Palo Alto mayor pushes for ban on large tech companies taking over downtown

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/02/palo-alto-ban-technology-companies-downtown-patrick-burt

by HillaryBriss • 10 years ago

40 58 10 years ago

theguardian.com

paulddraper2• 10 years ago

Don't bite the hand that feeds you and wants to hand you stacks of cash.

"We’re seeing it transformed into something that risks becoming like every other technology park."

That would be...educated population, business growth, tremendous financial gains for existing property owners.

What exactly is he worried about? Traffic?

m3rc• 10 years ago

Maybe he's (rightfully) worried about housing prices. He doesn't really have a problem with cash-flow, he does have a problem with an insanely bubbled housing market that collapses the moment the tech bubble does

mzs• 10 years ago

Housing bubble did not burst when the tech bubble did last time. That's why I moved to IL. My options were under water, stock was rapidly falling, I had another kid on the way, and I still could not afford a mortgage anywhere near Menlo Park with decent schools. The housing bubble burst later during the financial crisis.

ng122• 10 years ago

His primary concern is keeping housing prices high. It's very clear that Mayor Burke's objective is to make Palo Alto a city for the elite.

http://sf.curbed.com/2016/8/23/12603188/palo-alto-mayor-hous...

maxxxxx2• 10 years ago

" tremendous financial gains for existing property owners."

That's a problem to me. Next generations get screwed.

paulddraper2• 10 years ago

Sure, but it sounded like the mayor was looking out of the concerns of existing residents, not you.

His logic was backward.

ng122• 10 years ago

Traffic?

Clearly not. The downtown tech crowd are the only ones walking/biking to work.

redwood• 10 years ago

On the contrary... The hand that feeds Palo Alto is a culture of entrepreneurship. Downtown Palo Alto in particular, with its easy access to Stanford University, venture capital, and many smaller office spaces, has long been a major incubator.

Companies like Palantir that take over all this previous incubator-like space are in fact a threat to the very hand that feeds Palo Alto. Further, once you're big enough that you provide your own services (caffeteria etc) you threaten the viability of downtown businesses that cater to smaller offices.

Also, once inevitably companies like Palantir do make their move to a proper office park somewhere, that will mean a glut of suddenly open office space in Downtown Palo Alto. This isn't healthy either... it's better to ensure that there is always a fairly stable amount of demand and vacancy...

julesqs• 10 years ago

Companies like Palantir that take over all this previous incubator-like space are in fact a threat to the very hand that feeds Palo Alto

So build more space.

apsec1124• 10 years ago

This problem is entirely caused by Palo Alto's draconian zoning laws. Many companies like being in a mixed-use area (one that combines housing, office, and retail), but this is illegal in 99% of the city. So everyone fights to the death over the remaining 1%.

madmax96• 10 years ago

Becoming like every other technology park is __bad__.

Slightly off-topic, but I'd argue that right now we're in a bubble and that many technology companies are over-valued. Everyone thinks they're a unicorn. Unfortunately, most of them are wrong.

Wanting to keep your economy diverse is a wise decision in that situation. For every boom, there is an equal and opposite bust. Wanting to control growth is not unreasonable, and it is reckless to allow growth without any sort of oversight.

karma_vaccum1235• 10 years ago

They are worried that a tech company will collapse or move and leave downtown in a shambles.

This happened in Mountain View with SGI.

Tech companies will also cause rents to explode, driving away many independent businesses....so oddly enough, tech companies may create a dead zone accidentally.

dogma1138• 10 years ago

Because industrial parks don't have babies.

A tech park is at the end a less smelly industrial park.

It hinders natural population growth other than employees moving in.

Cities need families that will make babies because it roots the population down.

A city full of young professionals that are only tied to their employer is a really bad thing.

Once the economy slows down or their employer isn't the bigest bestest place to work for the flock moves on leaving a lot of empty office space and single bedroom condos.

hackuser• 10 years ago

Don't bite the hand that feeds you and wants to hand you stacks of cash.

Who is getting handed stacks of cash? I imagine it's not many low/middle-income residents, who simply have to leave.

There are positives and negatives for all options, but it's disingenuous to imagine there is no downside to gentrification.

EDIT: It's a similar issue to the U.S. economy as a whole over the last 30 years. There's been tremendous growth in aggregate, but in particular only for a relatively few people.

azakai• 10 years ago

educated population, business growth, tremendous financial gains for existing property owners. What exactly is he worried about? Traffic?

He's probably worried about skyrocketing rent, and overall increases in the cost of living in the area. It pushes middle class and working class people out.

The result is a Silicon Valley where firefighters and teachers and retail workers can't afford to live in the area.

In general, it's reasonable to consider what the optimal rate of office space growth is. If it's matched by a growth in the necessary infrastructure around it - housing, but also public transit, etc. - then it can be great. Unchecked office space growth by itself isn't necessarily good.

elaineo• 10 years ago

Palantir and Skype are in Downtown Palo Alto. Paypal was founded there, and so was Google.

karma_vaccum1235• 10 years ago

Google moved out of University Ave as soon as they exceeded the capacity...they didn't try taking over downtown, they took over boring office park space north of 101 in PA for a while.

blackaspen2• 10 years ago

Facebook was also in one of the University Ave buildings for a bit before they moved to Page Mill and ultimately to Menlo Park.

sfrailsdev• 10 years ago

Wait, why does the article say Amazon is based there?

abritinthebay2• 10 years ago

They have like... at least 3 offices there for different sub-divisions.

perfmode• 10 years ago

A9, etc.

https://www.a9.com/about-us/locations/

blackaspen2• 10 years ago

I lived in Palo Alto in 2012 and even then, Palantir's building collection seemed a little excessive. I'm mostly happy that they're doing well...but every time I've gone back, it feels less like the already-strange downtown it was and more like a Palantir campus.

I joked with friends then that Palantir's only real business model was buying Palo Alto so they could sell it later.

hkmurakami• 10 years ago

Do they even own the real estate? I was under the impression that they rent.

abritinthebay2• 10 years ago

Has he ever been to downtown Palo Alto? That ship has sailed when I first got to the Bay 10 years ago.

It's like a nerdy Disneyland. Lovely place still, and beautiful to walk around, but this is a bit late.

wfoweoi2• 10 years ago

Whether this happens or not, it's succeeding in framing "techies" as the cause of high housing prices.

Stop restricting new construction.

wfoweoi2• 10 years ago

I'll add that when you're trapped between special interests and people suffering from high housing prices, this is one of the few political moves you can make. Propose something that will never happen so you look like you're taking action without actually doing anything.

subway• 10 years ago

I think the en vogue term for us is "Tech Bro", at least in Seattle that seems to be the case.

zardo• 10 years ago

I thought it was "brogrammer".

nodesocket2• 10 years ago

This is idiotic. I live in San Francisco and growing tired of people blaming "techies" for rising housing costs, or "ruining" the culture in the bay area. This is just people complaining that techies make more money than them. It is typical extreme liberal outrage.

monatron• 10 years ago

I do not live in San Francisco, but I would venture a guess that it's much more nuanced than that.

carlisle_• 10 years ago

It's really not.

nodesocket2• 10 years ago

Do you think this stereotyping in the bay area of techies is much different than what Trumps says in terms of minorities?

apsec1124• 10 years ago

To be fair, a lot of people have been misled by the media. San Franciscans believe that everything is tech's fault, and that voting millionaire landlords into office will make housing affordable, for the same reason Londoners in the 1940s believed Stalin's Russia was a glorious worker's paradise. The media lied, and most people are busy and don't have hours and hours to dig down to the truth.

fragola• 10 years ago

It's not about the money: many of the people complaining are extremely wealthy. It's because they moved to California with an aesthetic in mind. They wanted rambling bungalow houses, palm trees, quiet boulevards, and sunshine. They wanted flea markets and VW bugs with surfboards strapped to the roof. Shops that sell homemade tie-dye and vegan coffee houses with patios in the sun.

The anger is because they bought and paid for a fantasy of California and now they are upset about the change, which they see as a bait-and-switch. Really, it's just the evolution of a region. It's irony that these same people are most likely to call themselves "progressives"

karma_vaccum1235• 10 years ago

You cannot compare SF and Palo Alto. SF is a major metro with a high-density downtown with corresponding infrastructure.

The people who are opposed to greater density in Palo Alto ARE TECHIES. Who do you think lives there?

jeffbush• 10 years ago

There are lots of offices above the retail spaces on University Ave in Palo Alto, and have been plenty of small companies there for decades. I don't think people were upset about that. I suspect impetus for this ban is Palentir. More egregiously, they turned a huge retail/commercial space into their cafeteria. There are big windows in the front where you can see employees eating. Honestly, it's weird.

I think they broke an unwritten social contract: small companies on University Ave. are okay, but you need to move out once you grow up. You can't try take over and push everyone else out.

gumby2• 10 years ago

Palo Alto certainly has its NIMBYs but the problem is we need our downtown as, well, a downtown: a place to by aspirin, get a meal, have shoes repaired etc. Basically a mix of retail. We have tech parks for businesses. Worse, companies like Palantir have their own cafeterias and other services (they took over face book's, though it was unused for a while after FB moved out, and also converted a copy shop into a cafeteria) which means all those employees aren't even helping the remaining restaurants, while squeezing out foot traffic.

The other problem is that when you have only a couple of large tenants, when they move out (by failing or growing) you suddenly have a bombed-out glut of empty space in a quiet downtown.

This isn't really ideological: there's another "problem" which we don't address which is that PA downtown has more chain shops and places for tourists (e.g. cheesecake factory) rather than locals. Though I live within walking distance of downtown I often go to cal ave or midtown for my needs. That's an ebb and flow of fashion (over the years the number of chain stores has risen and fallen) and doesn't need intervention. But this overtaking of the downtown has hysteresis effects that could be very bad.

Palo Alto mayor pushes for ban on large tech companies taking over downtown

Related Stories