15 ms·

> There's a LOT of empty space in California. I grew up in the Bay Area, specifically the east bay, back in the 70’s and 80’s when there was actually empty lan

> There's a LOT of empty space in California. I grew up in the Bay Area, specifically the east bay, back in the 70’s and 80’s when there was actually empty land to be had. I was driving through there a couple weeks ago and it’s all gone, one big metro all the way down past San Jose. All this land you speak of is far from where the jobs are so there’s no incentive to live there without a three hour commute each way. The Bay Area is restricted by the bay (obviously) and the coastal range which isn’t all that wide. They haven’t really let people develop on the hills (except the rich people building mansions) in my lifetime at the very least which is why they don’t all look like the Oakland hills these days.

throwaway09223 4y ago
It's not. I also grew up here during the same time period. There's been a lot of building, but it's nowhere near full. Far less than half the available valley areas are developed along the 680 corridor between 580/24. The commute to Oakland is 25 minutes and to SF by BART is one hour. Even on the bay side there are large empty spaces which aren't being developed, often because development is tied up in decades of litigation -- litigation which is based around these onerous regulatory laws. I'm sure the change you're seeing during a casual visit is striking. But, have you stopped to look at the empty lots which still remain? Have you researched why they're still empty? I have - and this is why. There's room for entire new cities to be built along 580, between Castro Valley and Dublin. There are vast tracks of empty land along 24, in the lamorinda areas, just minutes away from Oakland.