4 ms·

San Jose, the Metropolis of the Future?

2 points by _hypx 4y ago

dredmorbius 4y ago
San Jose faces an upward growth limitation due to its proximity to Mineta San Jose International Airport and flight paths which traverse directly over the downtown centre. Maximum building heights are 91 m (300 ft), and lower in regions closer to the airport e.g., the Diridon Transportation Centre. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/12/editorial-why-san-jose-council-should-approve-raising-downtown-building-heights/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/12/editorial-why-san-jos... That's not to say that San Jose cannot achieve greater density through residential low- and mid-rise construction, as opposed to the single-floor, single-family housing which dominates the area. But it's a damper on generally higher density. San Diego, also in California, has a similar situation relative to its airport. That city is also defined by a squat downtown and massive sprawl (much through incorporating outlying suburbs).
- _hypx 4y ago
  91m is taller than the vast majority of apartment complexes. Even Manhattan is comprised mostly of mid-rise buildings. There isn't any challenge in drastically increasing population under this limit. Other problems, in particular lack of mass transit, will be a much bigger problem long before San Jose runs into height problems.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Office towers make for dense and vibrant downtowns. They're not absolutely essential, but they help a lot. San Francisco isn't known for its immense towers, but even it boasts buildings more than 3 times San Jose's maximum limit (even factoring in roofline vs. spires). The pattern of development in Silicon Valley has been toward sprawl and low-rise buildings. Adobe's headquarters are quite the exception, but only rise 18 storeys. There's the whole question of whether or not return-to-office will in fact happen. And of course, mass transit goes hand-in-hand with density. It's not as if San Jose doesn't have light rail, heavy rail, BART, and busses. It's just that both housing and commercial space are too sprawled out for them to be effective. Good biking conditions, though: mild weather, and far fewer hills than San Francisco.
    - _hypx 4y ago
      Office towers above a certain height tend to be excessively wasteful, needing significantly more resources to build and have big energy footprints: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jul/11/skyscrapers-wasteful-damaging-outmoded-time-to-stop-tall-buildings https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jul/11/skyscra... The point is that San Jose might be getting it right with more modest skyscrapers than San Francisco. 91m is not that low, and could accommodate a fairly decent downtown sector.
      - dredmorbius 4y ago
        There's some truth to that particularly if you're looking at European cities, few of which have tall towers (London is an exception). But they also have much denser overall buildout. US cities, and SJ in particular, are not dense either in their central business core or in residential areas. Where US cities do achieve density, it's virtually always with towers, though that alone is not sufficient, see Los Angeles or Dallas, for example. New York is the exemplar. Chicago is probably in second place, but despite being based around a commuter rail hub-and-spoke network, still only achieves modest density. The core manages to achieve sufficient density for a reasonably full-fledged transit network, but still manages to have trouble retaining business and residents. Not an utter failure, but not nearly as dynamic as it seems it ought to be. San Jose's been trying to become a true city for decades, with ... some success, but far less than might be expected. There's an interesting historical note: San Francisco had been California's first major city, but stumbled with the 1906 earthquake and the failure to incorporate transportation and services for another 30 years (with the completion of the Bay and Golden Gate bridges), which gave Los Angeles the headroom to claim that crown, which it held until the 1990s. The Los Angeles basin is still of course much larger than the SF Bay Area, but it lost its claim as the economic centre of the state in the early/mid 1990s (ironically, after a second major earthquake in Northern California in 1989). Much of that had to do with US defence policy and spending cuts, on which Southern California was hugely dependent. San Jose itself faced significant losses from that, though it recovered with both the business computing and personal electronics booms of the 1990s and aughts. San Francisco seems to be staggering under its untenable real estate valuations, long-standing urban issues, and the techlash / downturn. I don't know if San Jose will manage to pull the centre of Silicon Valley (in the economic sector metonym sense, not the original geographic designation, which really focused on Santa Clara / Mountain View anyway) from SF. But there's at least a chance. I've long wondered why Oakland, which has the advantages of North Bay climate, as well as major transit support (BART, freeways, ferries, Capital Corridor) and education (UC Berkeley) hasn't been able to become more of an economic hub, and compete more aggressively with San Francisco. That would be another potential contender. Yes, there's the Hayward Fault, but San Jose lies on or near that as well.

2 points by _hypx 4y ago

San Jose faces an upward growth limitation due to its proximity to Mineta San Jose International Airport and flight paths which traverse directly over the downtown centre. Maximum building heights are 91 m (300 ft), and lower in regions closer to the airport e.g., the Diridon Transportation Centre. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/12/editorial-why-san-jose-council-should-approve-raising-downtown-building-heights/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/12/editorial-why-san-jos... That's not to say that San Jose cannot achieve greater density through residential low- and mid-rise construction, as opposed to the single-floor, single-family housing which dominates the area. But it's a damper on generally higher density. San Diego, also in California, has a similar situation relative to its airport. That city is also defined by a squat downtown and massive sprawl (much through incorporating outlying suburbs).

_hypx 4y ago
91m is taller than the vast majority of apartment complexes. Even Manhattan is comprised mostly of mid-rise buildings. There isn't any challenge in drastically increasing population under this limit. Other problems, in particular lack of mass transit, will be a much bigger problem long before San Jose runs into height problems.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Office towers make for dense and vibrant downtowns. They're not absolutely essential, but they help a lot. San Francisco isn't known for its immense towers, but even it boasts buildings more than 3 times San Jose's maximum limit (even factoring in roofline vs. spires). The pattern of development in Silicon Valley has been toward sprawl and low-rise buildings. Adobe's headquarters are quite the exception, but only rise 18 storeys. There's the whole question of whether or not return-to-office will in fact happen. And of course, mass transit goes hand-in-hand with density. It's not as if San Jose doesn't have light rail, heavy rail, BART, and busses. It's just that both housing and commercial space are too sprawled out for them to be effective. Good biking conditions, though: mild weather, and far fewer hills than San Francisco.
  - _hypx 4y ago
    Office towers above a certain height tend to be excessively wasteful, needing significantly more resources to build and have big energy footprints: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jul/11/skyscrapers-wasteful-damaging-outmoded-time-to-stop-tall-buildings https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jul/11/skyscra... The point is that San Jose might be getting it right with more modest skyscrapers than San Francisco. 91m is not that low, and could accommodate a fairly decent downtown sector.
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      There's some truth to that particularly if you're looking at European cities, few of which have tall towers (London is an exception). But they also have much denser overall buildout. US cities, and SJ in particular, are not dense either in their central business core or in residential areas. Where US cities do achieve density, it's virtually always with towers, though that alone is not sufficient, see Los Angeles or Dallas, for example. New York is the exemplar. Chicago is probably in second place, but despite being based around a commuter rail hub-and-spoke network, still only achieves modest density. The core manages to achieve sufficient density for a reasonably full-fledged transit network, but still manages to have trouble retaining business and residents. Not an utter failure, but not nearly as dynamic as it seems it ought to be. San Jose's been trying to become a true city for decades, with ... some success, but far less than might be expected. There's an interesting historical note: San Francisco had been California's first major city, but stumbled with the 1906 earthquake and the failure to incorporate transportation and services for another 30 years (with the completion of the Bay and Golden Gate bridges), which gave Los Angeles the headroom to claim that crown, which it held until the 1990s. The Los Angeles basin is still of course much larger than the SF Bay Area, but it lost its claim as the economic centre of the state in the early/mid 1990s (ironically, after a second major earthquake in Northern California in 1989). Much of that had to do with US defence policy and spending cuts, on which Southern California was hugely dependent. San Jose itself faced significant losses from that, though it recovered with both the business computing and personal electronics booms of the 1990s and aughts. San Francisco seems to be staggering under its untenable real estate valuations, long-standing urban issues, and the techlash / downturn. I don't know if San Jose will manage to pull the centre of Silicon Valley (in the economic sector metonym sense, not the original geographic designation, which really focused on Santa Clara / Mountain View anyway) from SF. But there's at least a chance. I've long wondered why Oakland, which has the advantages of North Bay climate, as well as major transit support (BART, freeways, ferries, Capital Corridor) and education (UC Berkeley) hasn't been able to become more of an economic hub, and compete more aggressively with San Francisco. That would be another potential contender. Yes, there's the Hayward Fault, but San Jose lies on or near that as well.