3 ms·

This style of post is everywhere. It is really "short" Vs. "long" term thinking. Let's say they followed through with your ideas/criticism: They allow unlimite

This style of post is everywhere. It is really "short" Vs. "long" term thinking. Let's say they followed through with your ideas/criticism: They allow unlimited multi-story flats to get built, the area is now full of the things. Population density will increase further, but major infrastructure won't, so now you need bigger roads, more roads, maybe a subway, smog goes through the roof, activity areas (e.g. parks, recreation) disappears into building or more roads, and now suddenly Cupertino is downtown LA at rush hour and nobody wants to live there. Or Cupertino can say "no" keep the atmosphere that has made it successful, including its medium density housing, keep population down, keep room for activities, keep road congestion at its current levels, and only have room for a small handful of large companies instead of infinite amounts. Spinning this as "they just hate poor people" is definitely a great way of distracting from the core issues though.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Population density will increase further, but major infrastructure won't, so now you need bigger roads, maybe a subway, smog goes through the roof Los Angeles is a case study in urban transportation failure. The sprawl encouraged by Silicon Valley's low-density preference is more of a contributor to the region's traffic and pollution problems. > Or Cupertino can say "no" keep the atmosphere that has made it successful To be clear, I'm not saying Cupertino should say "yes". Just that the natural consequence of "no" is higher housing prices and people being relocated as a function of income. (Also, the area becoming less attractive to startups vis-à-vis large companies.)
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  I don't think any major city has traffic solved. Even places with very little zoning like Houston have traffic problems. urban sprawl seems to be the default when you don't have constraints on your ability to spread outwards.
  - javagram 8y ago
    Solving traffic problems seems nearly impossible in the US as people will get on the roads and drive until gridlock stops them. But in my experience places like NYC (Manhattan in particular) have done a fairly successful job of allowing people to opt out from the traffic problem by using public transit, walking, or uber/taxi instead. A lot of other cities could play catch up there.
    - jeffreyrogers 8y ago
      That's true, Manhattan has the benefit that you can't spread outwards so they just build up, which makes it easier to get around without a car.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > Manhattan has the benefit that you can't spread outwards We overflow into Brooklyn, Queens and New Jersey quite easily. In any case, most of uptown is relatively low density. The density exists because of the demand in a few concentrated areas and because it's permitted.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > I don't think any major city has traffic solved There are some that manage it better than others. Constraining sprawl is one requirement. But public transportation is another. Silicon Valley has trapped itself at a density where it's high enough to produce traffic, pollution and all the downsides of an urban environment, but not high enough to merit lots of public transport. As a result, I end up Ubering from Cupertino to Mountain View--and back--every day I'm in the Bay Area, along with thousands of other people with a virtually-identical commute.
jtreminio 8y ago
> maybe a subway Mass transportation! Oh, the humanity!
madeofpalk 8y ago
I'm sure that the Cupertino that was there 300 years ago is vastly different to the Cupertino of today. Things change. Places change. That being said, there are ways to can solve this to protect the 'natural charm' to an area. There's a middle ground between "free-for-all non-existent building regulations" and "say no to everything". Sydney, for example, has a gradient high limits imposed on the CBD to ensure there's a gradual rise, and limits to ensure natural light corridors still exist where they need to.
rndmize 8y ago
> They allow unlimited multi-story flats to get built, the area is now full of the things. Population density will increase further, but major infrastructure won't, so now you need bigger roads, more roads, maybe a subway, smog goes through the roof, activity areas (e.g. parks, recreation) disappears into building or more roads, and now suddenly Cupertino is downtown LA at rush hour and nobody wants to live there. Literally nothing you listed there necessarily follows. Growing populations is often specifically the reason greater infrastructure is built. SF, regardless of it's construction boom has yet to remove a park/rec area that I've heard of and, in fact, is building a new one on top of it's new transbay terminal. NYC has a wikipedia page listing it's parks (hmmm, biggest city in the US, why haven't they just paved them all over to support more people?!) Smog... you're actually bringing this up? Smog is created when people have to commute 1-2 hours to GET to Cupertino, often sitting traffic, not when people can actually live sort of close to where they work (further, smog isn't currently a problem in the bay and is likely to decrease as people transition to electric vehicles over the coming 20 years, but I digress). If Cupertino doesn't want to be downtown LA, the prescription is literally the opposite of everything you've suggested, as their focus on building more office space instead of housing is what will turn them into a by-day business center for bedroom communities on other side of the bay. (Or, they could stop incentivizing businesses and office space and maintain their look/feel by letting some other parts of the bay have a piece of the tech boom).
TACIXAT 8y ago
Don't increase road capacity, people will start biking, or getting scooters, or taking public transit. High density also generally means you have groceries and restaurants near your house so you don't need to drive to eat. If you increase road capacity, demand just rises to meet it until it is congested again. The point is to find other solutions. I would say that not building is short term thinking. Workers and companies will leave the area. I would also argue that housing had little to do with silicon valley's success. That was access to large amount of tech workers (universities in the area) and lots of government research money.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Population density will increase further, but major infrastructure won't, so now you need bigger roads, maybe a subway, smog goes through the roof Los Angeles is a case study in urban transportation failure. The sprawl encouraged by Silicon Valley's low-density preference is more of a contributor to the region's traffic and pollution problems. > Or Cupertino can say "no" keep the atmosphere that has made it successful To be clear, I'm not saying Cupertino should say "yes". Just that the natural consequence of "no" is higher housing prices and people being relocated as a function of income. (Also, the area becoming less attractive to startups vis-à-vis large companies.)

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
I don't think any major city has traffic solved. Even places with very little zoning like Houston have traffic problems. urban sprawl seems to be the default when you don't have constraints on your ability to spread outwards.
- javagram 8y ago
  Solving traffic problems seems nearly impossible in the US as people will get on the roads and drive until gridlock stops them. But in my experience places like NYC (Manhattan in particular) have done a fairly successful job of allowing people to opt out from the traffic problem by using public transit, walking, or uber/taxi instead. A lot of other cities could play catch up there.
  - jeffreyrogers 8y ago
    That's true, Manhattan has the benefit that you can't spread outwards so they just build up, which makes it easier to get around without a car.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > Manhattan has the benefit that you can't spread outwards We overflow into Brooklyn, Queens and New Jersey quite easily. In any case, most of uptown is relatively low density. The density exists because of the demand in a few concentrated areas and because it's permitted.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > I don't think any major city has traffic solved There are some that manage it better than others. Constraining sprawl is one requirement. But public transportation is another. Silicon Valley has trapped itself at a density where it's high enough to produce traffic, pollution and all the downsides of an urban environment, but not high enough to merit lots of public transport. As a result, I end up Ubering from Cupertino to Mountain View--and back--every day I'm in the Bay Area, along with thousands of other people with a virtually-identical commute.

jtreminio 8y ago

> maybe a subway Mass transportation! Oh, the humanity!

madeofpalk 8y ago

I'm sure that the Cupertino that was there 300 years ago is vastly different to the Cupertino of today. Things change. Places change. That being said, there are ways to can solve this to protect the 'natural charm' to an area. There's a middle ground between "free-for-all non-existent building regulations" and "say no to everything". Sydney, for example, has a gradient high limits imposed on the CBD to ensure there's a gradual rise, and limits to ensure natural light corridors still exist where they need to.

rndmize 8y ago

> They allow unlimited multi-story flats to get built, the area is now full of the things. Population density will increase further, but major infrastructure won't, so now you need bigger roads, more roads, maybe a subway, smog goes through the roof, activity areas (e.g. parks, recreation) disappears into building or more roads, and now suddenly Cupertino is downtown LA at rush hour and nobody wants to live there. Literally nothing you listed there necessarily follows. Growing populations is often specifically the reason greater infrastructure is built. SF, regardless of it's construction boom has yet to remove a park/rec area that I've heard of and, in fact, is building a new one on top of it's new transbay terminal. NYC has a wikipedia page listing it's parks (hmmm, biggest city in the US, why haven't they just paved them all over to support more people?!) Smog... you're actually bringing this up? Smog is created when people have to commute 1-2 hours to GET to Cupertino, often sitting traffic, not when people can actually live sort of close to where they work (further, smog isn't currently a problem in the bay and is likely to decrease as people transition to electric vehicles over the coming 20 years, but I digress). If Cupertino doesn't want to be downtown LA, the prescription is literally the opposite of everything you've suggested, as their focus on building more office space instead of housing is what will turn them into a by-day business center for bedroom communities on other side of the bay. (Or, they could stop incentivizing businesses and office space and maintain their look/feel by letting some other parts of the bay have a piece of the tech boom).

TACIXAT 8y ago

Don't increase road capacity, people will start biking, or getting scooters, or taking public transit. High density also generally means you have groceries and restaurants near your house so you don't need to drive to eat. If you increase road capacity, demand just rises to meet it until it is congested again. The point is to find other solutions. I would say that not building is short term thinking. Workers and companies will leave the area. I would also argue that housing had little to do with silicon valley's success. That was access to large amount of tech workers (universities in the area) and lots of government research money.