8 ms·

Silicon Valley Is Stuck In An Uncanny Valley Of Density

53 points by friism 14y ago

adamjernst 14y ago
Too late. Single-family homeowners now control the zoning boards in Silicon Valley, and they're generally opposed to building new apartments or mass transit. New infrastructure is far too expensive these days anyway. I suspect this is one factor behind the resurgence of New York on the startup scene.
- ktizo 14y ago
  How can new infrastructure be far too expensive for what is still the richest country on the planet? Europe is building high speed rail links across the continent, even during a recession that is combined with slash and burn public sector policies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe
  - chadmalik 14y ago
    Because one half of the political system is stridently opposed to infrastructure spending and wants to pour all available government investment into the military.
  - ars 14y ago
    It's two different things, one is national the other local. Local is more expensive since you are building right in the middle of populated areas. You have to get the land which is hard to do and expensive and when you do construction you are obstructing other traffic. The construction itself is more expensive too since you can't use very large machines to do it in bulk. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet-risks-20120514,0,4603595.story http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet-risks-2012051...
    - ktizo 14y ago
      The lines themselves are very local to the areas they pass through, many of which are in populated areas. But, if you are basically saying I am comparing apples with oranges, France's ongoing investment in urban light rail is currently eclipsing the United States by an embarrassing margin. These are figures from 2009, so are a bit old and dusty, and they are from a pro-light rail source, but they say that France has committed $29 billion for urban rail, compared to the USA's $8 billion. http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2009q4.htm#LRT_20091210 http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2009q4.htm#LRT_200... And this is just France, which has a population five times smaller than the USA. I could try and find figures for all light rail investment across Europe if you like, but then it would just start to look utterly ridiculous. To give another comparison, The UK spent $8 billion just on widening the M1 motorway. [edit] Although with that last figure, nobody is really sure where most of the money went. I personally suspect that they found a new and exciting way to create road surface entirely out of pulped ten pound notes and dried caviare.
      - ars 14y ago
        The $8 billion number doesn't make sense in light of the link I posted of California alone spending $6 billion. (Maybe they hadn't budgeted the plan yet 3 years ago? But I assume this kind of stuff takes at least that long, if not longer.) Maybe they only count federal money? But http://fta.dot.gov/grants/13442.html http://fta.dot.gov/grants/13442.html shows around $10 billion per year (the $29 billion is for multiple years) - not all of that is light rail specifically, but it's all infrastructure investment, and doesn't include local (state, city) money, nor any of the other federal departments.
  - WildUtah 14y ago
    The problem is that costs for building the same transit infrastructure in America are ten or even fifty times higher than in Europe or Japan. Part of the difference is inefficient procurement policies letting contracts to very high cost bidders with corrupt hand tailored RFQs and hiring expensive labor from well-connected limited pools. Part of it is active local democracy of communities that have been trained by the freeway boom to see infrastructure as a disaster for places that get it. Part of it is a very slow environmental review bureaucracy. Part of it is buy-American policies even when none of the top countries in some industries are American. But the main problem is that transit is built and run in America as a way to spread political influence for committees that distribute pork and a fun indulgence for influential people who won't ride it. In Europe and Japan, middle class voters expect transit to work and the politicians and bureaucrats who build it intend to ride it themselves. BART to SFO cost almost $2 billion. A good connection to CalTrain would have cost under $200 million. Heck, for under $1 billion you could also have connected CalTrain and BART at Embarcadero or Montgomery with a lower total trip time for most passengers. I don't know what BART to San Jose will cost, but you could have really high quality BRT down El Camino with similar benefits in just a year with the money BART will spend on engineering studies over the next three decades planning the San Jose train. But the authorities enjoy being involved in a big splash white elephant project more than building good transit. A very good and short brief: http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-construction-costs/ http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-ra... More: http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/cost-concerns-reasonable-and-otherwise/ http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/cost-... http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephensmith/2011/12/07/washington-post-only-idiots-think-infrastructure-spending-is-wasteful-and-americans-are-idiots/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephensmith/2011/12/07/washingt...
    - mahyarm 14y ago
      The problem with caltrain is frequency of service. It should extend out until an hour after bar closings and have minimum every 20 minute service. Otherwise it become unworkable for most people.
      - fdr 14y ago
ojbyrne 14y ago
Comparing the 2 densest boroughs of NYC to the entirety of the Bay Area seems pretty specious to me. Last time I looked, there was a giant sprawl of suburbs around that city too.
- natnat 14y ago
  San Jose, which is ostensibly a city, is only a little more dense than Nassau County, which isn't anything like a city. Manhattan is more than four times as dense as San Francisco. Although there are a bunch of geographical barriers preventing super-high population density in the Bay Area, there's still a lot of room for more people.
  - bitops 14y ago
    Interestingly, San Francisco is the second most densely populated large city in the US after New York. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco
    - usaar333 14y ago
      Quite true, but density ratings can always be a bit tricky as they vary a lot by how much extra land cities have. San Jose's 5,000 per square mile underestimates what it feels like to live there. See the borders: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=San+Jose,+CA&hl=en&sll=34.052234,-118.243685&sspn=1.141199,2.113495&oq=san+&hnear=San+Jose,+Santa+Clara,+California&t=m&z=11 https://maps.google.com/maps?q=San+Jose,+CA&hl=en&sl... All that area in the southeast are farms and mountains. A The entire northern part are marshes. Its "effective" density is really much closer to 7-8,000 per square mile. Los Angeles is also one where the density numbers underestimate the feeling of it. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Los+Angeles,+CA&hl=en&sll=37.339592,-121.784821&sspn=0.547556,1.056747&oq=los+a&hnear=Los+Angeles,+California&t=m&z=10 https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Los+Angeles,+CA&hl=en&#38... A lot of that land is mountains. Indeed, south-central and central parts of LA have about the same population as SF and pretty much the same density: http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/population/density/neighborhood/list/ http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/populat...
Roboprog 14y ago
I don't think NYC has the same earth quake risks as San Jose. Still, it's hard to look at moving to the valley given the current housing and commute situation. Earth-quake proof caves of steel???
- usaar333 14y ago
  While this drives up costs, San Francisco has plenty of tall buildings that are quite safe.
- mahyarm 14y ago
  That excuse is fairly invalid, since there are many highrises in SF, and Vancouver Canada seems to not have much of a problem making their entire downtown core largely high rise.
lfaraone 14y ago
I don't think the author understands what "Uncanny Valley" means. I get the pun, but its not apt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
- micaeked 14y ago
  makes sense to me: more is good, less is good, middle is not so good
hkmurakami 14y ago
The question to ask, is not whether we can become as dense as Manhattan or Brooklyn, bur rather, do we want to be more like our Northeastern counterparts? In the 70's, most of what is now called "Silicon Valley" was farmland. All those shopping centers and apartments named after man-made formations of fruit trees are because, well, there used to be a lot of those trees there a few decades ago. In four short decades, we have developed the land to the point where, as others here have mentioned, "no more open land" to be easily developed. We are now faced with a choice: do we develop further? If so, to what end, and for whom? What are the costs? But first we must consider, who is the "we" in my queries above? Whose interests should be considered? The long time residents of the Valley? The young, vibrant, restless newcomers? Understandably and naturally, there is friction. There is tension. The old timers already have what they need: a comfortable single family home with a family to fill its corridors. Why would they or should they allow others to disturb their peace and comfort that they worked so hard for? They fight to protect the space and luxury they feel entitled to, and arguably are. The newcomers find it increasingly difficult to not only find such an abode, but to find even a reasonably priced rental until located within a reasonable distance from their offices. Understandably and naturally, they pine for amenities that are well within reach for others their age in other parts of the country. They rightfully feel that they are entitled to what they need: reasonable living arrangements. Both sides have legitimate arguments. Silicon Valley is a beautiful place, and it would be a shame to turn it into a concrete jungle. But on the other hand, there is an undeniable generation inequality with respect to real estate: real estate prices in Palo Alto only declined by about 15% during the worst times of the financial crisis, and have most likely reached new heights by now. Every year, it becomes more difficult to find affordable housing, particularly near the mega-employers like Google. The year over year increase in rent in Mountain View is in excess of 10%. Only the privileged amongst the youth can afford the slim pickings that are available, as the rent is enough to crush the savings of more modestly salaried engineers. Who is right? It is more of a generation divide than a class divide. I sympathize and empathize with both sides, being both a young, modestly compensated professional in the tech sector, and also the son of immigrants to Silicon Valley who sacrificed a monstrous portion of their lives to attain the little that they have to show for it. Whichever way the ball rolls, I'm in line for both pain and pleasure. "We", both the old and the young, are both right to lay claim to what we believe should be rightfully ours. Such a situation does not have a simple, elegant solution. But we can at least start by acknowledging to each other that yes, you are completely justified to want what you want.
sabat 14y ago
I wonder if the author understands the distinction between San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and the Bay Area.
zeroonetwothree 14y ago
I think automobiles work fine in most of the Bay Area (obviously excepting SF).
pbreit 14y ago
This is so stupid. Do the proponents of these positions ever acknowledge that maybe the Bay Area likes the current density trajection and maybe part of the Bay Area's charm is that it's not New York?
- krschultz 14y ago
  What the heck do you mean by 'the Bay Area likes ...' Some people living in the Bay Area like the current density. Some people living there would like it more dense. There are probably also people wishing these youngsters would move out and the whole area would turn into farmland again. To me, denser is better. Denser means shorter commutes. Denser means lower rents. Denser means more energy efficient. Denser means more hospitalable to public transportation. Denser means more vibrate neighborhoods.
davidw 14y ago
This book is a worthwhile read: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0078XGJXO/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=dedasys-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0078XGJXO http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0078XGJXO/ref=as_li_ss_tl?... He's a generally left-leaning guy arguing for fewer regulations and more markets in housing. I found it quite convincing.
steve8918 14y ago
There are plenty of houses in Tracy, CA, about 50 mins east of SF. You can get a 4 br 3 ba house for around $250k. It was also one of the "ground zeroes" for the housing bust, because those $250k homes were going for $650k in 2005. You can drive 20 mins west to the Dublin BART and be in SF within 30 mins. My commute was 50 mins every day without traffic, so it ends up being comparable.
- jamesfrank 14y ago
  I think your numbers are a bit off. I live in Livermore (25 minutes West of Tracy), and it takes me at least 45 mins to drive to SF (if there's no traffic). It's nice that BART comes as far as it does, but it's a 45 minute ride to SF, and that doesn't even include the 15 mins (30-40 from Tracy) drive to get to the station. I get your point that Tracy has available housing, but I think a 1.5+ hour commute makes it a much less appealing solution than the 50 mins you mentioned.
jakozaur 14y ago
Upgrading Caltrain is probably the most cost effective solution on infrastructure. There are several great ideas out there: http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/ http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/ Also allowing higher buildings along Caltrain corridor would be the easiest solution. That way population can grow without putting much stress on interstates. Moreover, It will be a boost vibrant places (e.g. think Castro St. in Mountain View).

53 points by friism 14y ago

Too late. Single-family homeowners now control the zoning boards in Silicon Valley, and they're generally opposed to building new apartments or mass transit. New infrastructure is far too expensive these days anyway. I suspect this is one factor behind the resurgence of New York on the startup scene.

ktizo 14y ago
How can new infrastructure be far too expensive for what is still the richest country on the planet? Europe is building high speed rail links across the continent, even during a recession that is combined with slash and burn public sector policies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe
- chadmalik 14y ago
  Because one half of the political system is stridently opposed to infrastructure spending and wants to pour all available government investment into the military.
- ars 14y ago
  It's two different things, one is national the other local. Local is more expensive since you are building right in the middle of populated areas. You have to get the land which is hard to do and expensive and when you do construction you are obstructing other traffic. The construction itself is more expensive too since you can't use very large machines to do it in bulk. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet-risks-20120514,0,4603595.story http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet-risks-2012051...
  - ktizo 14y ago
    The lines themselves are very local to the areas they pass through, many of which are in populated areas. But, if you are basically saying I am comparing apples with oranges, France's ongoing investment in urban light rail is currently eclipsing the United States by an embarrassing margin. These are figures from 2009, so are a bit old and dusty, and they are from a pro-light rail source, but they say that France has committed $29 billion for urban rail, compared to the USA's $8 billion. http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2009q4.htm#LRT_20091210 http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2009q4.htm#LRT_200... And this is just France, which has a population five times smaller than the USA. I could try and find figures for all light rail investment across Europe if you like, but then it would just start to look utterly ridiculous. To give another comparison, The UK spent $8 billion just on widening the M1 motorway. [edit] Although with that last figure, nobody is really sure where most of the money went. I personally suspect that they found a new and exciting way to create road surface entirely out of pulped ten pound notes and dried caviare.
    - ars 14y ago
      The $8 billion number doesn't make sense in light of the link I posted of California alone spending $6 billion. (Maybe they hadn't budgeted the plan yet 3 years ago? But I assume this kind of stuff takes at least that long, if not longer.) Maybe they only count federal money? But http://fta.dot.gov/grants/13442.html http://fta.dot.gov/grants/13442.html shows around $10 billion per year (the $29 billion is for multiple years) - not all of that is light rail specifically, but it's all infrastructure investment, and doesn't include local (state, city) money, nor any of the other federal departments.
- WildUtah 14y ago
  The problem is that costs for building the same transit infrastructure in America are ten or even fifty times higher than in Europe or Japan. Part of the difference is inefficient procurement policies letting contracts to very high cost bidders with corrupt hand tailored RFQs and hiring expensive labor from well-connected limited pools. Part of it is active local democracy of communities that have been trained by the freeway boom to see infrastructure as a disaster for places that get it. Part of it is a very slow environmental review bureaucracy. Part of it is buy-American policies even when none of the top countries in some industries are American. But the main problem is that transit is built and run in America as a way to spread political influence for committees that distribute pork and a fun indulgence for influential people who won't ride it. In Europe and Japan, middle class voters expect transit to work and the politicians and bureaucrats who build it intend to ride it themselves. BART to SFO cost almost $2 billion. A good connection to CalTrain would have cost under $200 million. Heck, for under $1 billion you could also have connected CalTrain and BART at Embarcadero or Montgomery with a lower total trip time for most passengers. I don't know what BART to San Jose will cost, but you could have really high quality BRT down El Camino with similar benefits in just a year with the money BART will spend on engineering studies over the next three decades planning the San Jose train. But the authorities enjoy being involved in a big splash white elephant project more than building good transit. A very good and short brief: http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-construction-costs/ http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-ra... More: http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/cost-concerns-reasonable-and-otherwise/ http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/cost-... http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephensmith/2011/12/07/washington-post-only-idiots-think-infrastructure-spending-is-wasteful-and-americans-are-idiots/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephensmith/2011/12/07/washingt...
  - mahyarm 14y ago
    The problem with caltrain is frequency of service. It should extend out until an hour after bar closings and have minimum every 20 minute service. Otherwise it become unworkable for most people.
    - fdr 14y ago

ojbyrne 14y ago

Comparing the 2 densest boroughs of NYC to the entirety of the Bay Area seems pretty specious to me. Last time I looked, there was a giant sprawl of suburbs around that city too.

natnat 14y ago
San Jose, which is ostensibly a city, is only a little more dense than Nassau County, which isn't anything like a city. Manhattan is more than four times as dense as San Francisco. Although there are a bunch of geographical barriers preventing super-high population density in the Bay Area, there's still a lot of room for more people.
- bitops 14y ago
  Interestingly, San Francisco is the second most densely populated large city in the US after New York. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco
  - usaar333 14y ago
    Quite true, but density ratings can always be a bit tricky as they vary a lot by how much extra land cities have. San Jose's 5,000 per square mile underestimates what it feels like to live there. See the borders: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=San+Jose,+CA&hl=en&sll=34.052234,-118.243685&sspn=1.141199,2.113495&oq=san+&hnear=San+Jose,+Santa+Clara,+California&t=m&z=11 https://maps.google.com/maps?q=San+Jose,+CA&hl=en&sl... All that area in the southeast are farms and mountains. A The entire northern part are marshes. Its "effective" density is really much closer to 7-8,000 per square mile. Los Angeles is also one where the density numbers underestimate the feeling of it. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Los+Angeles,+CA&hl=en&sll=37.339592,-121.784821&sspn=0.547556,1.056747&oq=los+a&hnear=Los+Angeles,+California&t=m&z=10 https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Los+Angeles,+CA&hl=en&#38... A lot of that land is mountains. Indeed, south-central and central parts of LA have about the same population as SF and pretty much the same density: http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/population/density/neighborhood/list/ http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/populat...

Roboprog 14y ago

I don't think NYC has the same earth quake risks as San Jose. Still, it's hard to look at moving to the valley given the current housing and commute situation. Earth-quake proof caves of steel???

usaar333 14y ago
While this drives up costs, San Francisco has plenty of tall buildings that are quite safe.
mahyarm 14y ago
That excuse is fairly invalid, since there are many highrises in SF, and Vancouver Canada seems to not have much of a problem making their entire downtown core largely high rise.

lfaraone 14y ago

I don't think the author understands what "Uncanny Valley" means. I get the pun, but its not apt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

micaeked 14y ago
makes sense to me: more is good, less is good, middle is not so good

hkmurakami 14y ago

The question to ask, is not whether we can become as dense as Manhattan or Brooklyn, bur rather, do we want to be more like our Northeastern counterparts? In the 70's, most of what is now called "Silicon Valley" was farmland. All those shopping centers and apartments named after man-made formations of fruit trees are because, well, there used to be a lot of those trees there a few decades ago. In four short decades, we have developed the land to the point where, as others here have mentioned, "no more open land" to be easily developed. We are now faced with a choice: do we develop further? If so, to what end, and for whom? What are the costs? But first we must consider, who is the "we" in my queries above? Whose interests should be considered? The long time residents of the Valley? The young, vibrant, restless newcomers? Understandably and naturally, there is friction. There is tension. The old timers already have what they need: a comfortable single family home with a family to fill its corridors. Why would they or should they allow others to disturb their peace and comfort that they worked so hard for? They fight to protect the space and luxury they feel entitled to, and arguably are. The newcomers find it increasingly difficult to not only find such an abode, but to find even a reasonably priced rental until located within a reasonable distance from their offices. Understandably and naturally, they pine for amenities that are well within reach for others their age in other parts of the country. They rightfully feel that they are entitled to what they need: reasonable living arrangements. Both sides have legitimate arguments. Silicon Valley is a beautiful place, and it would be a shame to turn it into a concrete jungle. But on the other hand, there is an undeniable generation inequality with respect to real estate: real estate prices in Palo Alto only declined by about 15% during the worst times of the financial crisis, and have most likely reached new heights by now. Every year, it becomes more difficult to find affordable housing, particularly near the mega-employers like Google. The year over year increase in rent in Mountain View is in excess of 10%. Only the privileged amongst the youth can afford the slim pickings that are available, as the rent is enough to crush the savings of more modestly salaried engineers. Who is right? It is more of a generation divide than a class divide. I sympathize and empathize with both sides, being both a young, modestly compensated professional in the tech sector, and also the son of immigrants to Silicon Valley who sacrificed a monstrous portion of their lives to attain the little that they have to show for it. Whichever way the ball rolls, I'm in line for both pain and pleasure. "We", both the old and the young, are both right to lay claim to what we believe should be rightfully ours. Such a situation does not have a simple, elegant solution. But we can at least start by acknowledging to each other that yes, you are completely justified to want what you want.

sabat 14y ago

I wonder if the author understands the distinction between San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and the Bay Area.

zeroonetwothree 14y ago

I think automobiles work fine in most of the Bay Area (obviously excepting SF).

pbreit 14y ago

This is so stupid. Do the proponents of these positions ever acknowledge that maybe the Bay Area likes the current density trajection and maybe part of the Bay Area's charm is that it's not New York?

krschultz 14y ago
What the heck do you mean by 'the Bay Area likes ...' Some people living in the Bay Area like the current density. Some people living there would like it more dense. There are probably also people wishing these youngsters would move out and the whole area would turn into farmland again. To me, denser is better. Denser means shorter commutes. Denser means lower rents. Denser means more energy efficient. Denser means more hospitalable to public transportation. Denser means more vibrate neighborhoods.

davidw 14y ago

This book is a worthwhile read: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0078XGJXO/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=dedasys-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0078XGJXO http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0078XGJXO/ref=as_li_ss_tl?... He's a generally left-leaning guy arguing for fewer regulations and more markets in housing. I found it quite convincing.

steve8918 14y ago

There are plenty of houses in Tracy, CA, about 50 mins east of SF. You can get a 4 br 3 ba house for around $250k. It was also one of the "ground zeroes" for the housing bust, because those $250k homes were going for $650k in 2005. You can drive 20 mins west to the Dublin BART and be in SF within 30 mins. My commute was 50 mins every day without traffic, so it ends up being comparable.

jamesfrank 14y ago
I think your numbers are a bit off. I live in Livermore (25 minutes West of Tracy), and it takes me at least 45 mins to drive to SF (if there's no traffic). It's nice that BART comes as far as it does, but it's a 45 minute ride to SF, and that doesn't even include the 15 mins (30-40 from Tracy) drive to get to the station. I get your point that Tracy has available housing, but I think a 1.5+ hour commute makes it a much less appealing solution than the 50 mins you mentioned.

jakozaur 14y ago

Upgrading Caltrain is probably the most cost effective solution on infrastructure. There are several great ideas out there: http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/ http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/ Also allowing higher buildings along Caltrain corridor would be the easiest solution. That way population can grow without putting much stress on interstates. Moreover, It will be a boost vibrant places (e.g. think Castro St. in Mountain View).