9 ms·

That's a really excellent location. Diridion Station has good transit connections all the way to SF (Caltrain) and Richmond (Capitol Corridor) [1] in the north,

That's a really excellent location. Diridion Station has good transit connections all the way to SF (Caltrain) and Richmond (Capitol Corridor) [1] in the north, Gilroy (Caltrain) in the south, and Stockton (ACE) in the east. It's got enormous coverage. [1] Technically the train goes to Sacramento in the north, but the section from Richmond to Benicia is very slow.

benatkin 8y ago
There's also a park right next to Didiron station, on the opposite side of the tunnel from the parking lot, and a fancy whole foods about a quarter of a mile from it. I think the park is exceptionally nice but it might just be that the first time I went to the park I saw a doge.
- bb611 8y ago
  Cahill park is frequented by dog owners (and their dogs) and has a really nice playground for kids, it's a good anchor for a family friendly neighborhood. There's also a great used book store a quarter mile further down the Alameda
mc32 8y ago
Also, SJ in general is so low density. It would be easy to double, even triple population without "Manhattanizing" SJ. Now, of course, making sure NIMBYers don't get in other people's business is a different story. SJ has so much room to grow. With the airport, soil geology, aquifer [subsidence], etc., you're not going to see much beyond 6-12 storeys, 20 max, but just getting that in some key areas like North SJ would allow pop growth really easily. North SJ (also south of 280 in some areas) was light industrial, so you won't get so much NIMBYism) and there is no excuse of "ruins the views" there are no views in SJ. The surface area where you can build even low-rise, some mid-rise modern condos in areas where 1960's and 70's poorly built apartment building are in disrepair and with poor earthquake readiness makes for so much (re)building opportunity.
- wbl 8y ago
  San Jose doesn't want more housing. Prop 13 is strangling services so now they want commercial.
  - crushcrashcrush 8y ago
    So many problems get solved if we repeal prop 13.
  - wahern 8y ago
    That wouldn't change with a repeal of Prop 13. Prop 13 also applies to commercial property. Prop 13 has nothing to do with the dynamic of wanting more tax revenue without having to pay for the social services--police, schooling, etc. Whether residential or commercial, density is far more efficient--more revenue per acre, fewer expenditures per capita. Not choosing higher density is budgetary non-sense. Cities reject higher density because of NIMBYism, and because the costs of sprawl are hidden and delayed, whereas the costs of density are immediate and obvious. If the costs of sprawl were as transparent as the costs of density, development would be much more dense.
    - wbl 8y ago
      Prop 13 means commercial activity which pays sales or income taxes is more lucrative. I agree density is cheaper.
      - Apocryphon 8y ago
        There's currently a movement to repeal Prop 13 specifically for commercial purposes https://www.evolve-ca.org https://www.evolve-ca.org
- eloisant 8y ago
  ...and it doesn't have water on three sides like SF, blocking its expansion.
  - 8y ago
jakelarkin 8y ago
+ VTA light rail + BART in 2026 too bad the SJC airport runway axis runs straight across downtown. They could otherwise go much much higher/denser in the urban core. Capitol Corridor really could use an investment from the state (instead of HSR boondoogle). Huge chunk of the north-bay could be shifted to proper public transit connections to SF/East Bay economic centers.
- bduerst 8y ago
  Makes it easy for people to commute in on light aircraft! I'm only half joking. The San Carlos airport several miles north has daily commuters who fly in for Redwood Shores offices/Oracle.
  - btian 8y ago
    PAO is also quite busy in the morning for Googlers commuting on aircrafts. Unfortunately bandwidth is much worse than road and train networks. You can't support thousands of people commuting by air every day.
  - masonic 8y ago
    Did you miss the county push to close Reid-Hillview?
- jonas21 8y ago
  > too bad the SJC airport runway axis runs straight across downtown. They could otherwise go much much higher/denser in the urban core. You can get plenty of density without going over 200 feet high. Just look at most European cities.
  - option 8y ago
    lived there (major European city). No, thanks
    - FartyMcFarter 8y ago
      What did you dislike?

benatkin 8y ago

There's also a park right next to Didiron station, on the opposite side of the tunnel from the parking lot, and a fancy whole foods about a quarter of a mile from it. I think the park is exceptionally nice but it might just be that the first time I went to the park I saw a doge.

bb611 8y ago
Cahill park is frequented by dog owners (and their dogs) and has a really nice playground for kids, it's a good anchor for a family friendly neighborhood. There's also a great used book store a quarter mile further down the Alameda

mc32 8y ago

Also, SJ in general is so low density. It would be easy to double, even triple population without "Manhattanizing" SJ. Now, of course, making sure NIMBYers don't get in other people's business is a different story. SJ has so much room to grow. With the airport, soil geology, aquifer [subsidence], etc., you're not going to see much beyond 6-12 storeys, 20 max, but just getting that in some key areas like North SJ would allow pop growth really easily. North SJ (also south of 280 in some areas) was light industrial, so you won't get so much NIMBYism) and there is no excuse of "ruins the views" there are no views in SJ. The surface area where you can build even low-rise, some mid-rise modern condos in areas where 1960's and 70's poorly built apartment building are in disrepair and with poor earthquake readiness makes for so much (re)building opportunity.

wbl 8y ago
San Jose doesn't want more housing. Prop 13 is strangling services so now they want commercial.
- crushcrashcrush 8y ago
  So many problems get solved if we repeal prop 13.
- wahern 8y ago
  That wouldn't change with a repeal of Prop 13. Prop 13 also applies to commercial property. Prop 13 has nothing to do with the dynamic of wanting more tax revenue without having to pay for the social services--police, schooling, etc. Whether residential or commercial, density is far more efficient--more revenue per acre, fewer expenditures per capita. Not choosing higher density is budgetary non-sense. Cities reject higher density because of NIMBYism, and because the costs of sprawl are hidden and delayed, whereas the costs of density are immediate and obvious. If the costs of sprawl were as transparent as the costs of density, development would be much more dense.
  - wbl 8y ago
    Prop 13 means commercial activity which pays sales or income taxes is more lucrative. I agree density is cheaper.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      There's currently a movement to repeal Prop 13 specifically for commercial purposes https://www.evolve-ca.org https://www.evolve-ca.org
eloisant 8y ago
...and it doesn't have water on three sides like SF, blocking its expansion.
- 8y ago

jakelarkin 8y ago

+ VTA light rail + BART in 2026 too bad the SJC airport runway axis runs straight across downtown. They could otherwise go much much higher/denser in the urban core. Capitol Corridor really could use an investment from the state (instead of HSR boondoogle). Huge chunk of the north-bay could be shifted to proper public transit connections to SF/East Bay economic centers.

bduerst 8y ago
Makes it easy for people to commute in on light aircraft! I'm only half joking. The San Carlos airport several miles north has daily commuters who fly in for Redwood Shores offices/Oracle.
- btian 8y ago
  PAO is also quite busy in the morning for Googlers commuting on aircrafts. Unfortunately bandwidth is much worse than road and train networks. You can't support thousands of people commuting by air every day.
- masonic 8y ago
  Did you miss the county push to close Reid-Hillview?
jonas21 8y ago
> too bad the SJC airport runway axis runs straight across downtown. They could otherwise go much much higher/denser in the urban core. You can get plenty of density without going over 200 feet high. Just look at most European cities.
- option 8y ago
  lived there (major European city). No, thanks
  - FartyMcFarter 8y ago
    What did you dislike?