Keep in mind that in many places, and in particular in the Bay Area, the entire notion of trying to create short commutes from work to home as an ideal is one t

Keep in mind that in many places, and in particular in the Bay Area, the entire notion of trying to create short commutes from work to home as an ideal is one that lots of cities still haven't wrapped their head around. I live in Palo Alto and I've heard people tell the City Council that no one wants to take public transportation and therefore we don't need it. I've also heard people scoff at the idea that jobs and housing should be built next to each other to avoid long commutes, emissions, lost time, sprawl, etc. Anyone here who says we need more housing next to all our huge office parks gets called "entitled." We're facing a paradigm shift wherein younger generations want to be able to have the option of taking public transportation. They want to live in lively neighborhoods where friends and spaces for hanging out are close at hand- a trip to the local coffee shop doesn't involve getting in your car and driving to a strip mall. But, people who grew up in the 50s, 60s, and 70s grew up with the notion of the car as freedom and a house in suburbia as the definition of success. To them, quality of life is all about how fast they can drive somewhere and how easily they can park there. When they think "urban" they think "ghetto." These attitudes contribute to the NIMBYism all over the Bay Area and they're the reason why outside of SF, it's extremely hard to get around without a car. It's the reason why despite being the center of innovation on the planet, Silicon Valley still looks like a Leave It To Beaver throwback.