I grew up in Palo Alto.The \”comfortable suburban density\” hides a lot of variation; land use patterns can be very different at the same density. In Silicon Valley, a lot of the more densely populated places are 80's and 90's garden apartments. Whenever I pass by things like that in Chicago, I'm reminded of what terrible places they are, how much space is taken up by parking lots and sad landscaping you're meant to walk through on the way to your car.Silicon Valley is relentlessly car-oriented, with wide boulevards and several \”expressways\”, which are a kind of not-quite-limited-access mini-freeway which doesn't otherwise exist outside the heads of 50's-era planners. If its density increased, that would initially mean more parking lots and traffic jams, not more transit use.Of course, Silicon Valley communities aren't increasing density even near train stations, where it really could go. But it's hard to blame the suburbanites for a failure of imagination regarding what a city can look like.And when people are going to live in your building regardless, there's no reason to build anything aesthetically pleasing. It follows that most new development in Silicon Valley is ugly as sin. This doesn't endear anyone to allowing more of it.Of course, maybe the loudest residents should not be in control of development in a community.

Like