Is Palo Alto Mirroring this San Francisco Housing Probem? Palo Alto Issues, posted by Winslow Arbenaugh, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Aug 21, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I think so.
Here's a hint at where Palo Alto is headed if we keep listening to anti-development radicals that demonize every development of significance,
So, now they have Alma Plaza, Edgewood Plaza, and the Stanford project to chew on.
Note to prospective city council candidates: those of you who make it to the Council, take heed of the above article, as well as the dormant properties that small anti-development groups here want to stall, or stop altogether - or otherwise extort massive favors from developers that ends up costing new local residents more money.
It's time to look past the amateur developers (you know, the ones who don't own property, but want to tell others how to use it), and architectual sycophants who think that their opinion is the last word in urban design.
We need some common sense and vision when it comes to our city's future, not fawning attention paid to those whose favorite word is "no".
Posted by An Observer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 21, 2007 at 5:08 pm
I wonder how Mr. Winslow will react to the following idea:
Barron Park has a lot of large lots and a remote park that is not available to most residents so lets have a "Redevelopment District" formed in it and place a few "Hyett Type" projects in its midst and also run a road thru to Stanford Industrial Park for easy, short commutes for the residents.
Of course Mr Winslow may be a developer and not even own any property so he may be in favor of this.
Posted by Julian, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Aug 21, 2007 at 6:17 pm
"Barron Park has a lot of large lots and a remote park that is not available to most residents so lets have a "Redevelopment District" formed in it and place a few "Hyett Type" projects in its midst and also run a road thru to Stanford Industrial Park for easy, short commutes for the residents. "
Observer,
There is no redevelopment district necessary, since redevelopment is taking place on its own, every day, via the private marketplace. However, your notion about a cutthrough to SRP is a very good idea. It would reduce traffic in Barron Park, where I live. Very few people would decide to cut through to Arastradero (too complicated). Locals would know their way home, thus cut down on cut through via current, overused routes.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 21, 2007 at 8:21 pm
The peninsula needs cross peninsula freeways, starting with the Willow freeway with a Stanford cloverleaf so Stanford traffic need not go on neighboring surface streets.
Posted by Mary Carlstead, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Walter, where would that cloverleaf go? I looked at a trusty AAA map to get a feel for your idea. There is the Creek - the county line, Stanford-owned-land El Camino Park on the south side, and the Stanford Park Hotel on the northside of the Creek. News reports re: the Menlo Park Planning Commission indicate that the hotel is planning a massive expansion. Menlo Park cheered on the development of that hotel in probably the one place where Sand Hill could connect to Willow, and Menlo Park deliberately narrowed Willow Road to two lanes after the State's contentious proposal to build a multi-lane freeway from Sunol across the Bay, over the Dumbarton Bridge, out Sand Hill and up and over the mountains to Highway 1. That was about 1962 or 1963. Connecting Sand Hill to Willow was on the ballot in Menlo Park when I first moved to California, and I think it was in 1958. It was defeated.
Please explain how you think this would work. Thank you. Mary C.
Posted by Gern Blanston, a resident of Menlo Park, on Aug 24, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Walter Wallis wrote:
"The peninsula needs cross peninsula freeways, starting with the Willow freeway with a Stanford cloverleaf so Stanford traffic need not go on neighboring surface streets."
Now, Walter, how does an Ayn Rand-loving, private property-sanctifying Libertarian jibe such a plan as you propose, above, with the hundreds of homeowners who would be affected by the eminent domain required to carry it out? And don't even start with fair market value....
Posted by Gene, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Complete the extension of BART around the bay, on both sides, and extending to Salinas (from San Jose junction). Cross the bay with a new BART brdige next to Dunbarton, then dig a tunnel with stations in EPA, Palo Alto Cal Train station and Stanford (Medical Center/Shopping Center), thence connecting with the new BART line coming down the west side of the peninsula. Costly? Yep. Realistic? Not now, but 20 years from now it would be considered a great thing.
This is what I call real infrastructure. It would pump new economic life into the peninsula. Our kids would thank us for it.
How to pay for it? A mixture of things: A gasoline tax on all the counties that would benefit from it; a sales tax from those same counties; state and federal public transit funds.
Posted by Commuter, a resident of another community, on Aug 30, 2007 at 9:20 am
Gene, if your going to put BART up the Peninsula, where would you put it? The only suggestion I have heard is up the middle of Highway 101 which would eliminate several lanes of traffic. How about electrifying CALTRAINS so it would run as efficiently as BART!!!
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
