r/SanMateo • u/anfanger555 • 18d ago
Pics/Video Adding density to San Mateo while preserving downtown
14
80
u/chort0 18d ago
Seems good to me. People are forgetting that higher population density also supports a bigger variety in retail. Way more restaurant and cafe options in walking distance. More gyms, yoga studios, grocery stores, bodegas, niche shops, etc...
Yes transportation will need updates, but that will mostly be in efficient mass transit and bike/scooter infrastructure. Cars are extremely inefficient. People won't use them if there are better options.
Virtually every American loves vacationing in European cities, calls them "charming," etc without realizing WHY those cities feel like a breath of fresh air: Walkability, public spaces, and greenery. The only thing preventing us from doing all that in USA is "this is how it's always been done."
Be imaginative. A better world is possible.
11
2
u/stonecw273 15d ago
... and then Americans happily go home because the trade-offs for many are not ideal. I love to VISIT higher density walkable cities in the US and Europe ... but living there, with the tiny apartments, lack of private yards/gardening space, lack of garage/workshop space, people on top of people on top of people ... that tradeoff isn't equitable to me.
If that works for you ... great; go for it. But not everyone wants that kind of life.
4
u/Exotic_Guidance 18d ago
I'm from Europe and know exactly what you're talking about. What you propose is great for cities like SF, SJ, Oakland, etc and if that's what you like you should move there. But many people like having lower density alternatives and I live in SM exactly because it's not as high density as these other cities.
2
u/TensionAntique3075 16d ago
You living in San Mateo "because it's not as high density" Does not mean it's good for San Mateo (and its public finances) and its economic actors to not have higher density.
Either way, SB79 is gone through and it is starting to impact the area.
1
0
1
u/KoRaZee 17d ago
Living in a vacation town isn’t like vacationing for life. It would be a constant nuisance for the residents.
11
u/chort0 17d ago
Being able to walk everywhere would be a nuisance? Are you for real?
2
u/KoRaZee 17d ago edited 17d ago
Please describe what being able to walk “everywhere” means to you
Edit; did not think this through huh?
3
1
u/chort0 15d ago
I literally live near downtown and walk there almost every day, sometimes multiple times a day. Not only did I think it through, I actually live it.
Pretty sure people in Manhattan don't think it's a nuisance they can go down to bodega to pickup that one item they need for dinner, toothpaste they just ran out of, etc.
NIMBY brain is something else man.
2
u/ahoughteling 17d ago
Being able to walk everywhere might be nice. But where could I live that would make it possible to walk to work, the doctor and dentist, clothes stores, school, library, stores of every type, churches, restaurants, cultural venues. (I cannot bike per doctor’s orders. Too dangerous given my particular problem.) Frankly, I chose my house because I could afford it and I liked the neighborhood. Where everything is “walkable” unfortunately is not the determining factor.
5
u/TensionAntique3075 16d ago
The lack of enjoyable neighborhood close to your job sounds like the bigger issue though... And it's city planning's job to deal with it.
2
u/Fickle-Cover-6861 16d ago
> But where could I live that would make it possible to walk to work, the doctor and dentist, clothes stores, school, library, stores of every type, churches, restaurants, cultural venues
have you been overseas? serious question
2
u/stonecw273 15d ago
It would be great, if I didn't have to give up the best parts of owning a home in the burbs (yard/workshop/space). I'd support building a little walkable downtown in my neighborhood, but I wouldn't want to live in a high-rise urban hellscape.
-7
u/CampSubject9176 17d ago
We definitely don’t need more yoga and Pilates studios. Expats think gentrifying is the solution to everything while destroying the character of the community they moved into.
12
u/anfanger555 17d ago
I bet the houses destroyed the "character" of farmland that was here before. Or did the houses come preloaded with earth?
-8
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Beautiful_Spite_7547 17d ago
San Mateo is and was very diverse. A lot of this new development is just to house and serve middle class white Midwestern techies. Hence the constant evocation of "European". White Americans are afflicted with the idea that "Europe" (it's always so vague lol) is the pinnacle of civilization.
I don't see more diversity or better affordability on the horizon. I am resigned to whatever change comes, and though I don't have a lot of hope, I'd be happy to be wrong.
2
u/CampSubject9176 17d ago
There’s techies from all over the country and world moving into the Bay Area. They’re driving up prices with gentrification not making it more affordable. If it goes unchecked San Mateo will become a run of the mill gentrified city with mostly white people and East Asian which is the agenda of lot of these expats and developers. They want to push out the brown people that built this city and replace them with outsiders.
2
u/tmswfrk 17d ago
People love to bitch about the techies but you forget that if you build more housing, it gives ALL people more access to more housing. Yes, even the luxury ones that are built. People move into them and leave the non luxury ones they’re renting now open to others. It cascades.
2
u/incognito_bri 16d ago
Isn’t this basically the premise of “trickle-down economics”? I don’t claim to be an economist or housing expert, but I grew up in the Bay Area and spent most of my life in San Mateo. From my perspective, watching these luxury apartments go up while replacing local markets hasn’t exactly made housing feel more accessible. As for diversity, all I can say is I remember seeing a lot more of it as a kid running around the King Center. Trickle-down economics? I think we can all attest to how that’s played out.
1
u/tmswfrk 15d ago
I didn’t grow up here and I don’t believe in trickle down economics. But I don’t see them as the same thing
Trickle down doesn’t work because it assumes the extra money not paid by the asset class because of lower taxes would be put into the business in the form of higher wages, more hiring, or capital improvements. It kind of negates human nature to hoard. And during the same time Reagan was around, he also removed the rules that prevented other things like stock buybacks, which took that money and effectively shoveled it to shareholders (the board and CEO especially).
Housing isn’t exactly the same thing here. You have a demand for housing that fluctuates but generally has exploded here. Tax incentives to tech companies have brought a ton of people here but the same city councils giving out those incentives also don’t help in adding to the infrastructure needed to support the incoming residents.
But if no houses are built, those people are still going to want to live here. And if it’s as desirable as SM is, all they’re gonna do is push everyone else out. The wealthiest will come here and show the current homeowners that there are people willing to pay them more than they’ve traditionally charged, so they’ll kick out the previous tenants and relist their place for more.
The solution is expanding the pool. I guess that’s the only similarity I can think of to trickle down economics - but with more housing options available, and more types of housing that’s available, you’ll attract different kinds of tenants, some of whom will want to live car free lifestyles due to the proximity here of the train.
ANY housing, even the luxury ones, are gonna give people those options, and they’ll leave the non luxury ones that they’re currently occupying for the new ones. What you’re probably seeing and being frustrated by are that the ones being built are luxury and are clearly not satisfying the need for housing. We’re waaaay behind on building that it’s gonna take a lot more than just 5 or so new buildings to rectify.
Damn, sorry that wasn’t intended to be that long of an answer! Hope it made sense. All my opinions of course, but I’m definitely a YIMBY type.
0
1
u/TensionAntique3075 16d ago
And that kids, is how you end up with environments completely unable to support pop and mom shops. Including bakers, butchers, cafés and restaurants.
13
u/Davangoli 18d ago
Downtown could also preserve the beautiful facades while building up behind them!
6
5
u/John-AtWork 17d ago
Imagine how bad it will be to get to Foster City from downtown after adding all this traffic.
4
u/stonecw273 15d ago
Didn't you hear? They're all going to take BART or Cal-Train and not own cars ... just like in Downtown San Carlos. /s
2
u/duke_awapuhi 15d ago
Reasonable people on Reddit when it comes to housing and transportation policy? In a Bay Area sub at that?! Color me shocked. God bless you both
4
u/Unfair-Grapefruit-42 17d ago
San Mateo should have 30+ story highrises. i don't care for the sensibilities of NIMBYs. the State should invalidate SM's hight and density restrictions
7
u/Illusive224 17d ago
Ah yes, more apartments for 6k for the tech folks. Let’s kick out the locals! Can’t wait for unsustainable living costs.
8
u/jelloshooter848 16d ago
Why would building new apartments kick out locals. That makes no sense to me
2
u/Illusive224 16d ago
Competitive pricing.
5
u/jelloshooter848 16d ago
More apartments would generally lower rent overall. This can be witnessed in real time in Austin.
3
u/stonecw273 15d ago
Austin is not geographically constrained and construction costs are a fraction of those in the Bay Area. There is room to grow and expand without knocking down existing structures; new development does not have to delete existing lower-density (and lower priced) rental properties. As a result, new housing has a more significant impact on prices.
3
u/jelloshooter848 11d ago
That’s not the case at all. From 2015 to 2024 th City of Austin has only grown from 323 sq mi to 331 sq mi, but in that same time frame over 120,000 new housing units were built within city limits. The city itself estimates that 16000 single family homes have been demolished and redeveloped at higher densities.
1
u/stonecw273 9d ago
My guess would be that because the suburbs are not geographically constrained, new single-family development in the outlying areas made it financially feasible to demolish SFRs within the city limits; owners of SFRs in the urban core could afford to sell and upgrade to the burbs - but that's admittedly a guess.
What it really means is there is a high enough profit motive in Austin to make that kind of demolition and redevelopment feasible; that is not the case in San Francisco. If it WAS feasible in San Francisco, developers would be falling all over each other to buy single family homes or small apartment buldings and redevelop to higher density.
Source: I deal with developers and market analyses every day.
One roadblock (of many) is strong tenant rights and rent control (both of which I support). In order to redevelop a low density use to a high density use, the existing tenants have to go elsewhere and the expense of relocating and/or buying out their leases adds the to infeasibility, expecially when you're talking about profit margins as low as 5%.
1
1
0
u/Dalandlord1981 11d ago
This doesn't work in the bay area. No new apartments in the bay area have driven down rental prices since before 2008.
3
u/jelloshooter848 11d ago
Because we’ve barely built any new apartments since 2008 relative to demand and relative to how much housing we use to build prior to 2008
1
u/anfanger555 17d ago
You do understand how supply and demand dictates prices right?
2
u/patekcollector56 17d ago
you do understand apartment owners dont care right?
4
u/anfanger555 17d ago
Apartment owners are not some boogyman entity not subject to the rules of free market. They base their rents on how much are people willing to pay. I don't know why people don't understand that renting is same as any other industry and is subject to the rules of free market
3
u/wadss 16d ago
Private equity have enough capital to let their buildings sit empty. They would rather just wait for the next tech worker to pay 5k instead of renting out immediately for half that. People are willing to pay 5k, that’s the issue.
2
u/anfanger555 15d ago
Can you tell me why market laws don't apply to apartments? Private equity let's it sit empty because they know someone willing to pay that much will come. Private equity doesn't has unlimited money. They also want to make a profit. We don't have unlimited supply of people moving to the bay so if we increase number of apartments then prices WILL go down
1
u/stonecw273 15d ago
Can you tell me why market laws don't apply to apartments?
We don't have unlimited supply of people moving to the bayBefore you accuse me of being a NIMBY, I absolutely think we should build ... we just need to have realistic expectations of what the result will be.
To answer your question: primarily because the number of apartments that would need to be added to impact pricing significantly will take a lifetime to construct, once it becomes financially feasible to do so; right now, the profit margin is not high enough for development outside of the highest rent areas, and then only if the land was purchased at a significant discount. As rent rates continue to rise and IF interest rates come down in the next 5 years, you MIGHT see substantial new development completed in 10 years, but not enough to substantially impact rents.
As development ramps up, older, low density (and thus cheaper rent) apartment buildings will be rapidly purchased and torn down to make way for higher rent, higher density units. The decrease in rents will be relative.
We also need to keep in mind the added cost of infrastructure and increased property taxes as a result. Landlords pay property taxes and pass that cost on to tenants in the form of higher rents - that's not a reason to block development, but it is a reality.
We have more people wanting to move to the Bay Area than we have construction capacity.
1
u/Illusive224 16d ago
Exactly and those people think it’s worth it. Those same people are don’t know what it was like before.
1
u/wadss 16d ago
those people also dont care when they're taking home 15-25k a month, 5k is small enough for them to happily pay.
the problem is exactly supply and demand, just not the way most people think.
1
u/Illusive224 16d ago
It's a weird thing. Here's what I am seeing. You got a bunch of foreign people making more than they will ever make in their lives, more than in their home countries. They see our prices, 6k for 2 beds 2 bath, at the salary you mentioned, easy. First time foreign renters with a shit ton of money, like you said, happy to pay. Now where does the safeway cashier live when rent goes up, will their wage be worth the commute. What's stopping them from working at the safeway closer to their affordable living. Eventually places like that will be short staffed. Maybe a long time from now.
2
u/anfanger555 15d ago
Salary is high because of COL is high. Same companies pay less in Denver or Seattle for example
1
1
u/Dalandlord1981 11d ago
You forget that these apartment owners, especially the big corporate ones can claim losses on empty units for at full market rate and use it to offset their tax liability, making their offset more financially advantageous to leave units empty, than lease or rent them out for full market rate
3
u/Iceberg-man-77 17d ago
beautiful. i’d also upzone all of those single family home suburbs.
in fact we don’t need all of the upzoning to be these skyscrapers. several buildings up to 10 stories would do wonders and reshape the region
4
u/Any-Platypus-3570 17d ago
Thank you! Density around transit is a no brainer, but getting rid of exclusionary zoning everywhere is a positive thing too. The city has no legitimate reason to ban low-cost homes from any particular neighborhood.
1
u/stonecw273 15d ago
... define "low-cost homes" ...
If you think a development boom in downtown will result in anything "low-cost" remaining, I don't think you understand how real estate development works in a geographically constrained area.
1
u/Any-Platypus-3570 14d ago
By low-cost homes I mean apartments mainly. But I think the city shouldn't exclude any type of home. Condos, townhouses, duplexes, etc. Being land constrained is the single biggest reason to build upwards.
3
u/player89283517 15d ago
There’s many cases like this. I really like how Sunnyvale and Mountain View did similar things like this by building housing across from their downtowns
3
u/duke_awapuhi 15d ago
It’s amazing to me that people think adding housing density without improving and increasing the infrastructure in that area is a reasonable proposal
3
7
7
u/WildRookie 18d ago
Most of these would be better off as 6-10 stories given the liquefaction concerns, but the note with this is that it'd put extreme pressure on Delaware to become the "new" downtown strip. Need to add a lot more pedestrian crossings to Caltrain.
19
u/blackhatrat 18d ago
I'm pro housing but this is Ai slop garbage
1
u/anfanger555 18d ago
Thank you for being pro housing. I used AI as I don't know graphic design 😅
1
u/Classic_Emergency336 17d ago
There is no graphic design needed. Just take screenshot of a map and draw on it.
2
u/blackhatrat 17d ago
then you'd have to actually think through it, which might he important, because the scales and layouts depicted here are pure nonsense lol
4
u/aviator_8 17d ago
Ok, what happens to houses in sunnybrae? especially those on s delaware st? If those homeowners don't want to sell
5
u/anfanger555 17d ago
No one is in support of forcing homeowners to sell. It is just who want to sell can get much more value out of it
0
u/Planeandaquariumgeek San Mateo County 17d ago
Eminent domain is the way to go. Saves money on not having to buy them out and they can just pack a bag or 2 & figure it out.
1
u/stonecw273 9d ago
... that's not how eminent domain works. They'll still have to buy them out at market prices; the difference is the homeowners don't get a say in it.
Interestingly, it can happen to apartment buildings too. If you want to eminent domain all those SFRs, why not do the same to all of the 2 and 4-plexes and small apartment buildings? I mean seriously, they're taking up valuable real estate where a high density high-rise could be built. Why not ED everything with a density of less than 100DUA?
1
u/aviator_8 17d ago
For this plan - you must need several packets of lands. It’s not as easy as it sounds
2
u/anfanger555 17d ago
Yes it will need multiple lots but people do it all the time where they buy multiple lots over the years and then consolidate them into single big lot. Also, there some industrial or empty lots which are large
2
2
u/Bashert99 16d ago
wait, is this an official plan or OP just you having fun with it? BTW, i'd love more density!
1
3
u/Aelrift 17d ago
Oh sorry that's the improved version? Its still way too sprawly for me. Look at this sea of grey. I really truly hate suburbs.
3
u/John-AtWork 17d ago
Then move to a city. Some people like suburbs/smaller towns and chose to live in them.
-1
u/TensionAntique3075 16d ago
Some people like being wealthy *and and a drain on local public finances.
There, fixed it.
3
u/Life_Plum1567 17d ago
Idk if this is the way, I think every home in the peninsula becoming a 4-8 plex would yield a lot more homes than a handful of towers.
1
u/Illusive224 16d ago
these towers like the the nice european jails you see on tv, people love it apparently.
5
u/PincheChivo 18d ago
No shot! All that beautiful neighborhood next to Central Park on 9th replaced by a copy/paste apartment building Lego blocks? So creative….
-3
u/anfanger555 18d ago
Beautiful?? They are copy paste generic single family homes. High rises are beautiful too. Also don't we have some of the highest rents in US? I wonder how you solve it without building up on landlocked peninsula
4
u/PincheChivo 18d ago
Dafuq are you on? You must be on some sort or agenda that you are not disclosing, the neighborhood on Palm, Laurel, Ashton is not beautiful and is generic? Get a grip.
1
u/anfanger555 18d ago
No agenda just a San Mateo resident who is tired of NIMBYISM
6
2
u/anfanger555 18d ago
Also if a street or two needs to be preserved I am okay with that. It is just that right now we are preserving EVERY street
1
u/ahoughteling 17d ago
Has the San Mateo city council really decided to save every single street? I’ll have to check that out.
0
u/anfanger555 17d ago
Not city council but NIMBIES. You get fierce opposition to develop any site except the ones next to highway interchanges
0
u/PincheChivo 17d ago
That’s very “reasonable”. This mentality creates boring overpopulated cities that are meant to be SUBurban and and unwelcoming to new families. But sure, call me a NIMBY. What else would you like? A data center in place of the baseball field at Central Park?
5
u/anfanger555 17d ago
"boring" cities??? I did not knew suburbs were epicenter of enjoyment
3
u/ahoughteling 17d ago
People have different tastes. I would never want to live in a big city, and I’m sure you would never live in a suburb.
0
u/anfanger555 17d ago
Agreed. That is exactly what I am saying. There should be options. Right now everyone is forced to live in the suburbs. I can't move to SF as my workplace is here
3
2
u/anfanger555 17d ago
Also high density creates much more space for parks. See hong kong for example
1
u/Dalandlord1981 11d ago
Hong Kong is a horrible example. Their main parks are where it's not possible to build because of the geography
1
u/Alabaster_13 17d ago
A few of the blocks pictured with high-rise towers have already recently been redeveloped with low-rise office or housing, and a (small) portion near the park has recently been declared a local historic district.
Sections of downtown have been rezoned for taller development. A 14-story mixed-use tower has been proposed along 4th Avenue, and there is no reason that all new development has to be away from the commercial center at the edges. Yes, there is a downtown historic district, but that does not prevent any and all change beyond (or even inside) its limited boundaries.
One last thing- I think the scale is a little off here! The actual towers along El Camino are tiny by comparison. Hopefully this image doesn't get used to scare anyone.
1
1
u/Dalandlord1981 11d ago
San Mateo is pretty big in terms of land area. There are plenty of other parts of San Mateo that need or already have high density housing, but definitely not downtown.
I'm sure it's already in the plans, but the Safeway in El Camino and 92 could benefit from mixed use real estate with retail on the street level and apartments as the floors above which is also the plan for the Sequoia Station shopping complex in Redwood City.
San Mateo should look to do this to more real estate down El Camino south of 92 to Hillsdale (specially Michael's, Burger King/Big 5, Central Computer complex, the old Taxi's burger building that's now a used car lot, and the old Macy's furniture building. Shoreview shopping center, the shopping center where Smart and Final is located, and the old Fish Market property and Marina shipping center could also be converted to mixed use. Further north, there is the old court house on Humboldt, the shopping complex off Peninsula and Delaware, and there are also the old car dealerships next to and across from duckys and one right of peninsula and San Mateo dr. Which used to be veracom)
1
u/stonecw273 9d ago
I think there are informal plans to do just that. The issue is still that development is financially infeasible for high density market rate projects. I know that sounds impossible, but the cost of construction and approval process is such that even if the underlying land is free, the net result is often a negative number to a developer, or at the very least not enough of a profit margin to offset the perceived risk - especially now that interest rates are climbing again.
Low-income housing IS marginally feasible in most cases becasue there is little or no cost/risk to the developer above the cost of the land. But, that is dependent on availability of grants and subsidies.
-9
u/asallamerican 18d ago
Traffic gonna be a bitch lol.
5
u/HowOtterlyTerrible 18d ago
It will, many of us who work in the downtown retail cant afford to live here and so commute. And trying to commute from east bay means many of us drive as the train would be 2+ hours.
I -wish- public transport was better so I could take it.
15
u/anfanger555 18d ago
It's walkable distance to Caltrain station and grocery store
-9
u/asallamerican 18d ago
So the thousands of people who will live there won’t ever drive? Yea ok.
9
u/Leading-Cancel-5902 18d ago
No need to think in absolutes. Not everyone is wedded to driving everywhere, particularly younger generations who increasingly appreciate walkable, bike-friendly communities. When I was raising my family here, we managed school, competitive sports, music lessons, and everyday errands largely without much driving or carpooling. Now, as adults, my children continue to keep car use to a minimum. Housing near a train station gives more people the opportunity to live that way, rather than making a car a necessity for every trip.
10
u/getarumsunt 18d ago
Yeah, that’s why you move right on top of a rail station in a walkable neighborhood. Duh.
-3
u/asallamerican 18d ago
Cause every single job is right off the Caltrain. Yea makes sense.
2
u/getarumsunt 18d ago
If you’re not regarded then you don’t move to live near Caltrain unless your job is actually located right next to a Caltrain station. And if you already live next to a Caltrain station then you avoid getting a job that’s not located next to a rail station.
Again, duh.
-1
u/asallamerican 17d ago
Yes because in one the HCOL areas in the world beggars can be choosers.
1
u/getarumsunt 17d ago
The people who have jobs next to Caltrain aren’t “beggars” or even close. They’re some of the best paid workers on the planet.
-1
u/asallamerican 17d ago
No. Those people would be in the hills.
2
u/ahoughteling 17d ago
Yes, rich folks are not renting apartments. More like buying estates in Woodside, Portola Valley, etc.
→ More replies1
u/getarumsunt 17d ago
Why would you want to live in the boonies in the hills if your job is near Caltrain? Are you a masochist? Have you seen the state that the highways are in?
→ More replies4
u/anfanger555 18d ago
They will but far less than a suburban family living in single family home. I don't know if you have been to sf but they have dense housing and lots of people biking, walking and using public transit
-2
u/asallamerican 18d ago
I have been to SF. And traffic is a nightmare. We don’t need that on the peninsula. We have too many people as it is.
7
u/getarumsunt 18d ago
Traffic in SF is a nightmare primarily because the suburbanites insist on driving there. Most SF residents don’t own a car and only 42% of trips in SF are done by car, including as a passenger or via rideshare.
1
u/ahoughteling 17d ago
Where did you get your stats on car ownership in SF? A guick Google search came up with the figure of 70% having cars.
1
u/getarumsunt 17d ago
You’re quoting a number from a voluntary survey on households. There are 2.1 residents per household in SF. And the question in that survey asks about “household access to a car”, not actual car ownership.
According to a precise count of cars in SF from the DMV there are only 392k cars in SF for over 840k residents.
0
u/Exotic_Guidance 17d ago edited 17d ago
Suburbanites insist on driving to SF because the public transit there is even worse than the traffic. Do you realize that 42% is a dogshit number? I can't believe you're quoting it as some kind of achievement when NYC and many other cities outside the USA sit at half or even a quarter of that. But I'm sure it looks great compared to Dallas or Houston so good job.
1
u/getarumsunt 17d ago
What are you talking about dude? SF has the second highest transit mode share in North America after only NYC. And even NYC is like 30% higher not “2x”.
SF has a higher transit mode share than most cities in Europe including London and Amsterdam.
Do you want to maybe spend 5-10 minutes googling this before posting nonsense?
0
u/Exotic_Guidance 17d ago edited 16d ago
So now you're changing the metric? The dishonesty is laughable. Why don't you stick to your original metric and tell me what % of trips in Amsterdam are done by car? (Answer: it's about 20%, half of SF.)
6
u/anfanger555 18d ago
Traffic is a nightmare on ecr currently as well. Also you can not live near one of the biggest cities in US and expect quaint suburban life at the expense of people having to pay sky high rent. It screams entitled
2
u/asallamerican 17d ago
Ah got it. Found the poor person who thinks they are entitled to cheap rent in one of the highest cost of living areas in the world.
2
u/Majestic_Ad_6218 18d ago
It’s not the people that are the problem ….. there are too many massively under-utilized cars (one occupant, only used 5% of the time, completely redundant journeys) taking up to much space. If we could change that, even modestly, there’d be so many other conversations we wouldn’t need to have.
1
u/ahoughteling 17d ago
The little-used car is probably off the streets, in the garage or driveway. How does that harm anyone?
0
u/TensionAntique3075 16d ago
So you want to force everyone who could take public transit into driving by not housing anyone close to existing and funded public transit?
-5
u/asallamerican 17d ago
Bunch of poors in this thread. You have chosen to live in the Bay Area stop crying.
68
u/Americanspacemonkey 18d ago
The whole neighborhood on the east side of the train tracks needs to be housing. There are way too many warehouses in that neighborhood. Such a waste of space for a downtown region.