In other words, it is an externality just like pollution that the producers don't want to internalize.
Still, this density of housing is only going to put more pressure on the already strained highways that take people north to the jobs.
Next year the article will read, "California's Commuting Crisis Reaches a 'Breaking Point'."
A lot of people live in the Bay Area. The 9 county area has 7.68 million people [0], enough that it would be the 102nd (of 234) most populus country in the world if it were its own country [1]. Countries with similar populations include Switzerland, Israel, and Hong Kong (all relatively small and dense).
Anecdotally, I dont see much vacancy in commercial/retail real estate (mini malls or otherwise) in the Bay Area, and with nearly 8 million people living here, there is an obvious need for quite a bit of commercial space.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio...
And from my anecdotal experience when visiting, the older mini malls surrounding it have less foot traffic. Which makes sense, because everyone wants to go to the new shiny places. And it's not like these places were overly crowded in the first place.
Anarchists in SF don't protest mountain view homeowners, don't demand opening the door to high rises on Potrero Hill but rather block buses taking tech workers to work - morons. Confusion reigns!
Real estate is slow. Apple has its new spaceship in Cupertino. Apple paid $300 million for HP's 100 acre former campus in 2010. Apple's adjacent parcel was acquired in 2006. Even without regarding how long it probably took to close the first parcel, that's more than a decade ago. For a straight up office building with no need for sales and marketing. And office buildings are what Cupertino wants on its tax rolls.
Suppose that 100 acres went to housing instead. At $3million per acre and 30 units gross per acre, there's $100,000 per unit in land cost. At a low end 4:1 improvement to land cost ratio, the construction of each unit runs out to $400,000 and the unit cost is $500,000. Throw in 20% for carrying costs and 20% for developer profit and units hit the market at $720,000.
Sure a person can play with the numbers and get them lower or higher. But even at 30 dwelling units per acre, that's only an addition of only 3000 units over ten years to the overall Bay Area market. And it took more than $1 billion in capital and a decade worth of work. If it were easy, it would have happened.
Seems to work well in other countries
https://shift.newco.co/letter-of-resignation-from-the-palo-a...
Best bet is probably statewide initiatives such as those proposed by Scott Weiner. https://twitter.com/scott_wiener
Is it the business people who own businesses there? Yes.
Is it the people who live there? Yes, them too.
Is it the people who don't live there, but want to move there? No, it's not. That's the problem.
I've been researching buying some land to put up affordable housing. I can buy the land. The permits and regulations? Almost impossible to deal with. Every single contractor I've spoken to has advised has echoed my findings.
Didn't the good folks of Palo Alto vote out the council members that voted for a 60-unit retiree building?
They can bring a bulldozer to Dolores when I can take one to Stanford.