Hacker News Reader

Comment by kylec | Hacker News Reader

I do not like living in high-density areas. I like being able to drive and park wherever I need to go - work, the grocery store, restaurants, etc. One of the things I like about being in the South Bay is that it allows me to live this way.

I welcome additional investment in our transportation infrastructure - both rail, bus, and road - but I take issue with the idea that everyone would prefer to live and work in a high-density environment. I don't see why we can't accommodate both preferred lifestyles.

View on HN

The reality is that the majority of the areas of the United States are like the environments that you prefer -- low-density environments built around the car. Personally, I prefer a high density, walkable city, yet really my only option in the United States is NYC (where I live), as other cities that come close (SF, Chicago, Boston, DC, etc) don't run their transit 24 hours, or require some use of a car as neighborhoods aren't well connected by that transit.

I think it's completely reasonable to want to have a second city in the United States that can compare to NYC and all the benefits that come with a high density, multi-zoned, well connected city. Whenever I think about where else I could find this if I were to leave NYC I end up finding it really would mean moving abroad.

I think at this point it's useful to disentangle the city of San Francisco and the much less dense surrounding Bay Area. If you want to live in a high-density city, in this area that would be San Francisco. Its employers and residents (and prospective residents) should certainly push for 24 hour transit, more complete transit coverage, and whatever else is necessary for living in such an environment.

However, the rest of the Bay Area isn't really city-like. Much of the existing infrastructure has been built around cars as the mode of transportation. Building a second high-density city out of nothing somewhere in this area and convincing employers and employees to move there doesn't seem like it would be well received. If the employers and employees in this area wanted to be located in a high-density city they'd already be in San Francisco. Many are - but many are not.

I agree with that and I'm certainly not advocating that the rest of the Bay get developed as densely as SF. As a city, SF very clearly needs a lot more housing and a transit expansion, maybe even a merger with Oakland as a borough, with greater transit connectivity there and density to match in Oakland.

The problem then becomes that the rest of the Bay would most likely get pressured to build more densely as well, just like the metro areas of NYC did. That might ruin the suburb life that you enjoy as the expanding city to the north puts pressure on the surrounding areas.

You are correct, I expect that additional organic growth in all parts of the Bay Area will continue to increase the density, and there's not much I can do about that. However, as that does happen, I would expect that the area would continue to "sprawl" outwards, attracting employers to some of the more outlying areas because office space and employee cost of living are both cheaper, and that these areas would continue to provide the lifestyle I desire.

I do, however, push back against articles like this that characterize such sprawl as bad, and that instead of allowing growth and sprawl to happen organically, seek to curb it by lobbying for policy change.

You're showing NYC bias. 24-hour transit is not a requirement for living car-free at all. And you can get around the cities you listed pretty easily without a car. A bicycle helps in any city. Chicago's transit is good enough to do without a bike, too. Either way, you're not going to be able to bring home large furniture or a cartload of stuff from Target any more easily in New York than in Boston or Chicago. So access to a car (in the form of a taxi, Uber/Lyft, or ZipCar) is useful no matter what. I've lived in cities that only have a skeletal light rail and bus service without a car, and was just fine. If you're willing to bicycle, most major US cities without severe winter weather are quite doable without a car. You'll find many, many people in the cities you listed living carless and doing quite fine. Boston and Chicago in particular are cities where having a car is considered more of a liability than an asset. I wonder if you've actually lived carless in a city other than NYC (college campuses don't count).

I've never had a license, so everywhere I've lived I've lived without a car. Living in Chicago without a car was fine, although seeing friends in different parts of the city could take an hour or so. Or you might get stuck in a neighborhood that doesn't have 24 hour El train access. It also is only about one third of the density of Brooklyn and one sixth of the density of Manhattan, so there are only a few areas with the vibrancy that NYC has. I do like Chicago though, except for those winters.

I've spent a ton of time in SF over the past decade working in tech, so while it's not the same as living there, I've on many occasions gotten stranded in Oakland after Bart closing at night (pre-uber). Those cab rides weren't cheap. Same thing has happened to me in Boston.

I at one point had to spend a lot of time in Miami (had some stuff in a datacenter there years ago, also pre-uber) and I remember one night I got stopped by a local resident telling me I definitely shouldn't be walking where I was walking at that time of night (about 10 or 11 pm). I was walking and talking with him and a shooting happened a block away maybe 5 minutes after he stopped me. Having other options besides being on foot would have been great.

I've spent lots of time in Seattle and Los Angeles without a car, and it wasn't terrible, but wasn't great.

Anyway, that's all to say a 24 hour transit system is certainly not a requirement, but it's a great thing to have. New York wouldn't be New York without it.

Because that lifestyle conflicts with being an economic powerhouse and if you fight against it lower income people foot the bill. If that's the lifestyle you want, why not move to the midwest?

This is an extremist position - that I should either live somewhere as dense as NYC or as sparse as the midwest. Moderate density has some of the benefits and drawbacks of both.

However, given that the Bay Area is an "economic powerhouse" the way it is today, I don't accept the argument that it can't continue to be one without drastically increasing its population density.

I'm not saying that -- I'm saying the economy powers change and fighting against it is a losing battle where already disenfranchised groups are the casualties. I think the "I have mine" attitude is deplorable and those people should go have theirs somewhere else.

> I don't accept the argument that it can't continue to be one without drastically increasing its population density.

I don't see how without either limiting the economic growth or becoming a miserable place to live. I did my time in the Bay and will never move back.

It's a metro area of 8 million people. That population is larger than many european countries! It's one of the largest cities in the world. If you want the suburban lifestyle, go move to Sacramento.

As long as the area is an economic powerhouse, people are going to want to move here. The primary countervailing force is the cost of housing. Do you have some other plan for how to keep people away? Because if not, the area is going to get denser, or more expensive to live in, or some of each. Personally I'd rather see it get denser. We have a long way to go before we match SF, never mind NYC.

It's really hard to accommodate both in one place. Quality high-frequency, low-cost (to ticket-payers and taxpayers) transit requires a certain amount of density. Otherwise you won't have frequent bus service within walking distance of every residence. Also, the infrastructure that is necessary for low-density living—parking lots (especially setbacks), wide (6-lane) roads with high (40-45mph) speed limits and few crosswalks, long (1/2 mile) blocks, highways—hurts walkability. Part of this is subjective but still legitimate imo (pedestrians prefer businesses on the street with no setback), and part of this is objective (long blocks makes crossing hard, lots of parking means places become farther apart and therefore less amenable to walking).

I'm curious what you think about this as someone who presumably lives in South Bay. Do you consider South Bay a place where people can get around just walking and using transit? What changes do you think could be made there that increases support for walking/transit without impeding car travel or increasing density?

But you don't. You live in a low-density area, then drive your car to the high-density area to get to work. The high-density inhabitants end up paying for your car habit.

I would not call Cupertino, Santa Clara, or pretty much anywhere in the South Bay "high-density" except downtown San Jose, and there are a lot of employers and employees getting along just fine in this area. Could transit be better? Absolutely. For one, 85 could use a few more lanes and a rail line. But instead of trying to convince employers to move their office to denser areas that are currently better served by public transit, I would suggest that we invest in improving the infrastructure in the whole area.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com