. Calling this "grandstanding" is kind of an outrageous interpretation too. It seems to reveal a huge bias. Do you think he didn't want this? Did you think that it wasn't an honest attempt? He sacrificed a ton to rounds of amendments, and it was still a close committee vote.
      - timr 9y ago
        "What you describe Tokyo as, 4-5 story buildings, IS tall by local Bay Area standards." Entirely depends on the neighborhood. In Palo Alto, yes, they're going to be horrified by 5-story construction. In Oakland, not so much. The "delusional" part of said comment was the characterization of Tokyo as a place where all of the buildings are tall. In fact, take a train a couple of stops outside the Yamanote line, and you'll likely find yourself standing in the middle of a community of detached, 1-2 story homes that would evoke large parts of the bay area. Tokyo is not especially dense, or tall. Tokyo simply sprawls, and most people on HN have never been outside of Shinjuku enough to know the difference. Don't believe me? I dropped a pin at random in an area of Tokyo about 10 minutes west of Shinjuku by train: https://goo.gl/maps/6vXn2KqUK4P2 https://goo.gl/maps/6vXn2KqUK4P2 I'm not cherry picking. This is what Tokyo actually looks like, when you get out of the business/tourist districts. "Do you think he didn't want this? Did you think that it wasn't an honest attempt? He sacrificed a ton to rounds of amendments, and it was still a close committee vote." Sacrificed? LOL. He threw a half-baked bill over the fence. In exchange, he got his name in the press for months, and convinced a bunch of his (more credulous) voters that he's an effective politician. This was pure political upside for him, and "amendments" don't even factor into it. Read his public comments; he all but admits that the bill never had a chance of passing.
philca 9y ago
Indeed it looks like there are more and more buildings, dare I say of course housing is a problem, but imho the infrastructure is more an issue, the roads are terrible, completely packed the local tramway is more than 45 years old and it shows, the question become more who want to invest with such poor infrastructures.
- pkaye 9y ago
  Yes infrastructure is a big issue. Many long time residents in my city are complaining about the traffic. Cars are diverting on the local streets to get around the traffic in Fremont for example. Mission blvd between 880 and 680 is under consideration to be made an underpass to reduce red lights but then expectation is it will take 10 years taking into account design, approvals, funding and construction.
- DrScump 9y ago
  What "local tramway" is 45 years old? VTA light rail barely started 30 years ago. And I wouldn't say the trams look worn, primarily because hardly anyone rides them.
  - philca 9y ago
    You are correct VTA is 30 years old, not really efficient The cost to carry one passenger round trip, $11.74, is 83 percent more than the U.S. average. Speed in San Jose 10mph and an utterly disappointment for the creators. I was thinking more about BART that have a speed of 55mph, and have questionable trains. I really think the infrastructure is an issue, it takes a bit more than a decade to build an exit at the Oakland bridge, roads are packed traffic is getting worst, roads are aged, most concrete (very noisy) not asphalt.