In the 70's, most of what is now called "Silicon Valley" was farmland. All those shopping centers and apartments named after man-made formations of fruit trees are because, well, there used to be a lot of those trees there a few decades ago.
In four short decades, we have developed the land to the point where, as others here have mentioned, "no more open land" to be easily developed. We are now faced with a choice: do we develop further? If so, to what end, and for whom? What are the costs?
But first we must consider, who is the "we" in my queries above? Whose interests should be considered? The long time residents of the Valley? The young, vibrant, restless newcomers?
Understandably and naturally, there is friction. There is tension. The old timers already have what they need: a comfortable single family home with a family to fill its corridors. Why would they or should they allow others to disturb their peace and comfort that they worked so hard for? They fight to protect the space and luxury they feel entitled to, and arguably are.
The newcomers find it increasingly difficult to not only find such an abode, but to find even a reasonably priced rental until located within a reasonable distance from their offices. Understandably and naturally, they pine for amenities that are well within reach for others their age in other parts of the country. They rightfully feel that they are entitled to what they need: reasonable living arrangements.
Both sides have legitimate arguments. Silicon Valley is a beautiful place, and it would be a shame to turn it into a concrete jungle. But on the other hand, there is an undeniable generation inequality with respect to real estate: real estate prices in Palo Alto only declined by about 15% during the worst times of the financial crisis, and have most likely reached new heights by now. Every year, it becomes more difficult to find affordable housing, particularly near the mega-employers like Google. The year over year increase in rent in Mountain View is in excess of 10%. Only the privileged amongst the youth can afford the slim pickings that are available, as the rent is enough to crush the savings of more modestly salaried engineers.
Who is right? It is more of a generation divide than a class divide. I sympathize and empathize with both sides, being both a young, modestly compensated professional in the tech sector, and also the son of immigrants to Silicon Valley who sacrificed a monstrous portion of their lives to attain the little that they have to show for it. Whichever way the ball rolls, I'm in line for both pain and pleasure.
"We", both the old and the young, are both right to lay claim to what we believe should be rightfully ours. Such a situation does not have a simple, elegant solution. But we can at least start by acknowledging to each other that yes, you are completely justified to want what you want.