Check out Town Square! Hundreds of local topics are being discussed by local residents on Town Square, a reader forum sponsored by the Weekly on our community website at www.PaloAltoOnline.com. Post your own comments, ask questions, read the Editor’s blog or just stay up on what people are talking about around town!
Letters University Ave. congestion Editor, In reference to the 27 University Ave. megaproject, I’ve seen little comment on the current congestion of the University Avenue underpass, which will get even worse when the hospital expansion project is completed. If any readers think the underpass can carry the additional traffic from the prospective 1,000 workers at the megaproject, then I suggest that they try driving from the university or shopping center to University Avenue any time of the day and particularly during commute hours and see for themselves. Have a look at the picture of the underpass on page 54 of the Nov. 23 issue of the Weekly. This promotional drawing shows the underpass at 6 a.m. on a Sunday morning. All the busses shown at 6 a.m. will have an easy time negotiating the underpass provided they leave very quickly. I think the only solution to this congestion is to ban parking on University Avenue and make the avenue four lanes. Perhaps that’s what the megaproject promoters are planning for us. Don Price Addison Avenue Palo Alto
Destroying downtown Editor, Why is the Palo Alto city council allowing developers to destroy the character of Palo Alto and ruin the quality of life of city residents? Why is the council rolling over time after time to the outlandish requests to grant exemptions to the laws of the city? We have a zoning code and height limits — follow them, no exemptions! The developers around here have
routinely flouted the normal zoning limits and been granted PC exemptions up to and surpassing the 50-foot height limit for their developments. Now the same greedy crew has come right back and is asking for much, much more. Every oversized office building that is approved adds more cars to our streets, more bodies to the worker count that ABAG uses to demand more housing, more square footage to be supported by a city infrastructure that is massively backlogged, and overcrowds schools, parks and facilities resulting in diminishing quality from each. 135 Hamilton and 636 Waverley both want to be massive office towers downtown. 101 Lytton was just approved to be over 50 feet tall. And the 27 University project is now proposing five buildings all over or near 100 feet tall. Each of these buildings goes through a secretive process that involves backdoor access to the city’s planning department that is only available to well-connected developers. By the time city residents hear of these projects they have often been in the works for years and during that time the city planning staff has taken on the role of cheerleading for the very projects that are trying to circumvent the letter of the zoning laws. Arrillaga’s project is even sleazier having hired away commissioners and staff to now represent the project to their former colleagues. The Arrillaga project alone will add 3,000 car trips a day to an area that is already gridlocked. The city, wasting taxpayer money for a traffic report, got the news that most intersections are at D and F levels of service and will get worse. Can you get an F minus? Tina Peak Palo Alto Avenue Palo Alto
Guest Opinion
Technology is not a fashion statement by Utkash Dubey echnology should serve one clear purpose: to make life simpler. But as consumer-targeting tech giants release more and more goodies, it is inevitable that at some point the newest mobile gadget will be more costly than it is beneficial, and the corporate aims surpass true technical progress. Regardless, consumer demand is higher than ever. Increasing the public’s demand for the most generic products turned “techy,” most notably, phones and computers, no longer seems to be the result of technological advancements, smarter implementation or innovation. In fact, more and more often I see long lines of people outside local tech outlets waiting for a product they do not even remotely know about. For the majority, price expectations and practical utility are no longer considered in the purchasing process. Instead, having the latest gizmo has become a social statement. Take the newest iPhone 5, for example. It has a larger screen size, it does the same processes in about 80 percent of the time that the “old” iPhone 4S did, and
T
it got a bit of a software upgrade. Apart from that, there are not any major ramifications that the new iPhone has over its predecessors. It sounds great in an advertisement that depicts simplicity and beauty, but practically, the product is just not worth the money. Spending $700 (or, god forbid, more) for this kind of product makes it sound like we are paying more for the prestige, style and sleekness than we are for the functionality. But the last time I checked, phones were not the main attraction on the runway. This is not limited to just phones. New products such as the Macbook Air sacrifice performance and utility for ... weighing less. That’s comparable to sacrificing a limb to avoid tipping the scale. If carrying an extra pound of USB ports, a larger hard drive and more space for RAM is a physical feat, I would suggest seeing a doctor. But despite the apparent impracticality of the product, it generates much more revenue for Apple. And Apple is not the only one at fault here — the company is simply catering to the majority of consumers who want to be able to show off the half-pound laptop. By the same logic, Microsoft
and Internet Explorer are taking steps to meet this ridiculous consumer mentality. For example, Microsoft introduced Windows 7, although realistically it does not offer much more to the average user than incredibly better speeds and, of course, better visual appeal. Internet Explorer took it a step further: IE9 now features “a more beautiful web,” according to its marketing campaign, rather than bragging about the breakneck speeds that barely trump Chrome. These almost make it seem like companies are hiring artists and firing engineers. To push back for a functionality revolution is simply not feasible, but it also does not make sense to further delve into a mentality that abandons innovation for the sake of minor style changes. As consumers, we need to push for real products, and do quality research before arbitrarily deciding on the newest tech gadget. Corporate aims will accordingly change to meet consumer demands, and the push for innovation — not what looks sleek — will follow. Let’s not forget that this mentality is what brought about the dotcom boom. Given the state of the economy, I don’t think that the idea has any chance at getting rejected. N Utkash Dubey is a student at Gunn High School and wrote this piece for the Gunn Oracle.
Diane F.
J.D. Roid
Streetwise
Where do you plan on going shopping for the holiday season? Asked on California Avenue, Palo Alto. Interviews and photographs by Lisa Kellman.
Laura Wolfe
Community therapist Palo Alto “Small, locally owned businesses.”
Kyle Suppes
Student Grant Street “Nowhere specific. Probably Stanford Shopping Center.”
Rob Kuhling
Venture capitalist Marlowe Street “Amazon.com.”
Retired teacher Castilleja Avenue “I’m sort of out of shopping. The grandkids already have way too much stuff. I have to ask what the kids want and then I buy it.”
Owner of Copy America Fremont “Either Fremont or Stanford Shopping Center.”
ÜÜÜ°*> Ì " i°V ÊUÊ*> Ê Ì Ê7ii ÞÊUÊ Ûi LiÀÊÎä]ÊÓä£ÓÊU Page 15