Well, that was to build another mega-campus. This development is for housing, mixed-use and some office space. I'm not surprised they are re-evaluating it given the success of remote and hybrid work.
I just did some similar squinting by comparing satellite view with the map on the SFgate article. Development is mainly between 101 and Charleston Rd. I see lots of Google office buildings in that area.
Also I chuckled a bit when I realized I was using Google maps to make this connection
Pretty sure this is a move to support remote work. They are trimming down their existing campus to build more homes in the bay area, which is in dire need of that.
Big tech has lots of real estate for their mega campuses. It is gonna take a while to unwind that.
Low income housing is a failed idea. Make rent affordable by building market rate units until supply outstrips demand. Or raise Section 8 to track the market rate. But creating a lottery system for a few lucky people to win a temporary government housing subsidy is not a solution to anything.
I agree it is def not the only thing to do to tackle the housing problem, but I think it can be a good tool to help get these projects passed. NIMBYism in the bay is so rampant that neighbors pretty much oppose all high density housing developments.
I agree with you that the main problem is supply and demand. We need more homes to keep prices affordable and the only way to do that in the bay is more density.
I don't think it has to be an either or situation. We should subsidize low-income housing so ppl with lower incomes have somewhere to live right now, and also build more market rate units so everyone has a place to live at an affordable rate long term.
The plan is for 7000 units, a lot of office space, and a bunch of other things. It needs to be midrise apartments to fit that many people. Which is exactly what they should be building.
You would be hard-pressed to afford an SFH near Mountain View on one $300k/year income, unless you've worked for at least 5 years (probably more) to save up a down payment. Even then, that's the low end - any house you can buy with that income will probably be small (1500 sq ft max), built in 1960s at the latest, and in need of $100k-$200k of renovations to bring it up to modern standards. You might be able to buy a townhouse that's decently modern, but that will charge you $500/month in HOA for very minimal amenities (not even a pool in many cases).
With these options, unless you're starting a family and need the space, these apartments seem like a good deal for younger people working for Google. It will be priced to be within a Google engineer's budget and will have much better amenities than any SFH for sale that costs below $3m.
I would prefer literally anything else over living in a McMansion in a liminal suburb. Only thing they could improve is putting some mixed use/retain in there.
It probably won't make you more extrovert. In studies, behavior has been pretty consistently found to be linked to personality and vice versa, so it's always tricky to differentiate the two.
I think it is all about what you can afford close to your work. If you are early on in your career in the bay area you are very likely living in an apartment building. Maybe you get a few friends together and rent a house.
I've lived in both poorly built apartments and very nice new concrete walled ones where you can't hear your neighbors at all.
To your point, under engineered buildings are a serious concern. Ex: I lived in library gardens in Berkeley before they had the balcony collapse in 2015 which killed 6 students.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_balcony_collapse
Not a virtue in itself. But if you live in the bay area you are priced out of living less densely. You can of course move away to a more affordable area. And now with remote work being more accepted that is a viable option for white collar workers, definitely not for blue collar though.
But if you have kids, family, friends, in the bay area then that is a difficult decision to say the least.
Thank you for writing this article! I've had similar thoughts for the past 5 years or so.
A lot of the comments here seem to have the approach that there is a single best stack for building web applications. I believe this comes from the fact that as web engineers we have to choose which tech to invest our careers in which is inherently risky. Spend a couples years on something that becomes defunct and it feels like a waste. Also, startup recruiters are always looking for the tech experience that matches the choice of their companies. VCs want to strike while the iron is hot.
Something that doesn't get talked about enough (which the author does mention near the end of article) is that different web apps have different needs. There is 100% a need for SPAs for certain use cases. Messaging, video players, etc. But there are many cases where it is overkill, like the many many CRUD resource apps I've built over the years. Say you have a couple hundred users that need to manage the state of a dozen interconnected resources. The benefits of an MPA are great here. Routing is free, no duplication of FE / BE code. Small teams of devs can ship code and fix bugs very fast which keeps the user feedback loop tight.
Thanks for taking the time to read the article :) A lot of the comments here seem to implying that I claim "htmx is the one hammer to solve all website needs", even when I explicitly say SPAs have their place in the article.
A hypermedia approach is the nice happy medium between a very static website and an SPA, not sure why so many people are close-minded about this possibility.
The way I interpreted the quote was that if you don't know your goals you are going to take every opportunity that comes your way and not turn down any projects.
It's very easy to fall into this and end up with lots of crappy projects that continue on for months. Especially when you first start out as a freelancer and worry about getting consistent work.
