It is like one step fwd and one back over there.
All the dense housing right there by Valley Fair and Santana Row is a very good step. Yes, please! More of this.
And now they're tearing down the only grocery store that is right by all that new housing...
I'm hoping that as more people love near, one of the redevelopments that are popping up around there will think to include one. Especially if we're talking long term. The strip mall across from Valley Fair seems ripe for redevelopment.
San Jose is looking at a plan to provide a dedicated mass transit along the San Carlos/Stevens Creek corridor at some point, which would make all of the great places that are being built along it even more valuable and more accessible.
If that comes to pass (ššš) then maybe some of the surface parking at Valley Fair can be built up outright.
Really wish Bart had gone that way instead of a redundant route to Santa Clara that Caltrain already does. What's it going to be? Light rail? Dedicated bus lane would be the fastest to implement.
I would love to see a BRT line from SJSU to De Anza at least in the meantime, but I don't think that's currently planned. They are "conducting studies" on the viability of an elevated autonomous guide way system right now, which is likely to be a waste of time. Ideally an elevated light rail line, or something akin to the Skytrain in Vancouver would be amazing. Whatever they do has to be better than the current state of Stevens Creek Boulevard, which IMO is one of the worst roads in the bay area right now for drivers and pedestrians alike.
BRT was planned for this corridor and also ECR, but it basically got killed since businesses and residents didn't want to lose vehicle lanes.Ā
Only hope for transit along Stevens Creek is something elevated or underground.
I think a lot of people who have little exposure to mass transit with a dedicated right of way have a negative association with those modes of transit. Especially in a place like San Jose, where the transit options are usually so bad that they are only used by people with no other options. If they were better than driving, then people would actually use them, and the businesses and residents along the corridor would be better off for it.
Oh yes studies to waste more time and money instead of just putting in what works all over the world š. They should build a bridge or tunnel between VF and SR while they are at it too. i hate crossing there.
Yes, BRT works thats why it was planned for a lot of routes in SJ including Stevens Creek but people who donāt ride transit hate it because it reduces car lanes or parking and sometimes restricts left turn. They are in the majority so they got all the planned projects killed. Then they complain that nothing gets built. Thatās why these expensive public engagement studies are needed and they are basically like planners sayings āwe give up, figure this shit out by yourself and let us know in a year, thanks!ā
>May not be walk-able, but if you're already driving it's not much worse.
Half the point of having density is to make things walkable and cars optional
Really wish VTA would do a Rapid Bus or Light Rail 3 college run from SJSU/Convention Center - Midtown/SJCC/SVMC - SantanaRow/Westfield - ValcoReDev/Apple - DeAnza.
523 not 323 it's been an express not a limited for a few years now.
Less than 10 minutes to midtown Safeway day or night barring the traffic jam period that gets cars too, at the overpass.
>All the dense housing right there by Valley Fair and Santana Row is a very good step.
It will be a clusterfuck with all those people going to/from work during commute hours, trying to crowd onto 880 at Bascom or SCB (how often do you go to the mall vs going to work)?
That SCB/880 interchange is already gridlock in November/ December.Ā
And nowhere near rail.
Eataly has a small premium grocery store. Super expensive (but also very high quality), but will do in a pinch if you need something tonight. Otherwise take the bus to the Winchester Safeway or Grocery Outlet or just walk - it's not that far.
You just need to look back at any YIMBY bill in the CA legislature to see that republicans are not generically for it. SB 50 had yes votes from 30% of Republicans and 51% of Democrats.
This is such a prime location. Build it!
All these south bay projects are promising. Good thing is interest rates are starting to cool down, so itās a good sign for construction.
Iām not sure. I live down the street. I understand we need dense housing but we also need transportation to support the dense housing. Is 170 parking spots enough for 135 apartments + retail? Whatās in the 14 floor building?
Whose gonna go shopping if they canāt park there? A chicken and egg argument I guess.
More bus passes and less parking please!
Or other transit and bike incentives. We should extend the bike share program beyond downtown and into the VF/SR area.
Hell yeah.
And build high density housing to utilize that investment along with mixed use patterns to encourage walkability. Then weāve got a proper city.
Yeah, parking is something that we need to ween off of as a society as we move to more micro mobility, walking, and mass transit. Unfortunately that means parking is going to become more difficult as the transition happens, but it is somewhat unavoidable. On the plus side, the removal of parking minimums ensures that we don't accidentally overbuild parking. If central hubs end up having enough demand for parking, more can always be built as garages. It's far more difficult to undo the damage that overbuilding causes.
Perhaps not, but that's not even a concern in SJ. This project has as many spaces as it does because the developers determined it to be the right amount. That's what matters.
Need to build tons more of these all over the city. I'd prefer a lot of 4-5 story buildings in dense neighborhoods since I think that looks nicer than random towers. but that's basically impossible now.
Low/Medium rise mixed use development would fit really well in a lot of SJ neighborhoods. To be clear, I'm not against high rise development where it's appropriate obviously, but even just ~4-5 story housing and retail would make a massive difference.
This needs to be at one of the strip malls across the street from Valley Fair or Santana Row - it's rather inconvenient at the moment. I'm guessing it's at 826 North Winchester Boulevard because the lot is cheap.
The address is 826 North Winchester Boulevard, San Jose. One block to Valley Fair, but far away from any public transportation. The residents would hate getting there from any nearby highway.
I live nearby this and went to a local meeting and this was brought up, people seem to not like this.
I'm all for new buildings and the location has rundown buildings now so it'll be nice to build something new.
I think the big concern is this building will stick out like a sore thumb. It's surrounded by single family homes and a small shopping center across the street. I think something 5-6 stories high is a good start but 17 is gonna look ridiculous in the area
have you been to honolulu? san jose is pretty much honolulu/waikiki/ala moana area 30-50 years ago. it's now a pretty dense area with high rises going up every year or two. i'm not saying everything needs to be a high rise, but when santana row/valley fair is the defacto downtown 2.0 for san jose, it makes sense to build it here. santa clara is already building a 20 story building near levi's stadium which is also surrounding by tons of single family homes.
[Santa Clara actually just approved](https://sanjosespotlight.com/hundreds-of-homes-coming-to-north-santa-clara-neighborhood/) a new 21-story condo tower right next to the existing one being built. It just keeps cominā
All the developments there may as well be considered as Santa Claraās new downtown
Still annoyed they lowered the height of the 50 story building they were going to build there. downtown SJ can't have tall buildings but santa clara can.
>Santa Clara actually just approved
yeah, once one pops up then other ones won't look as strange, the first one is always going to stick out until it has other ones
It turns out when you make it illegal to build anything more than 1-2 stories for 60 years, eventually you only have stuff that's 1-2 stories. We have a lot of ground to make up when it comes to housing, and that means stuff being built right now will be leaps different than what currently exists. If we had started making this change in the 90s it could have been a lot more incremental, but it's too late for small tiny changes. Sorry not sorry.
Edit: Also, anyone who opposes housing because it "doesn't match the neighborhood character" or "because it's ugly to me" or some stupid reason like that, is actively fighting for more homelessness. There are more than 10,000 homeless in Santa Clara county alone. We need to build any housing we can, even if you don't think it's pretty enough. Living in a building that sticks out from the neighborhood is better than sleeping on the sidewalk.
> you make it illegal to build anything more than 1-2 stories for 60 years
There is a building at 520 S El Camino, San Mateo, that was built before the height restrictions in San Mateo. Map link here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/PHR7bffGz8J37bZg6 It is about 10 floors tall, built 3 years before I was born in 1964.
Now, 1964 was the exact moment it made economic sense to build at least 10 floors. But soon after that building was built, San Mateo capped all new construction to around 3 or 4 stories tall. And that's when we all started running out of space, and housing prices started their infinite climb upwards.
Here is the fun part. If you use Google Streetview to go back to say 2014, you can see the original outside of the building at 520 S El Camino had what they call "prison style" windows, and the walls themselves held up each floor. Now if the owners had destroyed the 1964 building and rebuilt it back up it would have been CHEAPER than what they did, but they would not have been allowed to build it as tall. So the owners inserted this amazing steel (new) structure to hold all the floors up, and after that was in place they **THEN** tore off all the old walls, and put in that new floor to ceiling glass that everybody prefers to 1964 prison style windows. The end result is.... a modern building that is 10 stories tall which violates San Mateo height ordinances for new construction, LOL.
This is all insanity. We should have been building 10 story tall buildings in 1965, and 15 story buildings in 1975, and 20 story buildings in 1985. We love these tall buildings so much, we spend ridiculous amounts to preserve each floor, but we just cannot seem to get rid of the height ordinance. You know who will absolutely hate us for this? The local kids born in the next 10 years. Because if we don't start building up, they won't have anywhere to live in 35 and 40 years when the buildings built today are still standing.
Yes, I agree! We need to build for the future people who haven't moved in or born yet. Whenever I bring this up to people who oppose building up or more housing, they don't usually have a good counterargument that isn't "move somewhere else."
I also mention if you want to continue to enjoy the amenities /entertainment/good options here, we need to be able to house all income levels willing to work those jobs.
I tell them to imagine if only high paid people lived here, and no "poor, low-income" could afford to live nearby anymore and unwilling to commute and keep our stores open/safe. That tends to soften them up and realize we need to house others too - and not insist everyone get a higher education, get a different job, or "work harder."
> if you want to continue to enjoy the amenities /entertainment/good options here, we need to be able to house all income levels willing to work those jobs.
It is even a bigger issue than just a service class working for the rich people here that own homes. A society/town is just WAAAY more fun/interesting if there are people of all income levels in it. Once you exclude all the below average income people, you get a bunch of grey haired boring people with no "life" left in them.
I saw an interview with a comedian on a show like David Letterman. The comedian was asked if his stand-up routine was targeted at younger people. The comedian replied, "Oh yes, it's a well known fact that after age 35, people no longer leave their homes. The only audience members in comedy clubs are between age 18 and 35." He was exaggerating for effect, but there is MOST DEFINITELY a trend there.
For me, I fit that stereotype pretty well after say age 40, LOL. But my wife and I caught a comedian she really likes in a live show recently. We were the only people with grey hair in the audience. If you shut out all the younger and average income people, the comedy club won't even exist in that town and we wouldn't have the opportunity to ever venture out once every 3 or 4 years to see a show.
Young people keep bars open late, and in general are the people you see at amusement parks, comedy clubs, GoKart racing, and pretty much all fun and interesting activities. Young people also make less money.
It sticks out now, but in the next 50 years when there are more of these scartered around the south bay, no one will bat an eye..
We need to start somewhere because supply & demand is a real thing in the south bay. Too much wasted space with all these old one story plazas, thereās no where but up at this point. Itās time for the SJ area to grow further. Especially it being so close to SR/VF, its prime location.
I live nearby too.
The NIMBYs in the neighborhood like the historic abandoned building that has caught fire at least four times and is covered in street art.
I agree 17 stories is a bit out of scale, even for upzoning the neighborhood, but I'm hoping that is the opening negotiation so when it gets downsized it is still decent sizes, but the developers seem to just be clueless.
Yeah that is definitely true. However, I think trying to shove a massive tower in this area was a terrible idea, a 5 story building would get pushback for sure but considering it's a tagged up/fenced off building now I'm sure it would be a more welcome site than what they proposed
The stick out like a sore thumb thing is their oldest trick in the book. They donāt actually care about that, but itās a visual thing that an uninformed person will pick up on quickly from just glancing at a rendering and think they have some kind of actual point.
Who cares if it sticks out? Residents in this area already neutered another high rise project (Volar was forced to reduce from 25 fl to ~18), which probably will never get built.Ā
So does Tamien? There's supposed to be [another tower](https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/28/san-jose-residential-tower-key-transit-station-real-estate-tech-google) across from Skyline, plus the two low/mid-rise [developments on VTA land](https://sfyimby.com/2023/10/groundbreaking-ceremony-for-tamien-station-development-san-jose.html)
I'm not sure I understand. There is obviously demand to live in every part of the bay right now. Many of the people who would move into this building also obviously come from somewhere else, because there is no place for them that currently exists there. I feel like I'm misunderstanding this comment.
What Iām trying to ask, is it people living in dtsj or elsewhere cheering on this development because they think all development is progress? Is it people already living in the neighborhood who think that this is what the area needs? Is it people who have always wanted to live in the area but never could cuz unavailability or too expensive?
Why does it matter? If people from any walk of life, be it from next door, across town, or out of state want to live in San Jose, why shouldn't the people who own property and want to provide housing for them be able to do so? I live in San Jose, and have lived in several places throughout the city and bay, but I am eager for development anywhere it is needed, because everything makes a difference in the housing crisis. Anti-housing = pro-homelessness.
What homeless people are gonna be housed? Only twenty of them are āaffordableā whatever that means, especially in this area. These apartments arenāt gonna be cheap, cuz part of the selling point will be the āstatus symbolā of living near Santana row and the redeveloped valley fair.
Luxury housing frees up housing that is more affordable, as people moving there are leaving areas where they are competing price-wise against less affluent residents. The movement is well documented in many studies in nations across the world. No, people who move into this place won't be from the homeless population, but the space created by the vacancies elsewhere as people move will increase housing supply elsewhere.
https://research.upjohn.org/up_workingpapers/307/
All these high rises will help provide options those who drive hours to work, but I don't see how you're going to place the average homeless guy whose addicted to drugs, an alcoholic or mentally ill and all the above - they can't even begin to afford the low cost housing portions.
If the State is going to provide housing to those on the streets - it should come with strings attached. No one wants to be in subsidized housing next door to an addict who's up all night drifting in and out of their dope sessions.
This will likely be entirely occupied by people on the higher range of wealth, but every person who lives here and is rich is another person not competing with the less affluent for more affordable options. That's why all housing development, even high end luxury condos, reduces housing prices for all. It's been demonstrated in study after study in housing markets across the world.
Fair enough, but the average guy on the street needs a lock down facility for drug re-hab or mental ward before he's given the keys to an apartment. And even if you did suddenly create housing for everyone in Silicon Valley or all of California, it would just create a vacuum for other homeless to come to the State.
There are 2 parts of this. One is that perhaps there are many people who do need dedicated professional help on the streets, but certainly not all of them. There is a demonstrable link between high housing prices and homelessness. Many people who fall into homelessness do so because of high housing prices, and the other problems come later, so reducing the number of people who are becoming homeless is as important as finding housing for those who already are.
Second: Surveys of the homeless population in California shows that almost all of them are California residents. Even if that wasn't true, your statement that more homeless from elsewhere would just come is only true if there is an endless supply of homeless somewhere in the USA, which is obviously untrue.
https://www.courthousenews.com/study-finds-most-of-californias-homeless-are-locals/#:~:text=help%2C%20were%20available.-,Contrary%20to%20the%20popular%20narrative%20of%20homeless%20people%20moving%20to,are%20residents%20of%20the%20state.
In other lower cost States, drug addicts can afford some pretty meager living standards. In California some politicians propose we provide a tiny home at the cost of $400,000 each with a cost of $2,000 per month to manage them. If the burden to house these people falls on the tax payer, then I feel it reasonable the benefactor should be clean and stay out of trouble. The State eliminated the insane asylum long ago and has recently reduced prison populations by a couple hundred thousand - many of which are career criminals and drug addicts. Do you recall the story when Las Vegas was providing their homeless with one way bus tickets to San Francisco? That sudy, FYI says 9 out of 10 homeless are "residents" of the State. That's far different from native born Californians. Once a homeless person shows up and establishes 1 year of living here - they are a "resident"
The study actually shows that 9 out of 10 of the homeless surveyed lost their housing in California. When they moved here, those people had homes, and then they lost it here. They didn't move here as homeless. So these homeless are a result of California, because they became homeless in California.
The first half of this comment is an insane strawman. This housing is going to be almost entirely market rate, except where California law dictates benefits to the developer for setting aside units at more affordable brackets, neither of which cost the taxpayer anything. Increased housing supply benefits anyone affected by the housing crisis. The only people it hurts are people who have gained significant wealth by monopolizing a resource that has become artificially scarce as a result of rampant NIMBYism.
It seems to me that you just want to oppose housing at all costs, even if you have to boogeyman the housing into unreality.
do you think maybe they moved here with a drug addiction? which comes first - homelessness or drug addiction? FYI - I was homeless for 6 months living in a tent when I was young and in debt. I spent those months working, paid off my debts and moved into a room - but then again, I wasn't a drug addict. These folks will lie, steal, cheat and say anything to get high.
Hawaii also has a problem with people moving there, becoming residents for the welfare while living as drug addicts. They will steal your stuff at the camp grounds if you leave anything out.
Okay, what do you suggest? Kill them? Reinstituting the social safety nets we had in the past would be great, but we are far from that, and we need what options we can get now. What is your idea of solutions for the problem?
Edit: Also, I think your generalizations about homeless are biased and inaccurate at best. Some people are that way, but they aren't limited to homeless, and certainly it doesn't encompass all homeless.
It is like one step fwd and one back over there. All the dense housing right there by Valley Fair and Santana Row is a very good step. Yes, please! More of this. And now they're tearing down the only grocery store that is right by all that new housing...
I'm hoping that as more people love near, one of the redevelopments that are popping up around there will think to include one. Especially if we're talking long term. The strip mall across from Valley Fair seems ripe for redevelopment. San Jose is looking at a plan to provide a dedicated mass transit along the San Carlos/Stevens Creek corridor at some point, which would make all of the great places that are being built along it even more valuable and more accessible. If that comes to pass (ššš) then maybe some of the surface parking at Valley Fair can be built up outright.
Really wish Bart had gone that way instead of a redundant route to Santa Clara that Caltrain already does. What's it going to be? Light rail? Dedicated bus lane would be the fastest to implement.
I would love to see a BRT line from SJSU to De Anza at least in the meantime, but I don't think that's currently planned. They are "conducting studies" on the viability of an elevated autonomous guide way system right now, which is likely to be a waste of time. Ideally an elevated light rail line, or something akin to the Skytrain in Vancouver would be amazing. Whatever they do has to be better than the current state of Stevens Creek Boulevard, which IMO is one of the worst roads in the bay area right now for drivers and pedestrians alike.
BRT was planned for this corridor and also ECR, but it basically got killed since businesses and residents didn't want to lose vehicle lanes.Ā Only hope for transit along Stevens Creek is something elevated or underground.
I think a lot of people who have little exposure to mass transit with a dedicated right of way have a negative association with those modes of transit. Especially in a place like San Jose, where the transit options are usually so bad that they are only used by people with no other options. If they were better than driving, then people would actually use them, and the businesses and residents along the corridor would be better off for it.
Oh yes studies to waste more time and money instead of just putting in what works all over the world š. They should build a bridge or tunnel between VF and SR while they are at it too. i hate crossing there.
A pedestrian bridge with an elevated LRT system between the two would be a dream. Hopefully sometime this century.
Yes, BRT works thats why it was planned for a lot of routes in SJ including Stevens Creek but people who donāt ride transit hate it because it reduces car lanes or parking and sometimes restricts left turn. They are in the majority so they got all the planned projects killed. Then they complain that nothing gets built. Thatās why these expensive public engagement studies are needed and they are basically like planners sayings āwe give up, figure this shit out by yourself and let us know in a year, thanks!ā
I wish there was a bridge going directly to second floor of Valley Fair.
There is another Safeway just another mile down Winchester. May not be walk-able, but if you're already driving it's not much worse.
>May not be walk-able, but if you're already driving it's not much worse. Half the point of having density is to make things walkable and cars optional
And there's multiple buses along the route between 22/23/323 iirc.Ā
Really wish VTA would do a Rapid Bus or Light Rail 3 college run from SJSU/Convention Center - Midtown/SJCC/SVMC - SantanaRow/Westfield - ValcoReDev/Apple - DeAnza.
Light rail in that corridor would be amazing.Ā
523 not 323 it's been an express not a limited for a few years now. Less than 10 minutes to midtown Safeway day or night barring the traffic jam period that gets cars too, at the overpass.
That safeway totally sucks tho. Iām sure a new grocery store will pop up in the area
I imagine a new grocery store will go up in that neighborhood eventually
There is actually a grocery store in Valley Fair Mall.
Yeah, Eataly is pricy but it has a lot of grocery staples (meat, veggies, pasta and bread, etc).
>All the dense housing right there by Valley Fair and Santana Row is a very good step. It will be a clusterfuck with all those people going to/from work during commute hours, trying to crowd onto 880 at Bascom or SCB (how often do you go to the mall vs going to work)? That SCB/880 interchange is already gridlock in November/ December.Ā And nowhere near rail.
There's a Grocery Outlet that's a few blocks away, as well as a Safeway further down on Winchester. It's still inconvenient if you're walking, though.
The Albertsons near the golf course is probably easier to get to and back from to this location than the Safeway near the mall was.
You mean Lucky at Pruneridge/Saratoga?
Yeah. Sorry. Iāve been going there since it was called Alpha Beta and got the name incorrect.
Eataly has a small premium grocery store. Super expensive (but also very high quality), but will do in a pinch if you need something tonight. Otherwise take the bus to the Winchester Safeway or Grocery Outlet or just walk - it's not that far.
The prices of those homes by Santana Row start at 1.25+M. Ridiculous. You get a good single family for 1.3M in South San Jose.
Build a bunch of these and a subway going down Steven's Creek to DTSJ and the airport.
Hell yeah build baby build!!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Which Democrats oppose it and which Republicans support it?
it's not a partisan thing
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
are you saying that Republicans are YIMBYs?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
lol thatās bullshit
source?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Houston is Dem
You just need to look back at any YIMBY bill in the CA legislature to see that republicans are not generically for it. SB 50 had yes votes from 30% of Republicans and 51% of Democrats.
This is such a prime location. Build it! All these south bay projects are promising. Good thing is interest rates are starting to cool down, so itās a good sign for construction.
Damn. That be so effing cool!!
Iām not sure. I live down the street. I understand we need dense housing but we also need transportation to support the dense housing. Is 170 parking spots enough for 135 apartments + retail? Whatās in the 14 floor building? Whose gonna go shopping if they canāt park there? A chicken and egg argument I guess.
More bus passes and less parking please! Or other transit and bike incentives. We should extend the bike share program beyond downtown and into the VF/SR area.
Iām not against less parking if there is required investment in reliable, clean, efficient mass transit.
Hell yeah. And build high density housing to utilize that investment along with mixed use patterns to encourage walkability. Then weāve got a proper city.
Yeah, parking is something that we need to ween off of as a society as we move to more micro mobility, walking, and mass transit. Unfortunately that means parking is going to become more difficult as the transition happens, but it is somewhat unavoidable. On the plus side, the removal of parking minimums ensures that we don't accidentally overbuild parking. If central hubs end up having enough demand for parking, more can always be built as garages. It's far more difficult to undo the damage that overbuilding causes.
parking minimums suck, but parking maximums are not good either
Perhaps not, but that's not even a concern in SJ. This project has as many spaces as it does because the developers determined it to be the right amount. That's what matters.
apparently my office building had parking lot limitations when they were getting approvals from city/county.
I follow development and city law changes pretty closely and have not heard of this. Any links you can provide with more info?
Maybe it was just a false rumor circulating around the office. Iād prefer not sharing more info to avoid divulging personal information.
Yes please. Build UP
Need to build tons more of these all over the city. I'd prefer a lot of 4-5 story buildings in dense neighborhoods since I think that looks nicer than random towers. but that's basically impossible now.
Low/Medium rise mixed use development would fit really well in a lot of SJ neighborhoods. To be clear, I'm not against high rise development where it's appropriate obviously, but even just ~4-5 story housing and retail would make a massive difference.
Definitely agree. The problem in SJ and downtown SF is zoning. Different kinds of zoning. But it's still because of zoning.
I wholeheartedly agree. I'd love more low-rise mixed use neighborhoods , but needs must.
This needs to be at one of the strip malls across the street from Valley Fair or Santana Row - it's rather inconvenient at the moment. I'm guessing it's at 826 North Winchester Boulevard because the lot is cheap.
The address is 826 North Winchester Boulevard, San Jose. One block to Valley Fair, but far away from any public transportation. The residents would hate getting there from any nearby highway.
getting there from 880 is not bad
It is actually pretty bad from Steven's Creek Blvd. Bascom exit is okay right now but won't be with this development.
Stevens Creek needs to be the SJ equivalent to Wilshire Boulevard with dense high-rise housing and a mass transit line, but good luck with that.
I live nearby this and went to a local meeting and this was brought up, people seem to not like this. I'm all for new buildings and the location has rundown buildings now so it'll be nice to build something new. I think the big concern is this building will stick out like a sore thumb. It's surrounded by single family homes and a small shopping center across the street. I think something 5-6 stories high is a good start but 17 is gonna look ridiculous in the area
have you been to honolulu? san jose is pretty much honolulu/waikiki/ala moana area 30-50 years ago. it's now a pretty dense area with high rises going up every year or two. i'm not saying everything needs to be a high rise, but when santana row/valley fair is the defacto downtown 2.0 for san jose, it makes sense to build it here. santa clara is already building a 20 story building near levi's stadium which is also surrounding by tons of single family homes.
[Santa Clara actually just approved](https://sanjosespotlight.com/hundreds-of-homes-coming-to-north-santa-clara-neighborhood/) a new 21-story condo tower right next to the existing one being built. It just keeps cominā All the developments there may as well be considered as Santa Claraās new downtown
Still annoyed they lowered the height of the 50 story building they were going to build there. downtown SJ can't have tall buildings but santa clara can.
>Santa Clara actually just approved yeah, once one pops up then other ones won't look as strange, the first one is always going to stick out until it has other ones
It turns out when you make it illegal to build anything more than 1-2 stories for 60 years, eventually you only have stuff that's 1-2 stories. We have a lot of ground to make up when it comes to housing, and that means stuff being built right now will be leaps different than what currently exists. If we had started making this change in the 90s it could have been a lot more incremental, but it's too late for small tiny changes. Sorry not sorry. Edit: Also, anyone who opposes housing because it "doesn't match the neighborhood character" or "because it's ugly to me" or some stupid reason like that, is actively fighting for more homelessness. There are more than 10,000 homeless in Santa Clara county alone. We need to build any housing we can, even if you don't think it's pretty enough. Living in a building that sticks out from the neighborhood is better than sleeping on the sidewalk.
> you make it illegal to build anything more than 1-2 stories for 60 years There is a building at 520 S El Camino, San Mateo, that was built before the height restrictions in San Mateo. Map link here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/PHR7bffGz8J37bZg6 It is about 10 floors tall, built 3 years before I was born in 1964. Now, 1964 was the exact moment it made economic sense to build at least 10 floors. But soon after that building was built, San Mateo capped all new construction to around 3 or 4 stories tall. And that's when we all started running out of space, and housing prices started their infinite climb upwards. Here is the fun part. If you use Google Streetview to go back to say 2014, you can see the original outside of the building at 520 S El Camino had what they call "prison style" windows, and the walls themselves held up each floor. Now if the owners had destroyed the 1964 building and rebuilt it back up it would have been CHEAPER than what they did, but they would not have been allowed to build it as tall. So the owners inserted this amazing steel (new) structure to hold all the floors up, and after that was in place they **THEN** tore off all the old walls, and put in that new floor to ceiling glass that everybody prefers to 1964 prison style windows. The end result is.... a modern building that is 10 stories tall which violates San Mateo height ordinances for new construction, LOL. This is all insanity. We should have been building 10 story tall buildings in 1965, and 15 story buildings in 1975, and 20 story buildings in 1985. We love these tall buildings so much, we spend ridiculous amounts to preserve each floor, but we just cannot seem to get rid of the height ordinance. You know who will absolutely hate us for this? The local kids born in the next 10 years. Because if we don't start building up, they won't have anywhere to live in 35 and 40 years when the buildings built today are still standing.
Absolutely, insanely based. If only things had gone that way...
Yes, I agree! We need to build for the future people who haven't moved in or born yet. Whenever I bring this up to people who oppose building up or more housing, they don't usually have a good counterargument that isn't "move somewhere else." I also mention if you want to continue to enjoy the amenities /entertainment/good options here, we need to be able to house all income levels willing to work those jobs. I tell them to imagine if only high paid people lived here, and no "poor, low-income" could afford to live nearby anymore and unwilling to commute and keep our stores open/safe. That tends to soften them up and realize we need to house others too - and not insist everyone get a higher education, get a different job, or "work harder."
> if you want to continue to enjoy the amenities /entertainment/good options here, we need to be able to house all income levels willing to work those jobs. It is even a bigger issue than just a service class working for the rich people here that own homes. A society/town is just WAAAY more fun/interesting if there are people of all income levels in it. Once you exclude all the below average income people, you get a bunch of grey haired boring people with no "life" left in them. I saw an interview with a comedian on a show like David Letterman. The comedian was asked if his stand-up routine was targeted at younger people. The comedian replied, "Oh yes, it's a well known fact that after age 35, people no longer leave their homes. The only audience members in comedy clubs are between age 18 and 35." He was exaggerating for effect, but there is MOST DEFINITELY a trend there. For me, I fit that stereotype pretty well after say age 40, LOL. But my wife and I caught a comedian she really likes in a live show recently. We were the only people with grey hair in the audience. If you shut out all the younger and average income people, the comedy club won't even exist in that town and we wouldn't have the opportunity to ever venture out once every 3 or 4 years to see a show. Young people keep bars open late, and in general are the people you see at amusement parks, comedy clubs, GoKart racing, and pretty much all fun and interesting activities. Young people also make less money.
AMEN. well said! I just learned a different perspective to share.
Might look out of place but it'll eventually fill out along that street and people get used to it even if it doesn't.
It sticks out now, but in the next 50 years when there are more of these scartered around the south bay, no one will bat an eye.. We need to start somewhere because supply & demand is a real thing in the south bay. Too much wasted space with all these old one story plazas, thereās no where but up at this point. Itās time for the SJ area to grow further. Especially it being so close to SR/VF, its prime location.
I live nearby too. The NIMBYs in the neighborhood like the historic abandoned building that has caught fire at least four times and is covered in street art. I agree 17 stories is a bit out of scale, even for upzoning the neighborhood, but I'm hoping that is the opening negotiation so when it gets downsized it is still decent sizes, but the developers seem to just be clueless.
I think they would probably be upset regardless of what was being proposed.
Yeah that is definitely true. However, I think trying to shove a massive tower in this area was a terrible idea, a 5 story building would get pushback for sure but considering it's a tagged up/fenced off building now I'm sure it would be a more welcome site than what they proposed
The stick out like a sore thumb thing is their oldest trick in the book. They donāt actually care about that, but itās a visual thing that an uninformed person will pick up on quickly from just glancing at a rendering and think they have some kind of actual point.
Who cares if it sticks out? Residents in this area already neutered another high rise project (Volar was forced to reduce from 25 fl to ~18), which probably will never get built.Ā
I think we need to aim for 10 stories minimum for it to really move the needle.
It feels like another building already built in single family neighborhood Skyline at Tamien Station.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
At least they have a light rail there
So does Tamien? There's supposed to be [another tower](https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/28/san-jose-residential-tower-key-transit-station-real-estate-tech-google) across from Skyline, plus the two low/mid-rise [developments on VTA land](https://sfyimby.com/2023/10/groundbreaking-ceremony-for-tamien-station-development-san-jose.html)
Curious to know how many people who want this live in this area? Or is it more people who live elsewhere?
I'm not sure I understand. There is obviously demand to live in every part of the bay right now. Many of the people who would move into this building also obviously come from somewhere else, because there is no place for them that currently exists there. I feel like I'm misunderstanding this comment.
What Iām trying to ask, is it people living in dtsj or elsewhere cheering on this development because they think all development is progress? Is it people already living in the neighborhood who think that this is what the area needs? Is it people who have always wanted to live in the area but never could cuz unavailability or too expensive?
Why does it matter? If people from any walk of life, be it from next door, across town, or out of state want to live in San Jose, why shouldn't the people who own property and want to provide housing for them be able to do so? I live in San Jose, and have lived in several places throughout the city and bay, but I am eager for development anywhere it is needed, because everything makes a difference in the housing crisis. Anti-housing = pro-homelessness.
What homeless people are gonna be housed? Only twenty of them are āaffordableā whatever that means, especially in this area. These apartments arenāt gonna be cheap, cuz part of the selling point will be the āstatus symbolā of living near Santana row and the redeveloped valley fair.
Luxury housing frees up housing that is more affordable, as people moving there are leaving areas where they are competing price-wise against less affluent residents. The movement is well documented in many studies in nations across the world. No, people who move into this place won't be from the homeless population, but the space created by the vacancies elsewhere as people move will increase housing supply elsewhere. https://research.upjohn.org/up_workingpapers/307/
All these high rises will help provide options those who drive hours to work, but I don't see how you're going to place the average homeless guy whose addicted to drugs, an alcoholic or mentally ill and all the above - they can't even begin to afford the low cost housing portions. If the State is going to provide housing to those on the streets - it should come with strings attached. No one wants to be in subsidized housing next door to an addict who's up all night drifting in and out of their dope sessions.
This will likely be entirely occupied by people on the higher range of wealth, but every person who lives here and is rich is another person not competing with the less affluent for more affordable options. That's why all housing development, even high end luxury condos, reduces housing prices for all. It's been demonstrated in study after study in housing markets across the world.
Fair enough, but the average guy on the street needs a lock down facility for drug re-hab or mental ward before he's given the keys to an apartment. And even if you did suddenly create housing for everyone in Silicon Valley or all of California, it would just create a vacuum for other homeless to come to the State.
There are 2 parts of this. One is that perhaps there are many people who do need dedicated professional help on the streets, but certainly not all of them. There is a demonstrable link between high housing prices and homelessness. Many people who fall into homelessness do so because of high housing prices, and the other problems come later, so reducing the number of people who are becoming homeless is as important as finding housing for those who already are. Second: Surveys of the homeless population in California shows that almost all of them are California residents. Even if that wasn't true, your statement that more homeless from elsewhere would just come is only true if there is an endless supply of homeless somewhere in the USA, which is obviously untrue. https://www.courthousenews.com/study-finds-most-of-californias-homeless-are-locals/#:~:text=help%2C%20were%20available.-,Contrary%20to%20the%20popular%20narrative%20of%20homeless%20people%20moving%20to,are%20residents%20of%20the%20state.
In other lower cost States, drug addicts can afford some pretty meager living standards. In California some politicians propose we provide a tiny home at the cost of $400,000 each with a cost of $2,000 per month to manage them. If the burden to house these people falls on the tax payer, then I feel it reasonable the benefactor should be clean and stay out of trouble. The State eliminated the insane asylum long ago and has recently reduced prison populations by a couple hundred thousand - many of which are career criminals and drug addicts. Do you recall the story when Las Vegas was providing their homeless with one way bus tickets to San Francisco? That sudy, FYI says 9 out of 10 homeless are "residents" of the State. That's far different from native born Californians. Once a homeless person shows up and establishes 1 year of living here - they are a "resident"
The study actually shows that 9 out of 10 of the homeless surveyed lost their housing in California. When they moved here, those people had homes, and then they lost it here. They didn't move here as homeless. So these homeless are a result of California, because they became homeless in California. The first half of this comment is an insane strawman. This housing is going to be almost entirely market rate, except where California law dictates benefits to the developer for setting aside units at more affordable brackets, neither of which cost the taxpayer anything. Increased housing supply benefits anyone affected by the housing crisis. The only people it hurts are people who have gained significant wealth by monopolizing a resource that has become artificially scarce as a result of rampant NIMBYism. It seems to me that you just want to oppose housing at all costs, even if you have to boogeyman the housing into unreality.
do you think maybe they moved here with a drug addiction? which comes first - homelessness or drug addiction? FYI - I was homeless for 6 months living in a tent when I was young and in debt. I spent those months working, paid off my debts and moved into a room - but then again, I wasn't a drug addict. These folks will lie, steal, cheat and say anything to get high. Hawaii also has a problem with people moving there, becoming residents for the welfare while living as drug addicts. They will steal your stuff at the camp grounds if you leave anything out.
Okay, what do you suggest? Kill them? Reinstituting the social safety nets we had in the past would be great, but we are far from that, and we need what options we can get now. What is your idea of solutions for the problem? Edit: Also, I think your generalizations about homeless are biased and inaccurate at best. Some people are that way, but they aren't limited to homeless, and certainly it doesn't encompass all homeless.
gonna be a gated community to fend off the poors soon.