Hacker News Reader

Comment by radarsat1 | Hacker News Reader

Honestly, after visiting the bay area, this is among my top reasons for not wanting to move there. It is so beautiful, and yet.. for someone coming from a city lifestyle, it just doesn't seem.. livable. At all.

I got lost walking to my meeting from the train station in Mountain View, and people didn't even know how to give me walking directions to where I needed to go. It was crazy. It wasn't that far by a straight line on the map, so I figured whatever I'll skip the taxi, but I had no idea what I was getting into. I finally had to ask a bunch of cyclists and it turned out I had to walk about a kilometer along a raised highway to get to the bridge and then cross several insane intersections.

At lunch I was driven to a burger place a couple of km away.

Ok. I get it. You need a car to live there. That just doesn't sound nice to me, frankly, and I don't know if I could convert to that way of living.

View on HN

Mountain View proper has a pretty nice downtown area but it sounds as if you were trying to traverse 101 from the Caltrain station to Shoreline Drive or something like that. Yeah, that's not going to work very well. 101 is an extremely busy multi-lane highway.

But, yeah, in general Silicon Valley is pretty much a sprawl. There are some nice small downtowns scattered around but you mostly need a car to get from place to place and most big companies are on their own disconnected campuses and others are scattered around industrial parks.

A lot of those barriers are there for a reason. In the 90s East Palo Alto had the highest per capita murder rate in the country. Meanwhile, just across the 101, Palo Alto was the land of million dollar homes. Like the cold war, the suburbanites chose the containment strategy.

Although aspects of this sort of separation go much further back. Being from "the wrong side of the tracks" is an expression that probably dates to the 19th century. (Of course, that was less of an actual physical barrier.)

In the case of East Palo Alto, the disparity can be traced back to at least the prohibition era (1919). EPA was the openly "wet" town during prohibition (after the now forgotten city of Mayview's speakeasies were shutdown), and I speculate the behavioral norm to overlook laws, no matter how misguided, fostered an environment where other undesirable business ventures thrived.

Another way to view it would be that speakeasies thrived where the police didn't bother (or accepted discouragement) to go. Police resources are financial and political, and often stretched thin over poor or minority neighborhoods. So it is strange to divorce something and call it just "norms" when such strong economic forces are in play.

The more I dig into this, the less I realize I know.

I asked, "did the slums exist before the highways and freeways that divide them from the wealthy whites?" The best I've come up with is "Sort of."

Apparently, in the 50's and 60s, city officials throughout the US thought of urban freeways as "a good opportunity to get rid of the local 'niggertown.'"[1] But that attempt at clearing the local slums ended up further disrupting and distressing them, deepening the problem.

[1] Google Books: Downtown, Inc: How America Rebuilds Cities https://goo.gl/mdgYXE

> did the slums exist before the highways and freeways that divide them from the wealthy whites?

You mean Oakland and Vallejo? Yeah that stuff has been there before the start of SV. See MC Hammer and Too Short for references to past gang activity in Oakland.

...you think MC Hammer predates SV? We started out as the site where transistors were made. That is also why the ground is so horrendously toxic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Semiconductor

Those references are not before the highways and freeways mentioned upthread, and also do not predate Silicon Valley. (Too Short and MC Hammer were in elementary school when Silicon Valley was first recognized as a thing.)

The Guardian published a good story on this just today: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/21/roads-nowhere...

I appreciate the mention of West Oakland. I walked past Esther's Orbit Room on my way to work today. A derelict jazz club, a holdover from the time when West Oakland was flush with money and culture brought from all over by the people who worked the railways.

That was before the Cypress freeway tore West Oakland in two, or 980 sheared it away from downtown Oakland, or the trans-bay BART tracks, or before the USPS distribution center was built. The last, for those not familiar, is a 6 story concrete windowless menace that I've started calling the "Ministry of Truth."

Slums exist because the privileged spent a century paving over neighborhoods filled with people that they wished would just stop existing.

It really depends on where you decide to live. California in general was designed around people getting everywhere by cars. Especially the Bay Area, which is basically suburbs which suddenly became the Tech Center of the world. Like others have mentioned the downtown areas are pretty walkable: I visited a friend in Mountain View and there were so many bars/restaurants downtown, there was always something to do once you parked and started walking (granted, there weren't quality nightclubs, but that might just reflect the demographic of the city). And the train station is nearby too.

For what it's worth, Southern California is far less walkable than the bay area is. Much of Southern California (San Fernando Valley, Orange County, South LA, ect.) doesn't even have downtowns like you see in bay area communities, just long streets with buildings that have huge setbacks for parking.

At least in the bay area the places where there are shops aren't hostile to pedestrians (although if I recall you do see more of this as you move down the peninsula into San Jose).

What about Gas Lamp in San Diego? Downtown Santa Barbara? Tons of Southern California communities have walkable downtowns...more than I can list...Montrose, Fullerton, Redondo, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, Sierra Madre. Honestly, you could do a year of day trips just visiting them all. Way more than I can list here.

I’ve lived up and down the peninsula and haven’t relied on a car in 10 years. Thanks to a mix of choosing strategic locations, biking, BART, Caltrain, Lyft, Zipcar / Getaround, and friends with cars. Anecdotal, I know, but just chiming in to say it’s definitely possible.

It's possible everywhere. The last two places I lived in St. Louis had Walk Scores in the 90s. If you prioritize it, you can get it. (But obviously some places have a lot more of it than others.)

Not everywhere. I live a whopping 30 minutes from the city line and no uber, no bus, no train, etc. There is a local who will drive you to the airport, and thats it. You overgeneralizing city centric viewpoint is not applicable to MOST of the world. We still need cars, and gas ones at that. Hell, I am one of the few with ACCESS to "high speed" (1.2mb) internet. I am on a major highway, not some obscure hole either.

By "everywhere" I meant "in at least one neighborhood in every major U.S. metro." I did not say (or mean to say) that it's possible anywhere in every U.S. metro, just that it's possible somewhere in every U.S. metro.

(I mentioned my experiences with high Walk Scores in St. Louis to imply that they are anomalous in the St. Louis metro, but that dense, walkable neighborhoods exist even in such car-centric MSAs.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com