4 ms·

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. There are many other places in the Bay area that offer dense urban areas. Palo Alto, San Mateo, Berkeley, and Santa Cruz come

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. There are many other places in the Bay area that offer dense urban areas. Palo Alto, San Mateo, Berkeley, and Santa Cruz come to mind. I know someone who lives in the south bay and does not have a car. There are places which are very hard to live in without a car (Sunnyvale comes to mind), but different places in the south and east bay are... different. And frankly, there are parts of SF that I personally would find difficult to live in without a car (or at least bicycle), because they're far from effective public transit or commercial areas. BART and CalTrain don't serve the western part of SF at all, and muni is often slower than walking. The south and east bay may not have the same density as San Francisco, but then again, it's far from clear that super-high density is a good idea in a seismically active zone. A lot of people seem to treat the choice as being between super-low density and super-high density. The alternative, medium density, never seems to get much P.R., but it seems like by far the best choice.

ahomescu1 13y ago
> Palo Alto, San Mateo, Berkeley, and Santa Cruz come to mind. Palo Alto is a horrible example IMHO. All of the good stuff is on University Ave and maybe California, the rest of it is just residential and not within walking distance. If you don't live close to University, you definitely need a car.
- x0054 13y ago
  Just curious, but is there some sort of anti-car sentiment in the tech world in the Bay Area? Being from SoCal, I can't imagine living without my car and motorcycle. SF is just absolutely terrible for parking. But I wonder, do tech people dislike cars because they live in SF, or do they live in SF because they dislike cars? Or is it neither?
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    I'm from Europe, currently living in SoCal. It's just so much nicer to be able to walk/take a bus/subway wherever you need (I went to university in a really dense urban area, never even needed a car). Also, suburbs are too quiet for some people, hectic/agitated city life can be more interesting (during day time as much as at night).
  - colin_mccabe 13y ago
    There has been a movement called the "new urbanism," starting in the 1980s, that emphasized walkable neighborhoods rather than car-focused areas. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism Of course, cars also have an impact on the environment which many northern Californians dislike. Oddly enough, the same people don't seem to mind flying, even though one or two transatlantic flights can emit as much carbon dioxide per person as an entire year of driving. Personally, I like walkable neighborhoods. I would not want to live in a place where I couldn't walk or bike to a downtown area. However, I think the focus on "urbaner than thou" is misguided. I've always liked medium density areas the best.
    - Umofomia 13y ago
      > even though one or two transatlantic flights can emit as much carbon dioxide per person as an entire year of driving Are you sure about that? http://www.businessinsider.com/driving-is-actually-less-energy-efficient-than-flying-2014-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/driving-is-actually-less-ener...
      - colin_mccabe 13y ago
        For the purpose of argument, let's say that a plane emits 3/4 as much carbon dioxide per mile as a car. This seems to be roughly what the graph is showing in your linked post. A single plane trip from California to Europe is 5,500 miles. Double that for the round trip, and you've got 11,000 miles. Multiply by 3/4 and you've got 8250 miles, which is easily what an average person might drive in a year. If you add another trip (notice I said "one or two" in my post), then you're definitely emitting more CO2 than the average American emits by driving for a year. Of course, if the car person in question drives a Prius or an electric car (very common in the Bay area), the numbers look even worse for the plane person. Not to mention the fact that the plane efficiency improvements are created by packing more and more people on the plane, which makes for a miserable flight. The car efficiency improvements are generated by newer technology.
  - aboodman 13y ago
    Wow, awesome culture clash that you'd even ask this! Yes, the bay area, but particularly SF is extremely anti-car. This is probably rooted in environmentalism, but in the city it also resonates with many people for health, social, and economic reasons. The sentiment is so strong among younger people that if people own a car they will often almost apologize for it in friendly conversation. Like "yeah, I still have my odd beater from when I lived in LA... But I have free parking at the office and it's nice for carpooling to burning man". From a personal perspective, I grew up in orange county, but moved to NYC in early adulthood and SF later. I own a car and a motorcycle. I love riding the motorcycle, but bicycling or walking is frequently more efficient in the city, not to mention pleasurable. If you have only ever lived in car-centric places like so cal, I rely strongly recommend taking a long vacation in a walkable place like NYC or a European city where you know people who can show you the ropes. You might be surprised how much you enjoy Not driving.
thaumasiotes 13y ago
Speaking as someone whose high school was located in "downtown" Santa Cruz and who went to college at UCSC, I'm very curious how you think Santa Cruz qualifies as a "dense urban area". I'd hesitate to call it "urban".
tptacek 13y ago
Are you seriously suggesting that San Mateo and Palo Alto are "urban", in the sense 'potatolicious means, of "offering a lifestyle comparable to that of Seattle, Boston, or Milwaukee"? San Mateo and Palo Alto are suburbs, each with essentially a single suburban main drag†, neither with any significant transit to get from point A to point A' (neither being large enough, as large as, say, Ann Arbor, to host a legitimate point B). I think a reasonable case could be made that Champaign Illinois (which hosts UIUC) is more of an urban area than those two cities. At the very least, I think it's better than San Mateo. I agree that San Francisco sucks (and I lived in SOMA and in Noe Valley, both of which have relatively good [for the area] transit), but it is at least an actual city. The obvious elephant in the room here is San Jose, and it's telling that you didn't mention it, opting instead to pretend that San Mateo was a "dense urban area". San Jose is an urban center. But it's miserable; nobody talks about moving there. The fact is that San Mateo sounds plausible because of its proximity to San Francisco. † For Palo Alto, I mean University; you don't need to point out that El Camino runs through it, I know where to go to find the strip malls. :)
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The obvious elephant in the room here is San Jose, and it's telling that you didn't mention it, opting instead to pretend that San Mateo was a "dense urban area". San Jose is an urban center. San Mateo, at around 8K/sq.mi., is far more of a "dense urban area" than San Jose, at around 5K/sq.mi. So who is pretending?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Easy: you are. Lots of people live in San Mateo. It's still a suburb. Evanston and Oak Park are suburbs of Chicago that are denser than San Mateo. So is, for god's sake, Berwyn. To see how silly population density is as a metric for what 'potatolicious is talking about, consider that your metric says that Berwyn and San Mateo are more like cities than Bellevue Washington, which is so independently urbanized that it stretches the definition of "suburb" but has a density of only 3k/sqm. Look at downtown Bellevue in street view on Google Maps. Now go look at Delaware and 3rd in San Mateo. The idea that you might think San Mateo is more of an urban area than San Jose --- I mean this without annoying snippiness in my heart though I know it is, characteristically, going to sound that way --- suggests to me that you haven't been to one of those two cities before. San Jose is self-evidently a real city. (I look forward to you embarrassing me by informing me that you've lived in both).

ahomescu1 13y ago

> Palo Alto, San Mateo, Berkeley, and Santa Cruz come to mind. Palo Alto is a horrible example IMHO. All of the good stuff is on University Ave and maybe California, the rest of it is just residential and not within walking distance. If you don't live close to University, you definitely need a car.

x0054 13y ago
Just curious, but is there some sort of anti-car sentiment in the tech world in the Bay Area? Being from SoCal, I can't imagine living without my car and motorcycle. SF is just absolutely terrible for parking. But I wonder, do tech people dislike cars because they live in SF, or do they live in SF because they dislike cars? Or is it neither?
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  I'm from Europe, currently living in SoCal. It's just so much nicer to be able to walk/take a bus/subway wherever you need (I went to university in a really dense urban area, never even needed a car). Also, suburbs are too quiet for some people, hectic/agitated city life can be more interesting (during day time as much as at night).
- colin_mccabe 13y ago
  There has been a movement called the "new urbanism," starting in the 1980s, that emphasized walkable neighborhoods rather than car-focused areas. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism Of course, cars also have an impact on the environment which many northern Californians dislike. Oddly enough, the same people don't seem to mind flying, even though one or two transatlantic flights can emit as much carbon dioxide per person as an entire year of driving. Personally, I like walkable neighborhoods. I would not want to live in a place where I couldn't walk or bike to a downtown area. However, I think the focus on "urbaner than thou" is misguided. I've always liked medium density areas the best.
  - Umofomia 13y ago
    > even though one or two transatlantic flights can emit as much carbon dioxide per person as an entire year of driving Are you sure about that? http://www.businessinsider.com/driving-is-actually-less-energy-efficient-than-flying-2014-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/driving-is-actually-less-ener...
    - colin_mccabe 13y ago
      For the purpose of argument, let's say that a plane emits 3/4 as much carbon dioxide per mile as a car. This seems to be roughly what the graph is showing in your linked post. A single plane trip from California to Europe is 5,500 miles. Double that for the round trip, and you've got 11,000 miles. Multiply by 3/4 and you've got 8250 miles, which is easily what an average person might drive in a year. If you add another trip (notice I said "one or two" in my post), then you're definitely emitting more CO2 than the average American emits by driving for a year. Of course, if the car person in question drives a Prius or an electric car (very common in the Bay area), the numbers look even worse for the plane person. Not to mention the fact that the plane efficiency improvements are created by packing more and more people on the plane, which makes for a miserable flight. The car efficiency improvements are generated by newer technology.
- aboodman 13y ago
  Wow, awesome culture clash that you'd even ask this! Yes, the bay area, but particularly SF is extremely anti-car. This is probably rooted in environmentalism, but in the city it also resonates with many people for health, social, and economic reasons. The sentiment is so strong among younger people that if people own a car they will often almost apologize for it in friendly conversation. Like "yeah, I still have my odd beater from when I lived in LA... But I have free parking at the office and it's nice for carpooling to burning man". From a personal perspective, I grew up in orange county, but moved to NYC in early adulthood and SF later. I own a car and a motorcycle. I love riding the motorcycle, but bicycling or walking is frequently more efficient in the city, not to mention pleasurable. If you have only ever lived in car-centric places like so cal, I rely strongly recommend taking a long vacation in a walkable place like NYC or a European city where you know people who can show you the ropes. You might be surprised how much you enjoy Not driving.

thaumasiotes 13y ago

Speaking as someone whose high school was located in "downtown" Santa Cruz and who went to college at UCSC, I'm very curious how you think Santa Cruz qualifies as a "dense urban area". I'd hesitate to call it "urban".

tptacek 13y ago

Are you seriously suggesting that San Mateo and Palo Alto are "urban", in the sense 'potatolicious means, of "offering a lifestyle comparable to that of Seattle, Boston, or Milwaukee"? San Mateo and Palo Alto are suburbs, each with essentially a single suburban main drag†, neither with any significant transit to get from point A to point A' (neither being large enough, as large as, say, Ann Arbor, to host a legitimate point B). I think a reasonable case could be made that Champaign Illinois (which hosts UIUC) is more of an urban area than those two cities. At the very least, I think it's better than San Mateo. I agree that San Francisco sucks (and I lived in SOMA and in Noe Valley, both of which have relatively good [for the area] transit), but it is at least an actual city. The obvious elephant in the room here is San Jose, and it's telling that you didn't mention it, opting instead to pretend that San Mateo was a "dense urban area". San Jose is an urban center. But it's miserable; nobody talks about moving there. The fact is that San Mateo sounds plausible because of its proximity to San Francisco. † For Palo Alto, I mean University; you don't need to point out that El Camino runs through it, I know where to go to find the strip malls. :)

dragonwriter 13y ago
> The obvious elephant in the room here is San Jose, and it's telling that you didn't mention it, opting instead to pretend that San Mateo was a "dense urban area". San Jose is an urban center. San Mateo, at around 8K/sq.mi., is far more of a "dense urban area" than San Jose, at around 5K/sq.mi. So who is pretending?
- tptacek 13y ago
  Easy: you are. Lots of people live in San Mateo. It's still a suburb. Evanston and Oak Park are suburbs of Chicago that are denser than San Mateo. So is, for god's sake, Berwyn. To see how silly population density is as a metric for what 'potatolicious is talking about, consider that your metric says that Berwyn and San Mateo are more like cities than Bellevue Washington, which is so independently urbanized that it stretches the definition of "suburb" but has a density of only 3k/sqm. Look at downtown Bellevue in street view on Google Maps. Now go look at Delaware and 3rd in San Mateo. The idea that you might think San Mateo is more of an urban area than San Jose --- I mean this without annoying snippiness in my heart though I know it is, characteristically, going to sound that way --- suggests to me that you haven't been to one of those two cities before. San Jose is self-evidently a real city. (I look forward to you embarrassing me by informing me that you've lived in both).