SkyscraperPage Forum - THE BAY AREA | Projects from San Francisco's Surrounding 8 Counties

Viewing Page 14 of 78

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- City Compilations (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=87)

- - THE BAY AREA | Projects from San Francisco's Surrounding 8 Counties (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=136313)

^I believe it's both the old 3Com site and the one next to it.

Quote:

As the headquarters of Intel, and the home of many offices of other large tech companies, Santa Clara already has about 1.8 jobs for each of the city's approximately 117,000 residents. A Yahoo relocation would increase that imbalance, adding traffic and housing pressures, but Riley said there would also be economic pluses for the city.

Understatement of the decade?

Yahoo's got substantial space in the buildings just south of here near the Mercado shopping center (very nice, pretty new space too, though I'm assuming that they lease it rather than own it), so I'm assuming that those buildings would become vacant?

I am pretty ignorant about this, but unless Yahoo is planning quite a comeback and hiring spree, it sounds more like a consolidation than net growth. I would assume that they would leave some scattered buildings vacant in various areas as leases expire. There could also be acquisitions that have left scattered pockets of people.

With so much vacant space remaining in the Valley, it seems odd to do more building, but the time schedule did sound quite vague. This made me wonder how much it is bargaining ploy and how much real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 4594986)

I don't know that you will be able to see 6 story buildings across Great America but maybe.

Great America (the park, not the parking lot) is south of the line-of-sight between the Niners site and this; however, there are the Hilton and Citrix buildings in between the two. Even so, at least some of the Yahoo buildings should be visible. Six stories would put them above everything else in the immediate area. Plus, the stadium is elevated as well, which further helps to see the potential Yahoo location.

It's just an observation. Not anything I expect Yahoo to be thinking about at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 4595046)

These thoughts ran through my mind as well (well, except the negotiating play angle; I hadn't given it that much thought). Yahoo hasn't been doing particularly well and there is a lot of vacant space around. It just seems odd that this company would be building something of this scale anytime soon.

You're right; the stadium will stick up pretty high (if and when). I wonder who is after the naming rights. We already have HP and Oracle, but there are certainly plenty of heavy hitters in the South Bay (or Japan, for that matter).

via:http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...07/story9.html

Quote:

Dublin plans for denser downtown
San Francisco Business Times - by Blanca Torres

The City of Dublin is working on a specific plan to encourage denser development in its downtown core — a 284-acre area city officials believe is ripe for more multi-family housing, retail and transit-oriented projects near a new BART station.

The city is still refining the details of the plan, but expects to adopt it next summer, said Linda Maurer, who handles economic development for Dublin.

According to city documents, the existing plan for the downtown allows for more density than previous zoning rules, but current policies have not spurred the development the city wanted to see. Currently, the downtown area has about 2.5 million square feet of built space.

Dublin secured a $200,000 grant from the Bay Area’s regional Metropolitan Transportation Commission to pay for the specific plan and complete an environmental impact report that will clear a hurdle for future projects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewK (Post 4292240)

condo project at san pablo and delaware (two blocks up from university):
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d3...k/IMGP0156.jpg

:haha: :haha: At first glance, that looked like "Death" lurking in the trees.

Meanwhile, in midtown San Jose:

Quote:

San Jose council approves 150 foot height limit on new downtown project

By Stephen Baxter

Rose Garden Resident
Posted: 12/02/2009 04:21:08 PM PST
Updated: 12/02/2009 06:38:24 PM PST

http://s99.photobucket.com/albums/l3...enRepublic.jpg

Developers called it a landmark project, and city planners called it a sign of future developments as San Jose tries to build up rather than out in the next 30 years.

On Tuesday night, the San Jose City Council approved a 150-foot height limit for the Ohlone Mixed Use Project, which includes three condominium towers and ground-floor shops near the corner of West San Carlos and Sunol Streets.

The council also amended the city's general plan to allow the developer, Green Republic LLLP, to increase the project's density from 100 housing units per acre to 125 units per acre.

Many nearby residents of the Shasta Hanchett and St. Leo's neighborhoods objected to the potential 14-story project because of its proximity to single story homes, and they asked the council to call for a minimum of 30,000 square feet of shops when it considers the project's zoning permits in about six months.

Others at the meeting supported the plan, including business leaders on West San Carlos Street and leaders from two environmental groups who said the project was a good alternative to sprawling subdivisions.

"We thought this was an opportunity to have a signature building," said San Jose Director of Planning Joe Horwedel. "We're really taking the city into the next 30 years. ... This is an important decision for the future of the city, and we think it's the right thing to do."

Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio, whose District 6 covers the property, supported the decision for many reasons, and he said the buildings would not be out of scale because they are next to a vacant commercial property and the five-story KB Homes project. Single-story houses are a few blocks away.

Because the Ohlone project is billed as transit-oriented, Oliverio said that city leaders are working on an agreement with the Valley Transportation Authority about building a light rail stop near it. However, VTA officials have said in public meetings that bus lines on West San Carlos already are sufficient for future residents.

Councilman Sam Liccardo, who sits on the VTA board, indicated that it is unlikely that the station would be built because the transit authority is considering eliminating light rail stops — not adding them — to enable faster commute times. The VTA also has a $100 million deficit in the next two years, Liccardo said.

"I don't want the community to be misled about when the station will emerge," Liccardo said.

Oliverio and several environmental leaders praised the condo project anyway, saying that less water would be used than in traditional homes because condos lack thirsty lawns. The building's shared walls also would require less construction material and energy.

The overall environmental impact of the project's potential 800 units is far less than building 800 ranch-style homes in, say, Coyote Valley, Oliverio added.

Although the Ohlone Mixed Use project is taller than other hubs, villages and boulevards that San Jose planners envision, council members indicated that its higher density is a sign of things to come.

The city council is expected to consider a zoning permit for the Ohlone Mixed Use project in six months that will determine the number of housing units and the amount of retail space. Oliverio and several residents said they hoped the developer would build a minimum of 30,000 square feet of shops, rather than a proposed maximum of 30,000 square feet.

The council also will decide on details of a proposed park near the Los Gatos Creek Trail that developers have pledged to build. Nancy Ianni, a former San Jose councilwoman, said after the meeting that she was not encouraged by the mass transit options around the Ohlone project. She questioned whether it was the kind of transit-oriented development that she and the council envisioned in the 1992 Midtown Specific Plan.

"It seems to me the most important thing is to provide transit," Ianni said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stormkingfan (Post 4599414)

:haha: :haha: At first glance, that looked like "Death" lurking in the trees.

haha indeed it does. reminds me that a lot has happened with these projects in the last six months, ill be in berkeley for christmas, ill have to take my camera and grab some pics.

OK, I'm confused. Over the longer-term St. Leo's is presumably going to get higher density and perhaps sfh's are doomed (it may be called mid-town but it's 1/4 to 1/2 mile from Diridon Station and the proposed A's stadium).

But, more to the point: are they saying they are putting in high-rise, transit-oriented development in a location where there is NOT going to be a transit station?

BTW, VTA is right: stops need to be eliminated to make their trains more useful

great news for us santa rosans:

originally posted by wizewun at ssc:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizewun

Huge if it goes through, we'll have to wait and see :cheers:

Panel selects glass-clad design for AT&T building

Hugh Futrell Corp. The Museum on the Square building would house the Sonoma County Museum of Art, which would occupy 10,000-square-feet of the ground floor.

By Kevin McCallum
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Developers Hugh Futrell and Bill Carle, owners of the Santa Rosa-based Hugh Futrell Corp., are proposing to turn the old AT&T building into a nine-story mixed-use building with two sides clad almost entirely in glass.

Hugh Futrell Corp.
Called Museum on the Square, the design chosen by a city selection committee calls for turning the five-story windowless concrete structure into a gleaming nine-story mixed-use building with two sides clad almost entirely in glass.

The winning design was submitted by developers Hugh Futrell and Bill Carle, owners of Santa Rosa-based Hugh Futrell Corp.

“Our goal is to create a community gem from what is now a large dead space in our downtown,” Carle said. “We think this project is critical to the future of Santa Rosa.”

If the project goes smoothly, it would cost between $20 million and $30 million to construct and be ready for occupancy by the end of next year, Carle said.

The city's Redevelopment Agency purchased the AT&T building in March 2007 for $3 million, hoping to find a new use for a building many consider an eyesore.

A selection committee made up of Mayor Susan Gorin, City Councilman Gary Wysocky and Redevelopment Agency Board members Jake Ours and Philip Olsen selected Museum on the Square from five firms that responded to the agency's request for qualifications due in November 2009.

The recommendation now goes before the city Redevelopment Agency Board for approval on Friday.

That is expected to be followed by both sides signing an exclusive negotiation agreement to be brought to the redevelopment board on Jan. 24, Carle said. The city is expected to sell the property to the developers at market value, Carle said.

The price has yet to be determined, but will probably not be more than the $3 million the city paid in 2007. Nor, however, will the price be so much lower as to constitute a subsidy, Carle said.

“We're not asking them to go and give it to us for $500,000,” Carle said.

Key to the project's success is that two tenants have already signed agreements to occupy significant office space in the building.

TLCD Architecture, which designed the project, has agreed to inhabit one 16,000-square-foot floor, while Metier, Ltd., a software firm, is planning to take at least that much space, Carle said.

Don Tomasi, principal of TLCD Architecture, said it's the project of a lifetime for him.

“Museum on the Square's green design, including the reuse of a derelict industrial building, will make it an outstanding example of environmentally responsible downtown development,” he said.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a9/...Forum/Scm2.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a9/...Forum/scm1.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizewun

I AGREE, this design has surpassed anything that I would have thought possible for that site. Lets see if the City Council can screw this one up too!!!! Furtells other major project, on 4th across from Freemont Park will start work later this year if the market improves

The following pics and info are from the Futrell Proposal. This proposal and other proposals for the AT&T site can be found at

http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departmen...erATTSite.aspx

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a9/...Forum/scm3.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a9/...Forum/Scm7.jpg

Viewed from the winning Courthouse Square Proposal
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a9/...Forum/Scm6.jpg

Viewed from the winning Courthouse Square Proposal
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a9/...Forum/SCM5.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a9/...Forum/scm4.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a9/...orum/scmw1.jpg
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a9/...orum/scmw2.jpg
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a9/...orum/scmw4.jpg

Hey, that building would look great, mid-market in San Francisco...not to mention in downtown Santa Rosa!

^Agreed, it's a good-looking building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery (Post 4595333)

It makes little sense, other than the suggestion they'd save $1 million/year on power needs. That's actually chump change anyway, compared to building new and having to wait several years. Additionally, why 13 x 6 stories? Why not 6 x 13 stories. That area already has a number of buildings in the 10-15 story range. Secondly, there's the huge project, recently completed--8 x 8 story buildings(that have been having trouble leasing in a contraction economy), right next door to the current yahoo! Why not go there?

I say, work out a deal for those 8 existing 8 story buildings already next to the current HQ. The deal: Install solar on all the buildings and parking lot structures, resulting in a significant dent in the power bill--OK?

New Football Stadium in Oakland?

Could a new football stadium be in Oakland's future?
By Chris Metinko
Oakland Tribune

Amid talk of new stadiums in Fremont, San Jose and Santa Clara, could the Bay Area's next new sports stadium actually be built in Oakland? And could it be a football stadium? The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority Board — the governing agency of the Coliseum sports complex — will be asked next week to approve a "feasibility study" to look at the possibility of building a new football stadium on or adjacent to Coliseum property"The Raiders have been interested in this for a long time," said Deena McClain, executive director of the authority. "This is a more organized look to see what the options are." The study, which must still be authorized by the authority's board at its meeting next Friday, is expected to cost $125,000 and last four or five months. If approved, it will be performed by CSL International, the same company currently looking for new arena possibilities for the Edmonton Oilers hockey club...

http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_14391969

Didn't the Raiders already screw over Oakland/Alameda County when they demanded all the changes to the Coliseum in the 90s, and then sued the County?

First, note that $125k isn’t much money. In a way, proposing a new football stadium is both very odd and absolutely necessary. SC will have a vote on a stadium for the 49ers (and the 49ers basically say that they will spend whatever it takes to win). The Raiders could move there and probably have much cheaper rent than any separate deal with Oakland, unless Oakland were to incur very large losses.

On the other hand, the A’s are looking at moving to SJ so Oakland can’t just sit around and do nothing while 2 of its 3 major franchises leave. I would guess that this is a cheap way of looking like Oakland put up the good fight in case the Raiders do leave, and then blame Al Davis for refusing to listen, lack of loyalty, etc. Otherwise, improvements to McAfee would seem to be more economically justifiable, assuming a long-term deal can be cut.

Knowing the Raiders like i do and how Al Davis operates, they will never share a stadium with the Niners in Santa Clara. Now if a stadium were built in Oakland im sure he would not mind the Niners being tenants in that stadium. what i think will happen is that the Coliseum will end up being renovated, and a new Mt. Davis will be built on the opposite side of the existing one. in this day and age a new stadium in California is far from feasible.... BTW they just renewed their lease at the Coliseum thru 2013

How much money have the Raiders brought to the bay area since they moved back verses how much has been paid out to get them and keep them back?

If pro-sports is so profitable, why do tax payers have to constantly come up with money to subsidize building and operating them? I've always called them the Oakland Raiders and always will no matter where they move.

Probably true, but Al won't live forever, attendance is weak, Oakland is hurting and the team is bad. You would think that something will be done by his successors to rationalize the business. The Jets and Giants will soon be sharing so it's not impossible.

Viewing Page 14 of 78