Classic nimby…A problem finder instead of a solution finder…Cant do this cant do that…So do nothing…Except tell employers to go away…Sounds like the PA mayor…Well I moved away…But I didnt have a tech salary. .Those that do move away will end up on a totally different career path…The dream of owing a sfh in the burbs is not for everyone and in the BA that dream is unrealistic for most…Many other cities thrive without sfhs on suburban lots…High density is the future…The transition period will be difficult for the next 30 years…but very lucrative for many…
CA needs to find out why it needs so much more tax revenue to run things than other states. It’s time citizens demand more for their tax dollar.
Do we even have enough land to build high density building in desirable Sunnyvale and Cupertino neighborhood?
Is interviewer suggesting that builders should buy SFH and turn SFH neighborhood into high rise buildings?
Those cities have been suburban neighborhood with SFHs owned by individual families.
How can they find sufficient land to build high rise?
I grew up Seoul where 60 stories building became norm these days.
When I was young, there were not that many high rise buildings.
Then, builder found empty space to build high rise buildings and created new economic center around it.
Demolishing SFH town and converting it into high rise was very tough task for builders even in big city like Seoul.
Thus, they had to compensate SFH homeowners significantly enough to make them move (often to their own buildings).
Because of this burden on compensation, they usually chose poor neighborhood than rich neighborhood.
Many of wealthy neighborhoods in Seoul nowadays were either field or abandoned land when I was young.
Old rich town still remains as SFH town even in big city like Seoul.
IMHO, builders/politicians should find empty space to build new high rise town and good infrastructure for commute (public transportation) instead of squeezing into expensive neighborhood. In addition, they can provide tax benefits to attract more offices.
Seoul metropolitan area has 14 subway lines and much more public bus lines.
Without such infrastructure, high density housing plan won’t succeed.
In Seoul, when builders build new high rise town, they usually provide its own school from elementary to high school (most of them are located in their own gated community).
Instead of simply criticizing people who paid their shares to live in this area as NYMBY, builders/politicians must come up with more realistic plan.
Yes, I think in theory
One solution is for state government to enforce jobs-to-housing ratio. So Sunnyvale, you don’t want more housing, that’s cool. But you can’t build any offices either.
Because of Prop 13 every city just wants the money of office jobs but not the expense of housing the workers. It’s beggar thy neighbor, Brisbane style. If cities can find the land to build offices then why not housing?
This is well aligned with what Sunnyvale councilperson says. Isn’t it? He wants employers to go to somewhere else to expand so that housing price can setlle. I think this is what most of residents want as well.
Plenty of empty space in San Jose.
Jane, nobody in the BA wants it to be like Manhattan or Seoul…That is what the nimbyies are about. …the fear big city living…They want to keep their little pieces of suburbia…London, Paris, Munich don’t have high rises…They are high density. But most buildings are 5 story or less .They are a better more realistic model than NYC or Chicago. .
I understand your point.
However, my main point is they should look for less occupied and less expensive area for new high density housing such as San Jose that Hanera mentioned instead of Palo Alto, Cupertino and Los Altos. In this way, city can add more schools and traffic infra structure properly. Even 5-story buildings adds burden on existing school and traffic system. As I said before, school/traffic is the main concern of current residents.
In my case, I live in WSJ where schools belong to Cupertino School district.
A few years ago, Cupertino let many builders build new high density buildings and as a result many schools started to suffer with over capacity.
Then, they started to push for boundary change to send kids in overflown school to our neighborhood school.
Unfortunately, we don’t even have any voting power to say “No” to high density housing project.
At the end, boundary change didn’t go through but it may come back if Cupertino keeps on letting builders to build high density housing without adding any new school.
If someone wants to come in the room which is fully occupied, then isn’t it common sense that person should offer the way not to disturb people in the room already? Otherwise, people in that room would not let him in.
If this is NYMBY, then I am not sure how many people can be qualified as “non-NYMBY” people.
If there are more jobs in Cupertino or Palo Alto than housing, people need to commute from far away. If you scale it up to the entire Bay Area, we will say lower income people should live in Stockton or Gilroy and commute here for work. That doesn’t sound like a healthy setup for society.
I agree Cupertino should plan their schools better. I will chalk it up as a problem in planning, not a problem in allowing more housing.
The Vallco Mall project that was shot down includes building a new elementary school at the former Nan Allen School near the portal neighborhood of Cupertino.
This is true.
We should consider various aspects of this problem.
I just hope CUSD/FUHSD to stop saying “it is OK to have 200-300 more kids than its full capacity”.
For me, traffic problem is something I can tolerate (for example, I can try to avoid commute time etc), but over capacity school is really the deal breaker.
Almost every homeowner in the BA is a nimby…buyers have no political clout…New construction is unwanted. …Bullish for BA prices forever…
High density housing should go to bad neighborhood. People in bad neighborhood welcome high density housing but developers are shying away. That’s the problem.
Most of the bad neighborhoods have good transportation and good transit, many already have higher density than good neighborhoods. Instead of high density in Los Altos, build in Bayview, oakland.
I get where you are coming with the bad neighborhoods, but frankly I am banking on outskirt areas of already dense hi rise districts like the financial district of SF, with Chinatown and lower Nob Hill. Remember that project in Chinatown where a developer has bought a single story restaurant and a SFH next door and has planned to put in a multi story mini hi rise building? If the pathetic city allows it, which it should, I would love to see more of this. Another project like this is happening in lower Nob Hill where a single story office building has already been razed and the plan is to put in I believe a 4-5 storied building with condos. That, is what my Big Bro and I are salivating over since we plan to do something like this ourselves with our family building. Sub divide 3 flats and go either 6 units or go up say an additional 2-3 floors or however max we can go (under city regs about affordable housing units requirements) and make a mix of half floor condos with the upper top floors being luxury full floored condos that should fetch premium rent and or sale price.
Higher density are already being built in Bayview and Oakland. Drive along 3rd St and you will see many new shiny condos there. And it’s pulling the neighborhood up.
I still maintain, if Sunnyvale wants to build office buildings it should also build more housing. If they can pull off housing every new worker in SFH’s then fine. It’s morally wrong to get the tax revenue of jobs but dump the burden of housing and schooling on the next town. Beggar thy neighbors.
Old issue. .Sf has had an unbalanced job situation forever.
The burbs like Marin and Walnut creek have discouraged jobs forever…Now the cities with jobs, don’t want housing…A case for One Bay Area government. .