Palo Alto, San Mateo, Berkeley, and Santa Cruz come to mind.
Palo Alto is a horrible example IMHO. All of the good stuff is on University Ave and maybe California, the rest of it is just residential and not within walking distance. If you don't live close to University, you definitely need a car.
Just curious, but is there some sort of anti-car sentiment in the tech world in the Bay Area? Being from SoCal, I can't imagine living without my car and motorcycle.
SF is just absolutely terrible for parking. But I wonder, do tech people dislike cars because they live in SF, or do they live in SF because they dislike cars? Or is it neither?
Wow, awesome culture clash that you'd even ask this!
Yes, the bay area, but particularly SF is extremely anti-car. This is probably rooted in environmentalism, but in the city it also resonates with many people for health, social, and economic reasons.
The sentiment is so strong among younger people that if people own a car they will often almost apologize for it in friendly conversation. Like "yeah, I still have my odd beater from when I lived in LA... But I have free parking at the office and it's nice for carpooling to burning man".
From a personal perspective, I grew up in orange county, but moved to NYC in early adulthood and SF later. I own a car and a motorcycle. I love riding the motorcycle, but bicycling or walking is frequently more efficient in the city, not to mention pleasurable.
If you have only ever lived in car-centric places like so cal, I rely strongly recommend taking a long vacation in a walkable place like NYC or a European city where you know people who can show you the ropes. You might be surprised how much you enjoy Not driving.
There has been a movement called the "new urbanism," starting in the 1980s, that emphasized walkable neighborhoods rather than car-focused areas. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism
Of course, cars also have an impact on the environment which many northern Californians dislike. Oddly enough, the same people don't seem to mind flying, even though one or two transatlantic flights can emit as much carbon dioxide per person as an entire year of driving.
Personally, I like walkable neighborhoods. I would not want to live in a place where I couldn't walk or bike to a downtown area. However, I think the focus on "urbaner than thou" is misguided. I've always liked medium density areas the best.
For the purpose of argument, let's say that a plane emits 3/4 as much carbon dioxide per mile as a car. This seems to be roughly what the graph is showing in your linked post.
A single plane trip from California to Europe is 5,500 miles. Double that for the round trip, and you've got 11,000 miles. Multiply by 3/4 and you've got 8250 miles, which is easily what an average person might drive in a year. If you add another trip (notice I said "one or two" in my post), then you're definitely emitting more CO2 than the average American emits by driving for a year.
Of course, if the car person in question drives a Prius or an electric car (very common in the Bay area), the numbers look even worse for the plane person. Not to mention the fact that the plane efficiency improvements are created by packing more and more people on the plane, which makes for a miserable flight. The car efficiency improvements are generated by newer technology.
I'm from Europe, currently living in SoCal. It's just so much nicer to be able to walk/take a bus/subway wherever you need (I went to university in a really dense urban area, never even needed a car). Also, suburbs are too quiet for some people, hectic/agitated city life can be more interesting (during day time as much as at night).
Comments
Palo Alto is a horrible example IMHO. All of the good stuff is on University Ave and maybe California, the rest of it is just residential and not within walking distance. If you don't live close to University, you definitely need a car.
Just curious, but is there some sort of anti-car sentiment in the tech world in the Bay Area? Being from SoCal, I can't imagine living without my car and motorcycle.
SF is just absolutely terrible for parking. But I wonder, do tech people dislike cars because they live in SF, or do they live in SF because they dislike cars? Or is it neither?
Wow, awesome culture clash that you'd even ask this!
Yes, the bay area, but particularly SF is extremely anti-car. This is probably rooted in environmentalism, but in the city it also resonates with many people for health, social, and economic reasons.
The sentiment is so strong among younger people that if people own a car they will often almost apologize for it in friendly conversation. Like "yeah, I still have my odd beater from when I lived in LA... But I have free parking at the office and it's nice for carpooling to burning man".
From a personal perspective, I grew up in orange county, but moved to NYC in early adulthood and SF later. I own a car and a motorcycle. I love riding the motorcycle, but bicycling or walking is frequently more efficient in the city, not to mention pleasurable.
If you have only ever lived in car-centric places like so cal, I rely strongly recommend taking a long vacation in a walkable place like NYC or a European city where you know people who can show you the ropes. You might be surprised how much you enjoy Not driving.
There has been a movement called the "new urbanism," starting in the 1980s, that emphasized walkable neighborhoods rather than car-focused areas. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism
Of course, cars also have an impact on the environment which many northern Californians dislike. Oddly enough, the same people don't seem to mind flying, even though one or two transatlantic flights can emit as much carbon dioxide per person as an entire year of driving.
Personally, I like walkable neighborhoods. I would not want to live in a place where I couldn't walk or bike to a downtown area. However, I think the focus on "urbaner than thou" is misguided. I've always liked medium density areas the best.
Are you sure about that?
http://www.businessinsider.com/driving-is-actually-less-ener...
For the purpose of argument, let's say that a plane emits 3/4 as much carbon dioxide per mile as a car. This seems to be roughly what the graph is showing in your linked post.
A single plane trip from California to Europe is 5,500 miles. Double that for the round trip, and you've got 11,000 miles. Multiply by 3/4 and you've got 8250 miles, which is easily what an average person might drive in a year. If you add another trip (notice I said "one or two" in my post), then you're definitely emitting more CO2 than the average American emits by driving for a year.
Of course, if the car person in question drives a Prius or an electric car (very common in the Bay area), the numbers look even worse for the plane person. Not to mention the fact that the plane efficiency improvements are created by packing more and more people on the plane, which makes for a miserable flight. The car efficiency improvements are generated by newer technology.
I'm from Europe, currently living in SoCal. It's just so much nicer to be able to walk/take a bus/subway wherever you need (I went to university in a really dense urban area, never even needed a car). Also, suburbs are too quiet for some people, hectic/agitated city life can be more interesting (during day time as much as at night).