Palo Alto mayor pushes for ban on large tech companies taking over downtown
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Stop restricting new construction.
"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?
http://sf.curbed.com/2016/8/23/12603188/palo-alto-mayor-hous...
That's a problem to me. Next generations get screwed.
His logic was backward.
Clearly not. The downtown tech crowd are the only ones walking/biking to work.
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...
So build more space.
Palo Alto has simply maxed out its carrying capacity...businesses like Palantir would be better off looking at areas like the emerging business park near San Jose Airport, where Apple has already committed to building a campus with even more square footage than the Spaceship campus.
http://paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/01/27/palo-alto-opts-not...
All I'm saying is that if a developer wants to build a four-story mixed-use building near the train stations, there's little reason to not let them do so.
You go ask the billionaires in ProfessorVille how many of them are interested in changing zoning to triple density in downtown without any corresponding improvement in transportation infrastructure (most of which is not under the control of Palo Alto)
Oh, I'm well aware that there are rules against increased density today.
Building more space not a viable option in this area of Palo Alto and not actually required.
To be clear this is not "Palo Alto" its a very small downtown area of about 8 blocks square. This is an area which is literally surrounded by multi million dollar single family homes. A 3/2 1200 sqft house goes for 2 million dollars [1] and the area is surrounded by larger 5-10 million dollar homes. Heck Tim Cook lives in a condo in this area.
There's tons more office space available to companies as they move closer to the 101 and further south and north.
In fact most of the burbs up and down the peninsula, Burlingame, San Mateo, Belmont etc have sleepy downtowns with office parks zoned closer to the freeway. It works and most of the populations in these areas prefer having the office parks separate from the residential areas.
[1] https://www.redfin.com/CA/Palo-Alto/1404-Harker-Ave-94301/ho...
Wait, what? What's the logic behind this? Wouldn't this cause massive congestion?
Here's an overview of this kind of zoning, and why it's terrible: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
Excluding people who cannot afford homes in the neighborhood or cars to get there is a principal component of the "safety" strategy of suburbia. Add businesses and public transit to reach them, and that goes away.
Foot traffic and signs they care about, but most web businesses would be
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
The people who are opposed to greater density in Palo Alto ARE TECHIES. Who do you think lives there?
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.
I joked with friends then that Palantir's only real business model was buying Palo Alto so they could sell it later.
It's like a nerdy Disneyland. Lovely place still, and beautiful to walk around, but this is a bit late.