They do. You're not being realistic. Almost everyone would like to have a choice between getting on a subway for super cheap or driving through traffic. You're saying they would rather have no choice between the two options? Come on.
The Bay area (people) want top of the line transit, all of California wants it. It's similar to how Ethiopia wants to get out of poverty. Both places can't get what they want for similar reasons: incapability.
Take a look at the high speed rail. Probably won't finish in both of our lifetimes. People want that thing, what's stopping it from happening is incompetence.
They do. You're not being realistic. Almost everyone would like to have a choice between getting on a subway for super cheap or driving through traffic. You're saying they would rather have no choice between the two options? Come on
Sure, everyone wants an easy commute where the train picks them up in front of their house and drops them off at the office, but they also want their house with yard in Walnut Creek. Or lacking that, their single family house in the Sunset.
Sure some people would be happy in a high density city, but do enough people want it to make it worth building? As dense as downtown San Francisco is, it's still a long commute to the Easy Bay or Peninsula from the Sunset or Richmond. Driving is usually faster and more convenient.
I'd like to see some evidence for that -- sure, there are a lot of people in big cities that are happy with high density (but even many of them move out to the suburbs when they decide to settle down and have kids), but there are many people in the USA that won't give up their 2000 sq ft house with 3 car garage that fits their F150 pickup.
Much of my midwest family is that way - they couldn't believe how tiny my "city" apartment was that wasn't even in the city, it was a 1600 sq ft townhouse that was a 40 minute commute from city center.
It's going to take decades (or some catastrophic disaster) to get Americans to change that mindset and give up low density living.
Zoning rules are the evidence. Eliminate the zoning rules and let the market sort it out. No? Why not, are you afraid the "character" will change immediately?
you're severely out of touch. Only around 15% of Californians can afford to buy a home. Why can't they buy a home? LACK of Inventory. You can see this on the news, you can quote experts everywhere saying this. There's not enough houses and that raises prices. So how do you lower prices? Build more homes. How do you build more homes? Increase density. Yeah if you're in the 15% sure, buy a big home. If you're in the 85%, well you want to buy a smaller home. You can safely assume 85% of the people who can't afford a home, want cheaper homes and therefore want higher density.
>It's going to take decades (or some catastrophic disaster) to get Americans to change that mindset and give up low density living.
Bro, that catastrophic disaster is called global warming. And you can see the effects of global warming in the weather in the US. There have already been entire cultures and peoples uprooted from where they live because of rising sea levels. The luxuries we enjoyed living in cities designed for cars is bought and paid for with our future.
You can't force developers to build what they can't sell at a profit.
I'm sure San Francisco would love to have more billion dollar high density buildings, but can a developer sell enough million dollar condos to pay for them? Is there any evidence that it's zoning that's keeping more residentials towers from being built in downtown SF?
>Bro, that catastrophic disaster is called global warming
It's not a catastrophic disaster yet -- nearly all Americans sat at home in comfort watching the LA fires. People don't see a disaster if it doesn't affect them, then it's just a tragedy.
It is zoning that is stopping high density from going up. The house owners are stopping it. You. When you remove those restrictions you get tons of projects wanting to execute on that.
Look up builders remedy.
In the Bay Area, examples of "Builder's Remedy" projects include proposed developments in cities like Mountain View, Menlo Park, Saratoga, and Los Gatos, where developers leverage the state law to build high-density housing projects in areas previously resistant to new development, often by proposing large apartment complexes or mixed-use developments on sites zoned for lower density housing, particularly in affluent communities that haven't met state housing mandates; notable examples include a 200-unit project at 1920 Gamel Way in Mountain View and a large development at the Mountain Winery near Saratoga, which could include a hotel alongside residential units, all while utilizing the "Builder's Remedy" to bypass local zoning restrictions due to the inclusion of a significant portion of affordable housing within the project.
Key points about Bay Area Builder's
Targeted areas:
Developers often target affluent cities like Menlo Park, Los Gatos, and parts of Santa Clara County, where housing needs are high but local resistance to new development is strong.
High-density development:
These projects often propose significantly denser housing than what is typically allowed under local zoning, including multi-story apartment buildings.
Affordable housing inclusion:
To qualify for "Builder's Remedy," developers must include a substantial percentage of affordable housing units within the project.
Local opposition:
While intended to address housing shortages, these projects often face significant local opposition from residents concerned about increased density and potential impacts on their neighborhoods. These are rich house owners who own a home and they are the 15% who oppose the 85 percent who don’t. It’s class warfare.
> It's not a catastrophic disaster yet -- nearly all Americans sat at home in comfort watching the LA fires. People don't see a disaster if it doesn't affect them, then it's just a tragedy.
LA is your front doorstep and I lived in LA about two miles from the border of the fire.
Yeah watch from the comfort of your own home. Give it some more time and one day people will be watching you from the comfort of their own home.
>Sure, everyone wants an easy commute where the train picks them up in front of their house and drops them off at the office, but they also want their house with yard in Walnut Creek. Or lacking that, their single family house in the Sunset.
You can have both. Tokyo is twice the size of the bay area. Density isn't the issue. It's incompetence.
Where in Tokyo do you have easy access to transit and a large suburban house?
My brother in law moved from Tokyo to where he could buy a house and yard in Chiba Japan, it's around 900 sq ft with a "yard" that's smaller than the deck on the back of my house. And it's still a 20 minute bike ride + 90 minute train ride to his job in Tokyo.
I don't know if you've been to many homes in Walnut creek, but a small attached house is not what people are moving out of the city for - if that's what they wanted, they could just move to the avenues and stay in SF
I don't think I'm overstating when I say that American style suburbs with large lots and large homes are not conducive effective public transit.
I lived in the bay area my entire life. You don't have to go to walnut creek to see suburbia. That ugly shit is everywhere.
Public transit in Tokyo is largely underground. Density is irrelevant. If you have high density or low density above ground, this factor is completely orthogonal to whatever you build Underground. Understand?
>I don't think I'm overstating when I say that American style suburbs with large lots and large homes are not conducive effective public transit.
You, in fact, didn't say ANYTHING related to this matter. You simply stated it's not conducive without mentioning why it's not conducive. I disagree. You can still build it because what's above ground has nothing to do with what's below ground.
The fact of the matter is, once you build this, barring zoning restrictions, the density should follow. Right now the bay area is a political battle ground where rich people effectively price out poor people with zoning restrictions. It's a class based war where a luxury you want is impacting the lives of people less fortunate than you.
If you let the bay grow naturally and fairly then people with your "wants" should move to the country side.
Suburbia is also not sustainable for the environment. It's why greenhouse gases per capita in the US is the worst in the world.
You seem to be arguing that it's physically possible to build transit that serves low density housing, I agree with that.
My argument is that it's economically infeasible, especially in the USA.
Extending Caltrain to downtown SF is estimated at $3B/mile, BART to San Jose is $780M/mile. You can't spend hundreds of millions of dollars building transit to a neighborhood with 100 homes. It's already hard to serve those neighborhoods with buses, since bus routes are either long and slow that wind through many neighborhoods, or they are vastly underutilized.
Right and you should’ve stated this in the beginning but you didn’t.
It’s economically feasible. We have the most powerful military in the world we have the highest gdp per capita in the world.
It’s economically feasible. When I say we are incapable of building mass transit I’m referring to every single type of incompetency in existence except for economic incompetency.
>Right and you should’ve stated this in the beginning but you didn’t.
I didn't think it was necessary to specify "under normal economic constraints and not a thought experiment where we can spend unlimited money on transit". I forgot where I was. Lesson learned.
We are not under normal economic constraints when we have the most money per capita on the face of the earth. The financial capital to do this exists.
I’m baffled at how you think it’s not economically possible when it completely it is. How does Tokyo even exists if it’s not economically possible?? It’s possible it’s just we can’t do it due to incompetence.
Just look at the high speed rail in California. That is a framed picture of American incompetence.
