I sure wish the council would just allow the owner of the land to subdivide it into small lots and sell those off, allowing people to build what they want, whether that be homes or supporting shops. These developer and city council planned housing developments look so artificial. It would be much nicer if they could grow organically like dense areas in other cities. I'm thinking of SF or brooklyn in NY, which are dense, but have a very different character.

Those who live and work in the Whisman area have long sought improved services in our part of town (we have access to donuts and Big Gulps, but we need more than that). In order for us to see this happen, it's likely that the services will need to go, for the most part, in one location, and the obvious location is the southwest corner of the Whisman/Middlefield intersection. This location is ideal for serving both those living or working in the area and those passing through via Whisman or Middlefield. Unfortunately, if we disperse where services are provided at different locations in the Whisman area, it probably won't work, and we'll be back to square one. This might not be the case in other parts of Mountain View, but I think it is for us.

200 homes per acre of park? That seems like a ridiculous ratio there. Especially for a community hemmed in on three sides (237 - Central - light rail).

Pack em in and get out of town that's what the builders want, lets vote for City Council candidates that will kill this and similar ideas. Let's keep Mountain View uncrowded we don't want to have traffic gridlock, problems with water supply, and dirty air.

@Rick -- is 200 homes per acre ridiculously high or ridiculously low? I assume you meant the former, that that's too many homes to share one acre of park? Just wanted to make sure I understood you.

@bkengland@gmail.com -- I agree with your sentiments, enhancing the Whisman/Middlefield retail center is more valuable to not only those in Whisman Station & environs, but to all the residents of what I call the Whisman/Slater Triangle (WST), between 101, 85 and 237. Though in fairness, I should add that in addition to donuts and Big Gulps(TM), we also have western bacon double-cheeseburgers, Chinese food, haircuts, dental care, housewares, sandwiches, liquor, in addition to great coffee, sushi, and burritos. Maybe its not quite so dystopian ;)

The key is to build homes over industrial pollution so that we get more home sales, birth defects, medical patients, and burials.

@Industrial Pollution ― You must be new to the area. Up until two years ago the area in question was a cherry orchard, *not* a former silicon site, like the old Fairchild Semiconductor site at Fairchild Dr. and Whisman, where Nokia used to be and where Google has now located their lawyers ;-). BTW, Fairchild Dr. used to be Bayshore before the freeway, I understand (before my time).

@Rick:
The city's goal is 3 acres of park per 1000 residents. That's based on the Quimby Act (California Government Code §66477).

Silicon Valley generated 110K new jobs last year. But only 8000 new housing units. Accumulating for several years, the housing shortage is devastating.

Cities that allow companies to expand employment must be punished by being forced to build a bunch of crappy high density projects. Isn't employing our citizenry important? Where is our reward for that???

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?