Build, Build, Build...Then What?

As I looked at the latest overly large building rise on Howard Ave. across from the Caltrain station while waiting for the train, I had to wonder (again) how much growth the mid-Peninsula can withstand?  Travelling by train down to Palo Alto, the question became even more pressing.  It's quite stunning to see how much real estate is "in the dirt" on huge new projects right next to the Caltrain right of way.  Blocks and blocks of additional building doesn't bode well for our traffic, school capacity or water security.  To all the people saying we need a "Regional Housing Authority" to address the "housing crisis", I say we need a "Regional Infrastructure Authority" first.

Comments

[Joanne]

My thoughts exactly Joe! The powers that be in almost all our Peninsula cities have their heads in the sand so to speak!

[resident]

Move along now, nothing to see here

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/officials-ok-burlingame-live-work-project/article_d6dbedf8-c142-11e8-9a5d-ff89fc993f6e.html

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/city-has-new-proposal-for-more-homes/article_d4c53664-c142-11e8-a576-b72f4a1152be.html

[Bruce Dickinson]

You know what Bruce Dickinson says, the bigger you build, the bigger the bust that will follow!

I may be seven decades old, but I have never let a bust get in the way of being an aggressive buyer when everyone's a seller.

Be fearful when others are greedy and be greedy when others are fearful!

[Charles Magnuson]

It's so sad to see these new office buildings going up in Burlingame when we have a severe housing crisis on our hands. We need housing, not more offices.

[Just Visiting]

Always amused by the Voice's water comments. Residential water use makes up about 10% of the state's total water use. Adding small numbers of units is a proverbial drop in the bucket.

And, in a city of approximately 30K residents, adding 300 new residents would increase the water use by approximately 1% (assuming average water use). So the impact of new multi-unit housing? Negligible.

Also, multi-unit housing uses much less water per user. Why? Because approximately 60% of residential water use is for landscaping, and multi-unit housing has much less landscaping per user.

Want to limit residential impact on our water supply? Rip out your lawn. Though I suspect not many people would favor a local ordinance that required that.

And which do you think is the bigger environmental impact? Increasing the local housing stock, or expecting the labor force to commute over long distances?

There are legitimate arguments to make against building a lot of new housing (protecting neighborhood character and school capacity are two), but strain on the water supply is not one of them.

[Joe]

Well, JV, I do appreciate a good debate to thanks for that. I am reminded of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's quote “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” I have no idea where you came up with (fabricated?) the idea that we are only talking about 300 new residents in town. The General Plan update now in process calls for a 23% increase in population via 2,951 new housing units. There is also the intensified usage from AirBnB and VRBO rentals of existing spare space which can be significant. In addition, 9,731 new jobs of which about 4,500 are already well along as you can see from the Oculus building progress.

All of this is supposed to be accomplished with only a 4.7% increase in water consumption over a five year period from 2025 to 2030. Does that compute for you?

You are onto something about ripping out lawns as well as our trees (several of which have already been lost in my block due to water stress leading to bark beetles). That's not the B'game I want to live in so I will just keep on the topic and you can try to poke holes in the logic.