4 ms·
Great vision, but building higher building is very controversial in peninsula. That blocks transiting from car culture to more urban environment. E.g.: Proposa
by jakozaur 14y ago
Great vision, but building higher building is very controversial in peninsula. That blocks transiting from car culture to more urban environment.
E.g.:
Proposal of ~ 8 floors high buildings in Palo Alto near the Caltrain.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=26860 http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=26860
Protests:
http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-proposed-high-rise-buildings-at-27-university-avenue http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-proposed-high-rise-...
Sounds like they are protesting against highly toxic waste treatment in their yard, but it is only a bit higher building in one of the most suitable place in Palo Alto.
Tech will tend to move to places which are more pro-development like Redwood City.
- rndmize 14y agoOh man, does that petition start by comparing taking someone's life and livelihood to constructing a new building? Honestly now. The Bay Area feels like a typical tragedy of the common scenario - no one likes the absurd housing prices, or endless traffic, but no one is willing to allow high density housing/construction in their area. So the burden increases on everyone, bit by bit.
- ef4 14y agoIt doesn't even take 8 story buildings to reach critical mass for high-density urban living. You can get high-density, highly-walkable urban neighborhoods at as little as three stories. In fact it's better for walkability to have a whole neighborhood of three or four story buildings than to pack the equivalent housing into a few 8 story buildings with lots of empty space between them. Not that I expect the homeowners of Palo Alto would go for that, either.
- jakozaur 14y agoAgree, but cost of rebuilding cities is huge and jumping from 1 to 3 story are much higher than building 4-9 story buildings near the transportation hub.