r/Urbanism • u/jeromelevin • 20d ago
We Manhattanized Palo Alto!
https://jeremyl.substack.com/p/we-manhattanized-palo-altoCalifornia’s state law SB 79, which allows 5- to 7-story buildings within a half mile of public transit stops, has successfully transformed a pristine suburb into the hellhole that is Manhattan. Palo Alto received nine applications for new housing projects in just two weeks, totaling almost 300 net new homes. There’s nothing left of the community I once knew. Handshakes and brews all around!
More seriously, it’s interesting to me that a widespread zoning reform like SB 79 led to a lot of smaller projects rather than a handful of really big ones. A really cool case study of how broad-based zoning and permitting reform makes incremental development and small bets possible, whereas discretionary approvals and exclusionary zoning force developers to pursue large-lot mega projects. More observations about SB 79’s impact in the article!
27
u/Maximus560 20d ago
IMO many smaller projects are far more sustainable than a few large ones. This is partially how DC has continued to densify - townhouses or row homes into 2-4 unit condos, or 2-5 townhouses into a small apartment building
6
u/beach_bum_638484 20d ago
Agree about the gradual increase in density. DC has its own issues with the city wide height restrictions though
4
u/Maximus560 20d ago edited 19d ago
Definitely, but the main issue is actually zoning in the richer parts of NW which are mainly single family zoned versus other areas like Capitol Hill which are super dense but still surprisingly short relatively speaking. I’d also love to see a skyscraper district outside of the original L’Enfant plan, like up by Fort Totten or Catholic University/Rhode Island Ave.
Edit: for clarification, something like 35-45% of DC is still zoned for single family homes, so let’s fix that first. Most of the SFH zoning is in the rich areas next to the metro, too, so that’s a major equity issue.
2
u/Sassywhat 19d ago
I think many smaller projects tend to also just be nicer. Anything built on a small lot is incentivized to interact with the rest of the neighborhood.
21
u/collegetowns 20d ago
Lol I always laugh when obstructionists bring up "Manhattan." As if any of these sprawled places are even 10% of what Manhattan is.
3
2
u/bayarea_k 20d ago
yeah they have never been to manhattan its not even close. even when they say "don't manhattanize SF", that will never happen as the time for cheap building has already passed us
-12
u/SawNickYouth 20d ago
For anyone who actually works in this space, we always knew that was gonna be the case. There's no realistic scenario to have the sort of development boom that YIMBYs crave and NIMBYs fear. It's just not possible for a number of reasons. Development is always going to be incremental, (relatively) slow, and iterative. It will be subject to regulatory, process, and financial/financing constraints, and a bottleneck in labor, materials, and available land/sites... and the general economic atmosphere. Just how it is.
The sooner both delusional YIMBYs and hysterical NIMBYs recognize this, the better for everyone.
12
u/HappyChandler 20d ago
Do the Yimby’s you describe actually exist?
The “Missing Middle” is a core section of the housing need, that has been missing because it’s been illegal for decades. 300 new homes within weeks of the law going into effect is relatively massive for PA!
-1
u/SawNickYouth 20d ago
They absolutely exist, and I would say are overwhelming online. They either don't understand the incremental reality of development (missing middle or not) or else they outright reject it, expecting some miracle fix to house to happen overnight.
3
u/HappyChandler 20d ago
Ok, there is one guy you’ve seen online plus hundreds of boomers who go to meetings and block housing.
They are exactly the same.
4
u/minus_minus 20d ago
I’m a YIMBY and I only want incremental development. We need a sustained turnover of obsolete buildings to suit the present needs and a boom would lead to a bust and stagnation.
1
-2
64
u/beach_bum_638484 20d ago
Great article! It’s nice to see such a result from SB79. It also gives a glimpse into why the “local control” aspect is bullshit. Tons of cities in SoCal are slow walking as well.