Housing complex was incorrect regarding the location of the proposed 6C development. It is 250 K Street NE not NW. So it's near the NY Ave Metro station rather than in the Mount Vernon Triangle.

by Paul on Nov 6, 2010 2:53 pm  

D.C. Student ID's already have them, its called the DC One Card. They work as student I.D.'s, DCPL library cards, Smartrips, and rec center ID's. http://dconecard.dc.gov/dconecard/site/default.asp

by thedofc on Nov 6, 2010 3:56 pm  

The Silicon Valley story isn't very accurate. Startups have always sought to locate in downtown Palo Alto, Mountain View, etc. That's where Google was when it started. Then companies get too big for the available space and so they have to move to more remote campuses, because towns like Palo Alto don't support the density of New York or San Francisco. There is nothing new here.

by David desJardins on Nov 6, 2010 4:38 pm  

I can attest that Oxford St. is a nightmare to walk down if you're not window shopping. When I lived there I avoided it whenever possible and when I did walk on it, I just walked in the road.

by TM on Nov 6, 2010 6:26 pm  

Meanwhile food truck owners challenge restaurants to make better, faster and cheaper food.

because what the US really needs more of is faster and cheaper food.

The Silicon Valley story isn't very accurate.

i somewhat agree and somewhat disagree - but mostly disagree.

could startup companies have stayed in downtown areas after they hit growth spurts? yes. would it have cost them more money than moving out to the middle of nowhere? yes -- obvs. the question is, how hard did they ever try to stay downtown? from my experience -- about zero effort was expended in that effort up until things started to shift ever so slightly over the last few years -- and they've still got a _long_ way to go. i talked to a few companies recently, including one very small company I remember well -- 15 employees or so packed into a little room, lots of telecommuters -- and they were in the middle of some godforsaken Mountain View location -- almost in a worse location than Google, if that's possible. i just thought, "Who's smokin the crack?"

i've worked and interviewed in/at Redwood Shores (companies) (location mentioned in the article), and have complained probably here and elsewhere of how it's on the 'wrong side' of highway 101 from Caltrain (another women was just killed on an overpass). i turned down a job there within the last two years because of that fact, and told them so. i interviewed at the YuMe mentioned in the story just before they moved into their new HQ in downtown Redwood City (they had a smaller office there already) -- they were attractive to me b/c downtown Redwood City is a major (Cal)train station, and is very nice these days (pseudo-performance parking, nice/new landscaping, wide sidewalks, etc. etc.) (and i think their new HQ was the old WebTV HQ, which was pretty big, but not sure about that -- I worked in the old WebTV building, but not for WebTV). In the last year I complained to an HR mgr of a company i was talking to that I just couldn't consider them (or the two other companies in their same complex) b/c they were 1.5 mi from the nearest Caltrain station -- but it wasn't walkable or bikeable. She said, "Thanks so much for your candid comments! We're trying desperately to get back to a downtown area that we grew out of, but it's just tough finding space." So, you're right that that's the excuse that they've used (they grew too big), but there are myriad big-enough spaces available in and around all the Caltrain stations -- the problem, I suspect, is that the CEOs and early managers are all drivers (because you have to be in the Bay Area if you want to be successful), so they probably do their best to avoid walk/bike/transit-friendly areas, as they tend to be car-unfriendly. and some of the VC firms (or all of them?) are located in the middle of nowhere, too, so they want their funded startups to be right next door so they can peek in and check up on the worker bees. Think big, redonkulous office parks on top of *#*#&@ Mt. Everest. and then you think to yourself, "oh, well, i guess that makes sense, because we know that some/most/all the VCs _do_ smoke crack."

just my take.

by Peter Smith on Nov 7, 2010 1:56 am  

@Peter Smith:

I worked at Google when it moved from downtown Palo Alto to an office park on the bay side US 101. Some of us weren't too thrilled with the location, but it wasn't chosen because the CEOs and managers insisted they wanted to drive to work. Give me a break.

I'm pretty sure that Sergey mostly bicycled to work (as did I) for quite some time even after the move. Biking to Bayshore Pkwy isn't that bad. The worst part of the move was not being near restaurants, but that's what led Google to open its own cafe.

There isn't loads of empty space in downtown Palo Alto. One company could outbid another for the space there, but the total number of people who can work on University Ave in Palo Alto is still fixed, and much less than the demand. Even if every company in Silicon Valley wanted to move there, that doesn't mean they all can.

by David desJardins on Nov 7, 2010 2:14 am  

Some of us weren't too thrilled with the location, but it wasn't chosen because the CEOs and managers insisted they wanted to drive to work.

if you know why Google moved to the middle of nowhere, i'd love to know...?

i suspect there were plenty of reasons google decided to abandon downtown PA, but having CEOs and managers 'insist' on doing so was probably not necessary.

as far as the level of involvement of CEOs/managers/VCs in deciding the move of google, it's probably not a trade secret -- there are a zillion Google books out there -- surely somebody knows why Google abandoned downtown PA, right? i'm guessing the answer is probably, 'duh.', but it'd be nice to get confirmation.

to me, Google is a special case, like Facebook, like a few other 'explosive-growth' companies. the difference over time, though, can be seen in the Google vs. Facebook HQ locations -- Facebook grew up about 10 (?) years after Google -- in an era when people had finally started hearing the whisphers of walkability/bikeability/urban planning/smart growth/global warming, and Facebook knew they wanted the best, super-young, all-night-working, non-driving-so-they-could-save-their-time-and-energy-for-work employees -- so they stayed in downtown (Palo Alto) and started handing out $600/mo subsidies for living within a mile of work. For Google, none of this stuff was even on their radar. Google was trying to grow a company -- they didn't care about 'attracting the best talent' -- they knew they would get it (with the lure of stock options) if they were successful, and nobody cared about being able to walk/bike to work (except, of course, for you and Sergey, apparently). so when the time came to decide where Google would locate, it was probably like, "Where is the closest, large amount of office space? Old SGI HQ in the middle of nowhere? OK, done." -- there were no qualifiers about 'biking' or any other hippie nonsense -- that was (and mostly still is) 'kids stuff' -- Google had to 'grow up', and fast.

Biking to Bayshore Pkwy isn't that bad.

which is why about zero people do it.

There isn't loads of empty space in downtown Palo Alto. One company could outbid another for the space there, but the total number of people who can work on University Ave in Palo Alto is still fixed, and much less than the demand. Even if every company in Silicon Valley wanted to move there, that doesn't mean they all can.

no doubt, locating in the middle of nowhere is always cheaper in land/resources/buildings/rents compared to an already-built-up/in environment, but does that mean we should just give up? should we, say, not do in-fill development, and not make in-fill development as painless/fair as possible to encourage people/companies to rebuild our town centers and use land/space more efficiently instead of helping to kill our town centers while we kill the planet? that's a terrible argument.

and downtown Palo Alto is not the only train station in town -- the California Ave Caltrain stop is in Palo Alto, too -- they could have easily built a new building with some tax incentives (like they just did, I think). and the Mountain View Caltrain and light rail stops are now the main stops for Google/Microsoft/etc. and i know there would have been brilliant synergies between the City of Palo Alto and the various realtors/builders/Googlers if it was even ever considered something we should care about (revivifying downtowns). Take the underutilized and car-dominated Stanford Shopping Center. Or the finally-being-redeveloped-in-way-too-small-and-car-centric-fashion Town & Country Center. Or the myriad properties that line El Camino Real in the area.

and, there are cool little downtowns on many/most of the Caltrain stops. some of them are being redeveloped, finally, in part because area traffic continues to grind, even during this recession. it was something we were forced to do, not something we chose to be proactive about. fortunately for drivers, we'll probably never get out of this recession, but population growth will still happen, however slowly.

i've argued before that google could/should set an example, and make their campus bike-accessible. they haven't done it yet, presumably because googlers aren't yet organized to make it happen. google wants to grow physically with new buildings and some 'smart growth'-type residential stuff, and some businesses, and grow area auto traffic significantly, but they still haven't talked about making their campus walkable or bikeable. it's just insane. you can now get google bike directions to and from the google campus, but almost nobody does it, and nobody expects them to -- it's only the brave and/or suicidal and/or insane who do it. Google and other tech companies need to stop locating out in the middle of nowhere and start working with local governments to find/create closer-in, walk/bike/transit-accessible workplaces. it's really not rocket science. there is no overarching superpower or special interest that would prevent this transformation from taking place on a larger/more rapid/more meaningful scale -- none that I can think of, anyways.

here's how it works, in a dialog between Google (GO) and the City of Mountain View town council (MV) just for an example:

GO: We need more space, LOTS more space.
MV: No.

GO: no, we really need more space.
MV: nyet.

GO: clever. ok, then what do you want us to do (dammit)?
MV: grow without traffic.

GO: impossible.
MV: it's possible.

GO: nope.
MV: Da.

GO: regular commodians, aren't you? ok, how?
MV: walking/biking/transit.

GO: building codes.
MV: we'll take care of the building codes. we're going to streamline the process. we're getting the builders involved. we read GGW every day. we know how Arlington and Alexandria did it, with step-down development, except we're going to do it better, because we're going to allow people to bike, too. we're going to be proactive. we've got some nice temporary tax breaks to offset costs. and you're gonna save bigtime on employee salaries and recruitment costs, and you're gonna get better talent, and retain talent better. right now, we have to decide whether we want to build a whole new town on the wrong side of 101, in the marshes/swamps where you folks currently reside, or if we want to take advantage of the Caltrain line, high speed rail, and what is going to become a walkable/bikeable/transit-friendly El Camino Real (as if!) -- so, we think the Meadowlands in NJ did a fine job of destroying their natural marshlands -- and we'd like to leave ours intact as much as possible -- so join us, help us rebuild downtown MV, we can be partners, it will work, everyone will be happy.

GO: fer reals?
MV: fer reals.

GO: ok.
MV: ok.

everybody wins.

by Peter Smith on Nov 7, 2010 3:44 am  

The auto-dependency of the tech sector in Bay Area is also a function of the ridiculously high real estate prices and the mixed quality of the schools. Once your employees are no longer 20-30 somethings without kids, who can rent, and you start to get a lot of people with kids, things change a lot. For example, unless you already cashed out from a start up, you are not going to be able to afford a house in PA. Most of the areas in the Bay that have good schools also have much higher house prices. So, unless you have the cash or income, you will either send your kids to private school or move further out to middle class suburbia like Walnut Creek and South of San Jose.

by SJE on Nov 7, 2010 11:40 am  

More....
One thing that strikes me when I visit the Bay is the amount of one and two storey houses. Part of it is earthquakes, but it is clearly possible to build multistorey structures in earthquake zones (look at downtown SF). A friend in SF said that there were enormous zoning issues with building higher storeys: e.g. claims of "historic" buildings that are cruddy things from the 1950s. Then there is the pernicious effect of Prop 13 that, by putting a ceiling on property taxes, favors long term residents over newcomers. Thus, long term residents never want to move, and newcomers cannot afford to get in. My wife's uncle still lives in San Jose in the house he bought in the 1960s. His taxes would rise if he moved to a smaller house, so he stays in the empty nest.

by SJE on Nov 7, 2010 11:49 am  

@Peter Smith:

I'm sorry, but most of your long comment is pretty ridiculous.

When Google moved from 165 University Ave to 2400 Bayshore Pkwy (many years before it acquired the current main campus from SGI), it had about 25 employees. No matter how successful Google is now, the company didn't have the resources or the inclination to spend years building its own infill development. No startup does---startups that are growing, by definition, need existing spaces that are flexible to their changing needs. You can't just assume that one day you are going to be a 20,000 person company, and start building a million square foot campus, when you are 25 people.

We looked at many existing spaces. I visited at least one possibility (off Page Mill Road) with Larry or Sergey. The reality is that office parks exist for a reason. They offer a variety of flexible spaces where a company can grow as needed, at a reasonable cost so that paying for a lot of extra space you don't need (but might soon) is not excessively painful.

When Google moved to 2400 Bayshore Pkwy, those 25 employees occupied 40,000 square feet. Space that we mostly didn't need yet but would need in the future. Suppose, as you wish, Google had used its cash in the bank to insist on occupying 40,000 square feet downtown. That would result in fewer people working downtown, not more, because the amount of available space is fixed in the short term, so Google renting a large chunk of it and leaving it unused in the short term would displace several other companies that would have been there to more remote locations.

The question of whether cities like Palo Alto and Mountain View can and should allow or encourage development of more space downtown is entirely different from what the article and previous postings were about. Startups can't control this process. The reason there is the amount of development that exists in the downtowns of Palo Alto and Mountain View and Redwood City has nothing to do with decisions that startups make. They just respond to the real estate market as it exists. For reasons that you describe, there's plenty of demand for more downtown office space if it is created. Some downtowns are more desirable than others (California Ave has been pretty dead, at times, which is a function of the economy and the dynamics of the real estate market, and still has nothing to do with decisions by startups).

Facebook did move to the Stanford Research Park, off Page Mill Road. This is an office park, not significantly different from Google's location. It is a mile from the train station and nearly that far from any retail establishments. This location could in no sense be considered "downtown". It is very similar to the kinds of locations that Google was looking at when it moved to Bayshore Pkwy.

Facebook is still a small company, compared to Google. If they continue to grow, they will eventually have to move again, and even further from downtown.

The Google Bayshore Pkwy location (and the current location) are highly accessible by bicycle. I literally have no idea what the hell you are talking about when you call them inaccessible. There are several bicycle/pedestrian crossings of US 101. *Lots* of people biked to work after the move. Jeff Dean, Craig Silverstein, others. The building was full of bikes. I'm sure that a large percentage of the Google workforce still does bike to work. It's a perfectly reasonable choice.

by David desJardins on Nov 7, 2010 12:15 pm  

Further to David dJ's point, I have worked on Page Mill Rd and our building has lots of bikes, even with free parking.

David also makes a very good point about office parks. A lot of urban areas have space that COULD be converted to office parks (e.g. old warehouse districts) but there seems to be some problem making it happen, which is why the office parks occur in the burbs. The old warehouses always seem to get converted to artistic colonies or shopping (more recently, condos), as if urban centers cannot be office centers too. I don't know why this is so: I suspect it is something to do with the local government. Any thoughts on those who know the reasons (I certainly don't).

by SJE on Nov 7, 2010 12:33 pm  

SF has managed to convert some former warehouse type buildings to what are effectively urban office parks, in SOMA. And it's worked---lots of startups there. In fact, those spaces are in demand and hard to get, I've tried. Again, it's not the demand side from the startups that is the issue, it's the supply side.

by David desJardins on Nov 7, 2010 12:51 pm  

Good point David. Those SOMA lots are from the last few years, right? It seems Oakland is trying to do more of the same, but I wonder how they compete with the West and South Bay. In my own area of biotech, there is a constant pressure to move to the San Diego area.

by SJE on Nov 7, 2010 1:12 pm  

Tech start-ups eschew Valley for city:

Just a nitpick - figured I'd start a reply by pointing out that this title is probably not correct, since 'The Valley' is just a very big area that could be considered 'everything south of San Francisco' -- with SF being 'a city' and really, the only city, on the west side of The Bay. [I should also note that Silicon Valley, aka 'The Valley', is really a no-place, a nowhere, it's just sprawl for as far as the eye can see, with a bunch of highways, but with a nice Caltrain commuter line with some nice small towns dotting it, and some light rail lines in/around 'south bay', with nice small towns dotting some of them, too. I hate the name 'Silicon Valley' because it is a nowhere, and they pronounce 'Silicon' like Milliken -- blah.] San Jose is also a city, but it _is_ a part of 'The Valley' -- they claim to be 'the heart/downtown of SV'. There are like 10 tech-type incubators in downtown SJ, but I don't know if there are any companies actually inhabiting them, nor do I know if there's been any push by startups to be in downtown SJ. And the Valley is made up of a bunch of smaller 'cities/towns' like...Redwood City (the one mentioned in the article). And Redwood City itself is not much of 'a city' itself -- it's basically a small downtown with a major rail stop. Many other towns along the Caltrain line (that runs from SF to SJ) are small downtowns with either a major or minor rail stop ('major' meaning express trains stop there). So, maybe the title for this snippet should be 'Tech start-ups eschew fringe areas for downtowns'.

and the mixed quality of the schools.

i suspect replacing property taxes with real progressive income taxes would reduce the inequality of our school system, but that's just a guess. i say we try it. :)

One thing that strikes me when I visit the Bay is the amount of one and two storey houses.

word to that. i cruised down El Camino Real today, right by Stanford, and on one of the corners of Stanford U (I think they own all the property around there), there was this brand new development of single-family houses -- they could have potentially been two-homes-per-building townhouses, not sure. but darn -- insanity. this is fronting El Camino Real -- the business/residential backbone of everything in between SF and SJ. i'm pretty jaded, but seeing that really made me say 'holy @#$@#@$@@#'.

No matter how successful Google is now, the company didn't have the resources or the inclination to spend years building its own infill development.

I don't think it's all that realistic for very small startups to do their own infill development, but I do think they should have the inclination to be in a place that is good for the company, their employees, their towns/cities/neighbors, and the planet.

No startup does---startups that are growing, by definition, need existing spaces that are flexible to their changing needs.

Depending on the size of the startup, of course they do have the resources. Like the article said, two startups, at least, were attracted to downtown Redwood City and made it happen. The CEO of one was like, 'I want to be near/in civilization,' so he dragged his company into downtown Redwood City. Corporations are near-perfect tyrannies, and their CEO's have near-absolute power -- what they say goes. Now, I don't know whether that CEO wanted to save the planet, just be able to grab a beer or three at lunch, or both or neither, but it was probably a smart decision for his employees, Redwood City, its businesses, its residents, the planet, etc.

We looked at many existing spaces. I visited at least one possibility (off Page Mill Road) with Larry or Sergey.

Did you really care about being someplace with walk/bike/transit access? I doubt it, but if I'm wrong, please tell me. And at what point did you/Larry/Sergey/Eric/Google stop caring, or stop caring enough?

The reality is that office parks exist for a reason. They offer a variety of flexible spaces where a company can grow as needed, at a reasonable cost so that paying for a lot of extra space you don't need (but might soon) is not excessively painful.

Nuclear weapons exist for a reason, too -- that doesn't mean we should continue to build them, and it doesn't even mean we should continue to allow them to exist -- they pose too great a danger to the future of mankind -- nuclear weapons, like office parks, should be dismantled or re-purposed to protect everyone on the planet, even if it's not in the best interests of person/company/state 'X'.

'Reasonable cost' is relative. And 'flexible spaces' is real estate/corporate jargon for "We want cheap rent, even if it's out in the middle of nowhere" -- and the reason the rent is cheap is because the true costs of office parks have been externalized.

And there are lots of ways companies can stay and continue to grow where they've grown up. Maybe there's some compelling reason to have all of a company's 50,000 employees under one roof, but i've never heard it articulated -- i'd love to be enlightened. I mean, maybe there's some reason why the Accounting Department needs to be on the 18th floor while the QA Department needs to be on the 34th floor, of the same building, and I'm sure there is a good reason -- I just want to know what it is.

Suppose, as you wish, Google had used its cash in the bank to insist on occupying 40,000 square feet downtown. That would result in fewer people working downtown, not more, because the amount of available space is fixed in the short term, so Google renting a large chunk of it and leaving it unused in the short term would displace several other companies that would have been there to more remote locations.

Why wouldn't Google just sublet their space or just retain an option to subsume 'guaranteed space' like every other company in the Valley does? Shoot - without flexible leases and shared spaces, Palo Alto wouldn't work at all for anyone. As you know, 'scrappy startups' will take whatever space they can get, especially if it's in/near downtowns.

The question of whether cities like Palo Alto and Mountain View can and should allow or encourage development of more space downtown is entirely different from what the article and previous postings were about.

i'm not sure that's important -- real estate and development are intrinsically linked. the mayor of Redwood City is loving having those jobs come to downtown, and so are all those downtown businesses, and the city's residents, and the various tertiary businesses/services -- and you can be darned sure the mayor has been hearing about downtown not living up to expectations that were set for the revitalization efforts, so this is going to get people talking more and more about what is possible in the new downtown Redwood City. More people/companies will want to be in downtown Redwood City (I tried to rent an apartment there but found very few options), that will put pressure on City Hall to change the zoning codes, will encourage developers to (re)build there, etc.

Startups can't control this process.

Startups can have a significant say in the process, as can citizens. I'm glad that, for whatever reasons, some startups have 'seen the light'.

The reason there is the amount of development that exists in the downtowns of Palo Alto and Mountain View and Redwood City has nothing to do with decisions that startups make. They just respond to the real estate market as it exists.

I disagree. I think the evidence is clear that attitudes have changed, and attitude changes caused actions to change -- by businesses, by governments, by citizens, etc. The process is similar to all the stories of 'bike-riding realtors' we hear about -- many of their clients now want walkable/bikeable neighborhoods, and some builders are listening, and some are taking steps to build better developments. It's not at the pace that many of us want, but it's happening. YuMe and Turn are just two examples of startups that have made decisions that either already have or will spur further real estate/office/housing smart growth in/near/around downtown Redwood City.

For reasons that you describe, there's plenty of demand for more downtown office space if it is created.

Without semantics, I think it's fair to say that, at least now, the demand for downtown office space is there, regardless of whether it is created or not. But, it's going to continue to be difficult for companies to justify $5/sq-ft downtown office space costs vs. $2/sq-ft out in the sticks. We have to do more to make sure that companies causing traffic chaos pay for some of the traffic congestion they create (and economic damage they do) by locating out in the sticks -- that will help internalize to those corporations/office parks some of the costs that are externalized, and make downtowns more competitive. I think SF has some kind of 'development/traffic impact fee' structure or something.

Facebook did move to the Stanford Research Park, off Page Mill Road. This is an office park, not significantly different from Google's location. It is a mile from the train station and nearly that far from any retail establishments. This location could in no sense be considered "downtown". It is very similar to the kinds of locations that Google was looking at when it moved to Bayshore Pkwy.

Right, Facebook did move about 18 months ago to a corporate park that is exactly one mile from a Caltrain station, and less than that far from El Camino Real and very many eating establishments, banks, all sorts of businesses, bus routes, etc. -- that is, the new office is less than a mile from civilization. It is not on the wrong side of the 101. Their space is directly adjacent to the Stanford University campus, with tree-lined, traffic-calmed, relatively-walk-and-bike-friendly, neighborhood streets, etc. They are actually on California Ave, so it's a straight walk/ride to the California Ave Caltrain station. It's not fun to cross El Camino Real, but it's possible. None of this is possible from the wrong side of the 101. And I'm not arguing Facebook is perfect, but they did better than Google. And they did things like subsidize employees living close - which may or may not have been the right decision, but I like that they tried.

Facebook is still a small company, compared to Google. If they continue to grow, they will eventually have to move again, and even further from downtown.

They're probably already looking at new spaces. The question is, do we reward/pressure them to do what's right for the community at large, or do we let them do whatever they want? It's possible that a carrot+stick approach could be what's necessary to get them to act responsibly. There's no reason the business district/Caltrain side of Cal Ave can't be (re)developed appropriately, including the construction of brand new building(s) if that's what Facebook wanted.

I'd argue the idea of keeping lots of employees under one roof is nothing more than cost-saving and vanity. it'd be super-easy for Palo Alto to make sure Facebook stuck around on Cal Ave - give them the real-estate cost savings thru tax breaks, and the city will more than make it back through business tax revenue, property taxes, etc. I'm not sure how to deal with the 'vanity' part, but it'd sure help to allow people to walk/bike/transit to work.

The Google Bayshore Pkwy location (and the current location) are highly accessible by bicycle.

For who? Do you know of a single person that rides to the current location? Is it more than 1% of the employees there? Save your venom for whatever role you played in putting Google HQ out there, for town/state planners, etc.

I'm sure that a large percentage of the Google workforce still does bike to work.

OK, let's try to find out what this percentage is. If it's at least 1% of the employees that regularly work out of that location, I'll buy you a couple of beers - you pick the bar/restaurant and I'll call 'em up and give them my credit card and tell them Mr. desJardins is coming and he wants two of your finest beers, on me, because he did what almost nobody else could do -- he proved me wrong. Just for fun. I'm down. Let's see if we can get some reasonable estimate of how many folks work there, and how many folks bike to work there - at least semi-regularly on both counts. To qualify as a biker-to-work, the person has to do 'the last mile' to Google -- meaning, the last leg of their trip, whether it's a mile or less.

by Peter Smith on Nov 8, 2010 3:12 am  

If there's one thing DC needs, it's slower and more expensive food. I'm thinking a $40 cupcake that you have to order a week ahead.

by monkeyrotica on Nov 8, 2010 7:57 am  

@Peter Smith: Maybe there's some compelling reason to have all of a company's 50,000 employees under one roof, but i've never heard it articulated -- i'd love to be enlightened.

You haven't listened to a damn word I've said so far, so I'm not willing to believe that you actually want to be enlightened about how Silicon Valley works.

Of course I know people who did, and do, bike to work at Google. [For DC area readers, we're talking about a corporate headquarters with ca. 10,000 people that is a bit over 2 miles from a major commuter rail station, and within a few miles of many tens of thousands of homes. It's easy to get to; we aren't talking about DC-type sprawl.] Certainly bike commuters are well over 1%. But that's dwarfed by people who live farther away and take mass transportation services (mostly Google's own buses)---I think that's about 1/4 of Google's Mountain View workforce. Biking to work isn't practical for *most* people, regardless of whether they are headed to Page Mill Road or to Bayshore Pkwy.

But none of this has anything to do with the article we were supposedly discussing. The WSJ article is about startups (not 20,000 person companies) "increasingly" locating in downtowns. The claim is false, the downtown areas of Silicon Valley have always (in the past decade or more) been occupied by startups, to the extent there is space available; the constraint has always been the available space. When Facebook occupied several buildings in downtown Palo Alto, before their move to Stanford Research Park, that just meant they were displacing dozens of small startups that otherwise would have been in those spaces. It doesn't represent a net increase in people working in downtown Palo Alto.

The only element of truth in the article is that downtown Redwood City, traditionally considered a pretty shabby place to be, is picking up because the lack of space in Palo Alto, Mountain View, etc., is causing companies to look farther afield. It's still much less attractive, though---as indicated by the rents quoted in the article.

They're probably already looking at new spaces. The question is, do we reward/pressure them to do what's right for the community at large, or do we let them do whatever they want?

No, that's not the question. That question has nothing to do with this article. But, if you want to increase density in the downtowns of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, etc., your obstacle isn't going to be the companies. The people who don't want that are the people who live and vote in those communities, and control the zoning there. They don't want you to bulldoze California Avenue and put up highrises.

by David desJardins on Nov 8, 2010 4:11 pm  

Re: Capital Bike Shares and ANC 6C

Actually the ANC 6C Planning, Zoning, and Environment Committee requested the addition of a Capital Bike Shares facility in TWO of the projects that came before us last week.

by RobA on Nov 9, 2010 9:26 am  

Certainly bike commuters are well over 1%.

I did a very informal survey of folks who bike to Google and the surrounding area employers at least occasionally -- here's a sample of their responses -- with my comments italicized -- I think it's clear that very very few people ride to work at the Googleplex (Google's HQ) -- for obvious reasons -- it's not very bikable:

* "probably less than 1%."

* "there are a lot of bikes riding NB on Steven's Creek
Trail (a typically-horrendous off-road path that crosses under the massive 101 -- i mean, this is it during the day)...A lot of people live in [Mountain View, the same town where the Googleplex is located] and just ride up the trail to work...But overall [the % of people who commute by bike to the Googleplex is] still probably a pretty small fraction ...I have seen more than one blue google bike that appears to be a 'daily commuter bike'."

* "From the statistics Google has on people who power themselves to work (in Mountain View it's almost certainly by bike rather than walking [because it's so far away from civilization and it's not walk-friendly, in part because of Hwy 101]) and report it, my guess is it's probably around 2%. (And that certainly might change with the weather.)"

* "Yes, I figure the count is closer to 1% than 0%. If you count the surrounding area of my cube there are 2 people who "regularly" bike to work out of about 100."

The Stevens Creek Trail blog says the path can shut down when it floods. Great. Crossing the 101 on surface streets is dangerous enough in perfect weather -- it must be a real dream during a downpour.

Even many/most of the folks who ride the Google-branded bikes in/around the Googleplex during the day ride on the sidewalks because the streets are not bike-friendly. Even if there are bike-lanes of some type, they are small and not marked well, offer no buffer, they are adjacent to fast-moving auto/truck/bus traffic with two adjacent and adjoining lanes, moving in the same direction, with a raised center median much of the time - which induces further auto speeding. From my short time at the Googleplex, I remember lots of speeding from all drivers, emails going out to implore people not to kill their fellow googlers trying to cross the street, crossing guards in front of the main building (43) helping people to stay alive, etc. And the place looks exactly the same several years later. The place seriously needs a GreaterGreaterGoogleplex.org to get them off their aaaaaaaaaasses.

by Peter Smith on Nov 9, 2010 12:07 pm  

@Peter Smith: Thanks for posting your data, which generally seem to suggest that I was right and you were wrong.

by David desJardins on Nov 9, 2010 1:40 pm  

Thanks for posting your data, which generally seem to suggest that I was right and you were wrong.

i was thinking the evidence was pretty inconclusive as to whether or not at least 1% of Googlers rode to work each day, but two out of the three accounts citing numbers seem say the % is in the 0 to 1 range - which would mean i was right. but i guess we see what we want to see.

further to whether you were right or not, i'm not sure how this statement of yours jives with the data i've collected thus far:

I'm sure that a large percentage of the Google workforce still does bike to work.

If by 'large' you mean 'up to 2% according to one of three different accounts,' then i guess you were right.

i'm not so concerned with being 'right', tho - what matters is that the Googleplex is not bike-friendly, and that needs to change. you can go over there any day at any time and see nobody biking to or fro - and it makes perfect sense when you see the environment. corporations have a responsibility to the communities they operate in - that's where we're going. CSR (corporate social responsibility) is just a marketing 'self-regulating' (i.e. non-regulating) precursor to the 'strict liability' we are going to start mandating, by law, for corporations. want the protections of incorporation? fine - just sign on the dotted line - if your company harms or kills anyone, your executives are going to jail. want to put your company in an office park on the wrong side of 101? fine - just be ready to pay for traffic congestion, pollution and other environmental degradation, etc. making corporations accountable to the public is pretty much the only way to save the human species at this point - we'll see if we can make it happen.

and, to this comment from @DJS:

Further to David dJ's point, I have worked on Page Mill Rd and our building has lots of bikes, even with free parking.

i thought that'd be further to my point, but maybe there are different 'points' at play.

If only we knew someone with contacts at Google who could help us find out how many folks bike to work there...

by Peter Smith on Nov 9, 2010 3:05 pm  

One person said "probably less than 1%", with no supporting justification.

One person said "lots of bikes", which sounds like more than 1%.

One person said "probably around 2%", which sounds like more than 1%.

One person said 2 out of 100, which sounds like more than 1%.

by David desJardins on Nov 9, 2010 3:12 pm  

what matters is that the Googleplex is not bike-friendly, and that needs to change.

It seems entirely bike-friendly to me. As I said, I, and lots of other people, biked to this area and didn't think anything untoward about it. I don't have any idea why you think it isn't. As you mention, the city and state spent several million dollars building the Stevens Creek trail, which is one of several ways to get to the area where Google is located. I really can't imagine what more you want.

I think 2% to 3% of people bike to work at Google, which is as high as you're going to see in Silicon Valley regardless of where you're located. The people who aren't biking to work aren't doing so because they don't want to, not because Google is surrounded by sharp spikes and anti-bicycle munitions.

As I said before, something like 25% of people get to work at Google other than by driving their own cars, which seems to me pretty high. Most of them take Google's own transit system.

by David desJardins on Nov 9, 2010 3:18 pm  

One person said "lots of bikes", which sounds like more than 1%.

actually, they said 'a lot of bikes', and the context was the Steven's Creek Trail - so, does 'a lot of bikes' on that trail, heading towards Google and other area employers like Intuit and NASA help produce 1+% cycling mode share for the 13,000 or so folks who work at the Googleplex? maybe, maybe not.

One person said 2 out of 100, which sounds like more than 1%.

yes, and this is the same person who said the overall percentage for the Googleplex was probably between 0 and 1 ("Yes, I figure the count is closer to 1% than 0%."). i'll give this person's estimate of the overall percentage a bit more weight than their single, local data point, which is what i suspect they'd want/expect.

Note - I didn't throw out any numbers/hints in my questioning - I didn't say 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, etc. These folks seem to me to be offering pure, unadulterated, fair assessments as truthfully as they can know them, with little-to-no sugar-coating -- which I would argue is rare for cyclists who talk about cycling mode share (I don't necessarily blame them/us for being defensive -- but I do prefer honest assessments because they help us focus on which policies actually work.).

As you mention, the city and state spent several million dollars building the Stevens Creek trail, which is one of several ways to get to the area where Google is located. I really can't imagine what more you want.

i and others want to be able to ride on surface streets to google -- we don't want to ride on rape-o-matic trails that women can't/won't hardly ride during the day, never mind the night. we want safety, convenience, directness, comfort, and dignity in our bike infrastructure -- it's not too much to ask for -- it's the bare minimum we should expect. we have too many places in America that are built for fear -- it's not fair, and we need to do better.

So, 2-3% bike-mode share (whether Google hits that or not is debatable) is 'bike-friendly' to you, but not to me. Fine. In the short term, if a company/organization/area managed to achieve 5+% bike mode share, I'd be inclined to suggest that co/org/area is 'somewhat' or 'relatively' bike-friendly. Something in the 5-10% range might get me to suggest it was 'bike-friendly' -- with no qualifiers.

I think 2% to 3% of people bike to work at Google, which is as high as you're going to see in Silicon Valley regardless of where you're located.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that '2% to 3%' constitutes 'a large percentage of the Google workforce'?

:-D

If you put as much work into advocating for a bike-friendly Google as you do trying to convince us that the place is already bike-friendly, you might actually help Google to become bike-friendly one day!

The people who aren't biking to work aren't doing so because they don't want to, not because Google is surrounded by sharp spikes and anti-bicycle munitions.

They don't want to, they effectively can't, however you want to say it.

As I said before, something like 25% of people get to work at Google other than by driving their own cars, which seems to me pretty high. Most of them take Google's own transit system.

i think these private motorized transit systems are a total disaster for myriad reasons -- their saving grace is that they _may_ actually be less destructive than the car-trips they replace (considering that they induce so many Googlers to live in SF, Santa Cruz, and other far-flung places -- and work 30+ miles away at the Google HQ in MV). Another potential benefit of this private/non-poor-people transit system is that it may also set a good example by showing the absolute bare minimum of quality of motorized transit that everyone deserves, not just Googlers/Yahooers/etc. (and other people, like me, who clickety-clack on our keyboards all day long and mostly produce nothing of value for the world).

by Peter Smith on Nov 9, 2010 4:35 pm  

@Peter Smith: 2% is also "closer to 1% than 0%". So is 10%, for that matter.

What you've posted clearly supports what I said all along, that a large number, well over 1%, of people who work at Google bike to work.

I have told you what it's actually like to work at and bike to Google. Google is located in a relatively convenient location which makes it easy to get to in many ways, including by bicycle. Lots of people take advantage of that. You have some contrary view of what you know things must be like, that prevents you from hearing what they actually are like, and of what you imagine things should be like, that prevents you from understanding why the world actually is the way it is.

And this no longer has anything at all to do with the original topic, so I'm overdue to bow out.

by David desJardins on Nov 9, 2010 4:48 pm  

@Peter Smith: 2% is also "closer to 1% than 0%". So is 10%, for that matter.

lol.

maybe that's why Hwy 101 is called that -- it's really just mocking us.

I have told you what it's actually like to work at and bike to Google.

i appreciate hearing about your experiences. i have personal experience with both myself. i gave up riding to the Googleplex (from Palo Alto) because the experience sucked. not a surprise. i'm sure hundreds/thousands of others have given up just as i did, but props to them for at least trying it out.

by Peter Smith on Nov 9, 2010 5:29 pm  

i'm sure hundreds/thousands of others have given up just as i did

Thousands? I think Google has ca. 10,000 workers in Mountain View. So this would mean, in your view, that over 20% of them tried to bike to work, but less than 1% of them actually continued to do so? Is that really what you think?

I am bizarrely curious at what you want. Google seems completely bike-friendly to me. You have some complaints about crossing US 101, but surely this is something that Google can't do much about. What is is that you would like them to do, that would result in more people biking there?

It seems like you don't like the whole location. But, if Google didn't occupy those buildings, someone else would, and the problem would be exactly the same for those other workers. It doesn't seem to me that whether it's Google, or some other company, occupying those buildings, makes any constructive difference. And I also can't think of any comparable campus of comparable size, anywhere in Silicon Valley, that is any more bike friendly (although perhaps that is because I still don't see any problems at Google).

by David desJardins on Nov 11, 2010 4:08 am  

This discussion has fortunately died off, but I thought I would mention this article about how Google is continuing its evil anti-bicycle campaign, by planning a dense mixed-use campus at Ames Research Center, as well as lobbying the city of Mountain View to allow housing and retail to be constructed near its headquarters. The swine!

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16586782

by David desJardins on Nov 19, 2010 10:23 pm  

Thousands? I think Google has ca. 10,000 workers in Mountain View. So this would mean, in your view, that over 20% of them tried to bike to work, but less than 1% of them actually continued to do so? Is that really what you think?

i said, "hundreds/thousands". more wordily, "at least a few hundred, but possibly a thousand or more, and i wouldn't rule out two thousand or more". so, yes, that's what i really think. people really want to bike -- what can i say? sometimes their good intentions get the best of them. it happens.

I am bizarrely curious at what you want. Google seems completely bike-friendly to me. You have some complaints about crossing US 101, but surely this is something that Google can't do much about. What is is that you would like them to do, that would result in more people biking there?

i want a bike-friendly Google, and I want Google to be bike-accessible to normal people. Google can do a lot to make crossing the 101 possible. As an example, one of the other 101 crossings, at one of the Redwood Shores crossings - _everyone_ was signed up to see bike lanes striped on the overpass. the impasse? nobody could find $30k to draw up the plans. Caltrans was in. Redwood City was in. Redwood Shores was in. All they needed was $30k. Instead, a lady got run over by a truck.

If Google says, "I want bike access to the Googleplex," Mountain View would say, "Done." It really is just about that easy. So, I'd expect the city to first install sharrows, better lighting, and various other inexpensive treatments all the way from downtown MV to the Googleplex. Then I'd expect to see a real plan for bike lanes. Then a plan for a full-on cycletrack, in both directions. These things are simple, straightforward, inexpensive, we know how to accomplish them, etc. The City would love being able to point the finger at Google for improving the City, and Google would move itself into a position of moral authority where building their expansions would be accepted by the vast majority of MV residents. Instead, they're left fiddling with traffic models, trying to convince a skeptical public that adding a few more buildings and houses and grocery stores and whatever else won't actually add any auto traffic to the area.

It seems like you don't like the whole location.

Correct. It's a disaster. It's not accessible by bike. There's not much to discuss except how to make it accessible by bike.

But, if Google didn't occupy those buildings, someone else would, and the problem would be exactly the same for those other workers. It doesn't seem to me that whether it's Google, or some other company, occupying those buildings, makes any constructive difference.

I mostly agree -- noting that Google has important "Don't be evil" mindshare, which is not insignificant, but I don't think it's an overly important question. What's important is the size/influence of whatever company exists there. Whether it's called Google or Goggle or Giggle is irrelevant. What's relevant is that they have a tremendous amount of influence locally, regionally, and to a certain extent, even at the state level, and that workers/residents/citizens can/should pressure/reward corporations, Google included, to do things which are beneficial and/or not harmful to the community.

And I also can't think of any comparable campus of comparable size, anywhere in Silicon Valley, that is any more bike friendly (although perhaps that is because I still don't see any problems at Google).

I can't think of any either. Visited Apple HQ today -- disaster. Silicon Valley is a just a huge disaster area for walkers and bikers. We need to change it. Maybe all the employees fleeing to relatively bike-friendly SF companies will help convince Silicon Valley that it's not ok to continue mortgaging our childrens' futures? Doubt it, but you never know. All of these companies have something to gain from seeing more bike-friendly roads.

...Google is continuing its evil anti-bicycle campaign, by planning a dense mixed-use campus at Ames Research Center, as well as lobbying the city of Mountain View to allow housing and retail to be constructed near its headquarters. The swine!

oh goody -- 'dense mixed-use' -- that solves everything. stop worrying, everyone -- that whole global warming thing? not a problem anymore. just repeat 'dense mixed-use' three times and all will be well.

i think i addressed this development with one of my previous comments -- i said:

google wants to grow physically with new buildings and some 'smart growth'-type residential stuff, and some businesses, and grow area auto traffic significantly, but they still haven't talked about making their campus walkable or bikable. it's just insane. you can now get google bike directions to and from the google campus, but almost nobody does it, and nobody expects them to -- it's only the brave and/or suicidal and/or insane who do it.

if you can't walk or bike there, how else you gonna get there but drive, or take one of those millions of shuttle buses? and are the people that live and work in The Google Village going to stay there, or are they going to contribute to already-congested rush-hour traffic/noise/pollution? this is why the MV town council told Google to go stick it - they had no choice - Google didn't even mention walk/bike - that's their prerogative - they'll eventually get their way, but we shouldn't just leave it to fate -- we should push them in the right direction.

i also said this:

right now, we have to decide whether we want to build a whole new town on the wrong side of 101, in the marshes/swamps where you folks currently reside, or if we want to take advantage of the Caltrain line, high speed rail, and what is going to become a walkable/bikable/transit-friendly El Camino Real (as if!)

if you can't get to the Googleplex by walking or biking, what's the point? go directly to jail, do not pass go. these are crimes -- our kids and grandkids should not be forced to pay for our sins because we didn't appropriately cost-account for the negative externalities of office parks built on the wrong side of the 101.

even the article you pointed to states how the 101 is a barrier:

One reason Google needs to take such extraordinary steps as relocating six-person companies and expanding on federal land is because it is landlocked -- hemmed in by adjacent Intuit, Highway 101, Shoreline Park and NASA Ames.

by 'landlocked', the Mercury News is saying, "You can't walk or bike across the 101," and that's a problem for Google.

one of the commenters hints at the dividing nature of the 101:

The fact that they're across the freeway [the 101] means they don't have much of an obvious impact on the community, but they're a *huge* asset to Mountain View and its residents.

i guess 'obvious impact' must not include car traffic, which is what MV residents seem worried about most. and it's kinda weird that Google has no 'obvious impact' on MV but Google is somehow still a '*huge*' asset to MV. ok.

we need to do better. Google needs to do better. there are plenty of ways to start. make the Googleplex area safe enough for normal people to ride a bike from one building to the next, while not on the sidewalk. all the ways to do that are very simple, and non-controversial -- Google basically owns the whole area, now -- make it happen. then we have to figure out a way to connect the Googleplex to the rest of humanity -- downtown MV, etc. again, myriad solutions, all pretty straightforward, just takes a little leadership.

by Peter Smith on Nov 20, 2010 8:14 am  

I don't think there's support for Peter's point of view even in the bicycling community here. That's why things aren't going his way, nothing to do with a lack of "leadership".

What "the vast majority of Mountain View residents" want is definitely not (tens of) millions of dollars of bicycling infrastructure. The vast majority of them could care less about that. If that's really what Peter thinks is driving public opinion in this area, he's been smoking too much weed in advance of Prop 19.

I don't think of myself as a vehement supporter of vehicular cycling, but bicycles are vehicles, they are well accommodated by the existing road infrastructure in most places, certainly in this area, and we even have lots of separate bike facilities as well. There is not a massive desire of tens of thousands of Mountain View residents to cycle to Google that is being thwarted by the Evil Overlords there. It is a bicycle-friendly environment, certainly orders of magnitude more so than anything I can think of in or around DC. Highways like US 101 are a barrier to cyclists and pedestrians, no question about that, but this is not something that can be changed very much, and since we have several safe crossings in the area under discussion, it's much less of a problem than in most places.

Cycling to Google HQ is much safer and more pleasant than cycling in San Francisco, in city traffic. If people are flocking to SF jobs, it's certainly not for that reason.

by David desJardins on Nov 21, 2010 2:43 am  

I don't think of myself as a vehement supporter of vehicular cycling, but bicycles are vehicles,

fer reals? now you tell us? 20 comments later and we finally get to find out you're a vehicular cyclist? damn. why did you hide that for so long? i should've known. all the bizarre stuff you've been saying now makes perfect sense. really man, y'all lost that battle -- vehicular cycling is dead -- join the rest of us now -- don't fight biking anymore.

by Peter Smith on Nov 21, 2010 6:20 am  

Peter, I think your dream of a network of dedicated bicycle highways, after we remove all of the cars and roads, is a pipe dream. Palo Alto and Mountain View have more dedicated bicycle infrastructure than almost anywhere else in the US, and it's not nearly enough for you. Using a bicycle for transportation requires you use the infrastructure that exists. It's not all that hard or complicated.

I can't see how you can possibly call San Francisco bike-friendly if you think it's terrifying to ride a mile on a street. Navigating city traffic is far more difficult than riding around Palo Alto or Mountain View.

Complaining incessantly that you can't get anywhere by bicycle until someone builds a dedicated path for you is just an excuse for not actually bicycling. You don't have to ride your bicycle (if you even own one). But don't blame everyone else for that.

by David desJardins on Nov 21, 2010 12:06 pm