I see that you're not a fan, but there are many among us who support HSR and more housing in places like Cupertino. The fact that it's $2 million indicates it's desperately needed.
Though I agree that HSR has been suboptimal. I'd have preferred to have a massive improvement in medium speed rail than a focus on HSR specifically - just make the Coast Starlight take 8 hours from downtown SF to DTLA, not 13, and you'd have a reasonably viable service.
Do you have any example of higher density real estate development leading to affordable housing? High density only seems to stress existing resources and infrastructure while making cost of living more unaffordable.
It’s baffling. And yet, we keep buying the myth of high density sustainability. This year is going to be the year I give up all delusions and stop being naive.
It's a complex question. Higher-density areas are more affordable, other things being equal. They're also a lot more desirable and appealing than the lower-density alternative, and this is what can make them "less affordable" to some, while still being quite easily affordable to others. They have inbuilt gentrification potential. But gentrification is a great thing - it directly translates into a better quality of life! And if it spreads sufficiently, to the point that "higher density" is not a rarity anymore, it doesn't even have to mean high rents.
https://datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/news/article/where-is-gent... : it seems like gentrification means displacement of existing population that is lower income. It doesn’t address affordability. Cupertino doesn’t need to be more gentrified by becoming high density. Average condo price was 1 million ten years ago. How is high density in already affordable places more sustainable? Example:Oakland. Oakland was a poorer part of Bay Area and because of its proximity to San Francisco is becoming more gentrified and has even more high density buildings now. It displaces older long time poorer Oakland residents who were already living in a high density town.
Let’s take public school spending: OUSD spends average of $14534 per student. http://educate78.org/much-money-ousd-spend/ ..it’s spending has been increasing steadily as it gentrifies and its population gets displaced. They are always in debt.
Here is an even more brutal question of someone with $400k and can’t make it by buying a good school district home: https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-survive-in-the-Bay-Area-with... : I had mentioned this elsewhere on HN(diff thread) about how children’s education is now based on speculation because property taxes are tied to public schools and their excellence. Rich parents donate or obtain private coaching classes. (The first answer is what makes it brutal)
I have a few more examples of other cities. But a quick search spits out shocking contradictions which only tells me why high density is a myth and that it was never meant to be a true solution.
This is the corroding of middle class. And this is how pitchfork factories get started.
I don’t know a single example in the Bay Area where high density has translated to sustainability. Or affordability. It only increase taxes and outgoing funds to the tax coffers in Sacramento.
An expected side effect(and probably planned one) is an increase in govt employees ..so basically all the revenue generated goes to the care and feeding of public sector employees that has left ginormous unfunded tax liabilities of these union backed employees. The city manager of san Jose makes 700k and fremont city manager makes 500k. The new one is this guy http://tbrnews.com/news/manhattan-beach-dismisses-city-manag... ... no one in fremont knew that this was the story behind their city manager. Why? Because they were all stuck in grid lock traffic trying to get back home while not being able to participate in the running of their city their tax dollars built. This is the reality of Bay Area.
There are no slum lords. Even the slum lords have to pay the piper. The real winner is the govt. this is the reality of gentrified Bay Area.
One of your Quora links is notorious Internet anger man Michael O'Church. He hates everything about the Bay Area tech industry and so his views are ridiculously flamebaity. His statements have low signal.
Though I agree that HSR has been suboptimal. I'd have preferred to have a massive improvement in medium speed rail than a focus on HSR specifically - just make the Coast Starlight take 8 hours from downtown SF to DTLA, not 13, and you'd have a reasonably viable service.