Silicon Valley Is Stuck In An Uncanny Valley Of Density

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/05/11/silicon-valley-is-stuck-in-an-uncanny-valley-of-density/

by friism • 14 years ago

53 55 14 years ago

adamjernst• 14 years ago

Too late. Single-family homeowners now control the zoning boards in Silicon Valley, and they're generally opposed to building new apartments or mass transit. New infrastructure is far too expensive these days anyway.

I suspect this is one factor behind the resurgence of New York on the startup scene.

ktizo2• 14 years ago

How can new infrastructure be far too expensive for what is still the richest country on the planet?

Europe is building high speed rail links across the continent, even during a recession that is combined with slash and burn public sector policies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe

ars2• 14 years ago

It's two different things, one is national the other local.

Local is more expensive since you are building right in the middle of populated areas. You have to get the land which is hard to do and expensive and when you do construction you are obstructing other traffic. The construction itself is more expensive too since you can't use very large machines to do it in bulk.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet-risks-2012051...

WildUtah2• 14 years ago

The problem is that costs for building the same transit infrastructure in America are ten or even fifty times higher than in Europe or Japan.

Part of the difference is inefficient procurement policies letting contracts to very high cost bidders with corrupt hand tailored RFQs and hiring expensive labor from well-connected limited pools. Part of it is active local democracy of communities that have been trained by the freeway boom to see infrastructure as a disaster for places that get it. Part of it is a very slow environmental review bureaucracy. Part of it is buy-American policies even when none of the top countries in some industries are American.

But the main problem is that transit is built and run in America as a way to spread political influence for committees that distribute pork and a fun indulgence for influential people who won't ride it. In Europe and Japan, middle class voters expect transit to work and the politicians and bureaucrats who build it intend to ride it themselves.

BART to SFO cost almost $2 billion. A good connection to CalTrain would have cost under $200 million. Heck, for under $1 billion you could also have connected CalTrain and BART at Embarcadero or Montgomery with a lower total trip time for most passengers.

I don't know what BART to San Jose will cost, but you could have really high quality BRT down El Camino with similar benefits in just a year with the money BART will spend on engineering studies over the next three decades planning the San Jose train.

But the authorities enjoy being involved in a big splash white elephant project more than building good transit.

A very good and short brief: http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-ra...

More: http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/cost-... http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephensmith/2011/12/07/washingt...

ojbyrne• 14 years ago

Comparing the 2 densest boroughs of NYC to the entirety of the Bay Area seems pretty specious to me. Last time I looked, there was a giant sprawl of suburbs around that city too.

natnat• 14 years ago

San Jose, which is ostensibly a city, is only a little more dense than Nassau County, which isn't anything like a city. Manhattan is more than four times as dense as San Francisco. Although there are a bunch of geographical barriers preventing super-high population density in the Bay Area, there's still a lot of room for more people.

bitops• 14 years ago

Interestingly, San Francisco is the second most densely populated large city in the US after New York. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco

zeroonetwothree3• 14 years ago

This is pretty misleading because San Jose's density is very uneven. There are large parts of the city that are completely uninhabited.

azernik2• 14 years ago

He's not - he's comparing them to two of the densest cities in the Bay Area (San Francisco and San Jose). The New York boroughs each have a bit less than half the land area of their Bay Area equivalents, but have much higher populations.

azernik2• 14 years ago

In fact, now that I'm reading up, the closest equivalent to a borough is a county of the Bay Area (each borough was originally a county, before the NYC consolidation of 1898).

Roboprog• 14 years ago

I don't think NYC has the same earth quake risks as San Jose. Still, it's hard to look at moving to the valley given the current housing and commute situation. Earth-quake proof caves of steel???

usaar3332• 14 years ago

While this drives up costs, San Francisco has plenty of tall buildings that are quite safe.

mahyarm2• 14 years ago

That excuse is fairly invalid, since there are many highrises in SF, and Vancouver Canada seems to not have much of a problem making their entire downtown core largely high rise.

lfaraone• 14 years ago

I don't think the author understands what "Uncanny Valley" means. I get the pun, but its not apt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

micaeked• 14 years ago

makes sense to me: more is good, less is good, middle is not so good

hkmurakami• 14 years ago

The question to ask, is not whether we can become as dense as Manhattan or Brooklyn, bur rather, do we want to be more like our Northeastern counterparts?

In the 70's, most of what is now called "Silicon Valley" was farmland. All those shopping centers and apartments named after man-made formations of fruit trees are because, well, there used to be a lot of those trees there a few decades ago.

In four short decades, we have developed the land to the point where, as others here have mentioned, "no more open land" to be easily developed. We are now faced with a choice: do we develop further? If so, to what end, and for whom? What are the costs?

But first we must consider, who is the "we" in my queries above? Whose interests should be considered? The long time residents of the Valley? The young, vibrant, restless newcomers?

Understandably and naturally, there is friction. There is tension. The old timers already have what they need: a comfortable single family home with a family to fill its corridors. Why would they or should they allow others to disturb their peace and comfort that they worked so hard for? They fight to protect the space and luxury they feel entitled to, and arguably are.

The newcomers find it increasingly difficult to not only find such an abode, but to find even a reasonably priced rental until located within a reasonable distance from their offices. Understandably and naturally, they pine for amenities that are well within reach for others their age in other parts of the country. They rightfully feel that they are entitled to what they need: reasonable living arrangements.

Both sides have legitimate arguments. Silicon Valley is a beautiful place, and it would be a shame to turn it into a concrete jungle. But on the other hand, there is an undeniable generation inequality with respect to real estate: real estate prices in Palo Alto only declined by about 15% during the worst times of the financial crisis, and have most likely reached new heights by now. Every year, it becomes more difficult to find affordable housing, particularly near the mega-employers like Google. The year over year increase in rent in Mountain View is in excess of 10%. Only the privileged amongst the youth can afford the slim pickings that are available, as the rent is enough to crush the savings of more modestly salaried engineers.

Who is right? It is more of a generation divide than a class divide. I sympathize and empathize with both sides, being both a young, modestly compensated professional in the tech sector, and also the son of immigrants to Silicon Valley who sacrificed a monstrous portion of their lives to attain the little that they have to show for it. Whichever way the ball rolls, I'm in line for both pain and pleasure.

"We", both the old and the young, are both right to lay claim to what we believe should be rightfully ours. Such a situation does not have a simple, elegant solution. But we can at least start by acknowledging to each other that yes, you are completely justified to want what you want.

WildUtah2• 14 years ago

Nobody is going to take their homes away from single-family homeowners on the Peninsula.

The proposal is to upgrade zoning around El Camino, the 101, office parks, and downtowns to allow willing sellers to make even bigger gains by selling to higher density developers. Those developers would be allowed to put up Pacific Heights style tasteful, quality higher density (nothing Manhattan-like).

Or that's the fantasy proposal. I don't think there are any real proposals to make Peninsula development rational or useful to the people who live there. The local politics is content to choke on its overpriced and aging stagnation until some foreign center captures the magic of Silicon Valley.

aggie2• 14 years ago

Rather than filling in the land between 101 and 280, which would turn into LA-esque traffic nightmares, why not expand into the East Bay or farther south of San Jose?

rayiner2• 14 years ago

There are objective ways to measure these things. New York City is the most efficient place in the whole country, with half the per capita energy consumption as the national average. Energy isn't free, and pollution isn't free, and those both argue very strenuously for favoring efficiency over soft fuzzy factors like the ones you mention.

shawnee_2• 14 years ago

Every year, it becomes more difficult to find affordable housing, particularly near the mega-employers like Google. The year over year increase in rent in Mountain View is in excess of 10%. Only the privileged amongst the youth can afford the slim pickings that are available, as the rent is enough to crush the savings of more modestly salaried engineers.

One thing that NYC has going for it that SV could benefit from: more stabilized rent control. No, not all of NYC is under rent control and not all of Silicon Valley needs to be subject to rent control, but it is probably one of the only things that will allow SV to continue to be a hub for new startups.

Burn rate. Even the best startup ideas will die when the biggest portion of their seed funding is going toward the trash can of residential rent. I've been here since 2006, and cannot forsee any more air getting pumped into the tires, so to speak.

I don't know how popular this idea might be, but part of me wonders if Silicon Valley should be just a breeding ground for new companies. Mature companies (eBay, for example) don't belong here. There could be some incentive for them to move to other more needy parts of the country where people are struggling. Office space and salaries would be cheaper, cities would be all over giving huge tax breaks to them. From a shareholder perspective, I'd want the management of a company I hold stock in to minimize expenses (presuming they were returning to me my due share of the savings via dividends).

I guess the problem is that successful companies get established and in a comfort zone and stop living "lean".

rdl2• 14 years ago

Rent control does NOT help new migrants to an area, or the young in general. Those are the people most likely to start new tech companies, or to go to work for rapidly growing companies.

Affordable rent does help both of those groups. That's distinct from rent control.

Actually, most big tech companies set up offices outside Silicon Valley for back office functions (where cheap labor is important -- like the phone call centers and CSRs in India and Omaha), and just to recruit engineers (SV has more engineers but also more competition for them; Ann Arbor has fewer, but fewer local companies). The only organizations which need to only be in one location, and need to be in silicon valley, are early/mid stage tech startups.

rayiner2• 14 years ago

Rent control dramatically increases the price of housing and reduces the quality of housing. Rent control is basically just an inter-generational transfer of wealth. People who have cheap, rent-controlled housing (usually older people who became tenants long ago) are subsidized by new renters who cannot get the limited supply and rent-controlled housing, but pay higher housing prices as a result of supply constraints.

niels_olson• 14 years ago

> It would be a shame to turn it into a concrete jungle

Hi! I've lived in several coastal and Midwestern cities, and travelled many of the others. I have been to a number of foreign cities on three continents. I was stunned at how underdeveloped Silicon Valley is. Concrete jungles are awesome! They sound scary until you realize the modern alternative is the far more common concrete wastelands of suburbia: isolating, sterile, cultureless come to mind. Tokyo, Manhatten, downtown SF: they are the most human, inspiring places on earth.

> We ... are both right

Here's what kills me about arguments like this: they're conversation killers. The argument deserves to be had. Instead, you're playing the general good will against itself for some karma points. To hell karma points! Fight for what you believe in! Anything less is a vote for the status quo.

I've moved 17 times. I believe in the concrete jungle.

ekianjo4• 14 years ago

Sorry, but "Tokyo... one of the most human, inspiring place on earth". Living in Tokyo is not fun. There are way too many people. You barely have space to walk, and the trains are overcrowded. It's very noisy, and if you want to go out of the city you need to take a 2 hours ride to start seeing actual green stuff.

To my mind, inspiration comes from flexibility, i.e. when you can choose to change environment as you please. A mid-size city is ideal for that, since you can have times in the city and off the city, that change your perspective. If you live in Tokyo, you just cannot do that, and you are stuck in a world that is very different from everywhere else, and out of touch with a lot of what most people consider "reality".

Disclaimer: I live in Japan.

pbreit2• 14 years ago

Would you believe that the Bay Area is one of the most desirable places to live on the planet?

intended• 14 years ago

What?

No they are not conversation killers. I used to think they were conversation killers till I realized that all it meant is that I now actually have to think harder and respond at a higher level.

His last line is important: We agree that its a complex problem.

So at least now we can start identifying multiple solutions which can help this.

One of them, and important - is pointing out that Concrete jungles DON't have to be bad places to live.

A good follow up would be examples of cities that do manage a good balance between high density places, good mass transit, and managing places which keep a good balance of greenery.

Places which can be redeveloped would be another option of something to discuss.

what/how good are the mass transit options in SV (I don't live there), what are the long term city plans? Do they need to be updated?

Is there enough cash to follow through on the original plans? The updates? What are the time horizons for those things?

All those questions can be worked on better, if people are no longer spending time fighting between themselves, and working together on getting a common solution everyone can be happier with.

delackner3• 14 years ago

Home prices in the bay area have skyrocketed 10 to 15 times beyond the rate of inflation over the past 30 years. This has pushed the renters who used to live there further and further out, or forced their standard of living ever further downward.

I disagree with the idea that existing homeowners have some right prevent developers from building tall housing nearby on PRIVATE property. You own your land, I own mine, and as long as I'm not doing anything toxic, your rights do not extend into my space. These anti-development policies force people to live far away from their workplace, turning most of the bay area into a massive wasteland of highways and parking lots.

A few incredibly lucky and selfish people can deny the right of the many to have the dignity of affordable housing, but it is not just. It is shameful.

As an aside, despite artificially enforced low-density, Berkeley and Palo Alto have depressingly few vibrant public spaces. Sure there's trees along the street, but most of the parks are just little tiny bits of grass and a few scraggly trees sandwiched between two or three active roads. You'd think low density might include huge open parks, but no, it is mostly just big houses with private yards and lots of parking lots to deal with how far apart everything is.

Contrast: In Tokyo, since there is almost nothing preventing you from doing whatever you like with your own land, there is a wide mix of different housing to choose from, at all different price-points. I can afford to live smack in the middle of everything, near the biggest park and shopping area, also a few minutes walk from a major train station. I also have a spectacular view that goes all the way to the horizon for about 160 degress.

zeroonetwothree3• 14 years ago

Where is the evidence for a 10% YOY increase?

http://patrick.net/housing/trends.php?uaddr=mountain+view%2C...

sabat• 14 years ago

I wonder if the author understands the distinction between San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and the Bay Area.

zeroonetwothree3• 14 years ago

I think automobiles work fine in most of the Bay Area (obviously excepting SF).

pbreit2• 14 years ago

This is so stupid. Do the proponents of these positions ever acknowledge that maybe the Bay Area likes the current density trajection and maybe part of the Bay Area's charm is that it's not New York?

krschultz• 14 years ago

What the heck do you mean by 'the Bay Area likes ...'

Some people living in the Bay Area like the current density. Some people living there would like it more dense.

There are probably also people wishing these youngsters would move out and the whole area would turn into farmland again.

To me, denser is better. Denser means shorter commutes. Denser means lower rents. Denser means more energy efficient. Denser means more hospitalable to public transportation. Denser means more vibrate neighborhoods.

davidw• 14 years ago

This book is a worthwhile read:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0078XGJXO/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...

He's a generally left-leaning guy arguing for fewer regulations and more markets in housing. I found it quite convincing.

steve8918• 14 years ago

There are plenty of houses in Tracy, CA, about 50 mins east of SF. You can get a 4 br 3 ba house for around $250k. It was also one of the "ground zeroes" for the housing bust, because those $250k homes were going for $650k in 2005.

You can drive 20 mins west to the Dublin BART and be in SF within 30 mins. My commute was 50 mins every day without traffic, so it ends up being comparable.

jamesfrank• 14 years ago

I think your numbers are a bit off. I live in Livermore (25 minutes West of Tracy), and it takes me at least 45 mins to drive to SF (if there's no traffic). It's nice that BART comes as far as it does, but it's a 45 minute ride to SF, and that doesn't even include the 15 mins (30-40 from Tracy) drive to get to the station.

I get your point that Tracy has available housing, but I think a 1.5+ hour commute makes it a much less appealing solution than the 50 mins you mentioned.

jakozaur• 14 years ago

Upgrading Caltrain is probably the most cost effective solution on infrastructure. There are several great ideas out there: http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/

Also allowing higher buildings along Caltrain corridor would be the easiest solution. That way population can grow without putting much stress on interstates. Moreover, It will be a boost vibrant places (e.g. think Castro St. in Mountain View).

Silicon Valley Is Stuck In An Uncanny Valley Of Density

Related Stories