Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 1731 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
i've been reading nearly every post in this thread over the past several weeks. now that i've come to the last page, i'd like to congratulate all the contributors on a job well done. i don't know of anywhere else that has as much information and insight about development in the south bay. great job, keep it up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
this wolf/dinapoli project is exactly the kind of massing i was hoping for at the trammel crow site across 87. i especially love the amenity decks at floors 8/15/17. even though trammel crow pencils out to 1MM sq ft, 10 or 11 stories is too short for that location.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
if the city of san jose is so worried about sales tax leakage in the north side, why aren't they pushing for a similar development as city place in santa clara? a perfect location would be the vta bus yard at zanker and 237.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
Given how low-density SJ is, on average, there's plenty of low-intensity land for incremental development. Density isn't binary. The DT core and surrounding neighborhoods should be more dense than they are, but that doesn't mean everything should be some minimum arbitrary density.

Given that that area sorely needs new investment and, to buoy DT retail, more residents, I'm happy to see the densification as proposed; nearly 600 new units is nothing to sneeze at in this chronically unloved area. I'm not keen on setting perfect as a roadblock to good. Trying to force everything to a certain height could very well backfire, scaring away mid-size developers. Let's see how this stuff plays out; hopefully it'll result in momentum for the rest of the DSAP area.
while i agree that it should be taller/denser, you make a valid point: hopefully this will spur other new development in the area. developers will be able to compare the demand and profitability of the delmas projects with the more dense projects at san calros/montgomery/lorraine. hopefully density and height win out in the end. there's plenty of available land in the neighborhood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
I am concerned, however, that the DSAP was written, with no shortage of optimistic hubris, around certain assumptions--namely, a stadium and a CAHSR aerial and grand new terminal--and that the reality will fail to meet some of its lofty goals for connecting newfound density to Diridon and to DTSJ retail and employers. With the drastic changes in HSR's plan, the silence from VTA about 323 BRT, and the collapse of stadium plans, it would be nice, in a perfect world, to have a more realistic, updated plan for what can be built in the area and what transportation infrastructure should be in place to support development goals.
the DSAP is barely 2 years old and still mostly applies to what the city wants to see built in the area. i'd rather see them take it slow and wait for the best options presented than go ahead and allow the first proposals to be built. with the trammel crow, southern delmas residential, and lorraine projects, there's still 4MM sqft office, 1500ish residential units, 900 hotel rooms, and 350k sqft commercial available. i would expect the DASP will be updated once CAHSR and the city agree on the alignment into diridon and take into account for the projects already in the pipeline. looks to me like there's room to grow all of the original development numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
(This has been transcribed from subscription only article)




5G Studio Collaborative/City of San Jose
i think this is a great idea, especially for this location! their timeline is ambitious given the amount of grief PACSJ has given the gateway project in a similar 'historical' area. but there's no reason the city shouldn't push this through for this location. the revitalization this could bring to that stretch of first street is huge, and a critical missing link from the nicer areas to the north and south. this could also be huge for post street and fountain alley revitalization.

i'm sure the facades will be updated in future renderings once they have a working set of plans, look at the differences we've seen in other bland looking first renderings like the post st. and greyhound towers. as for blocking the view of the BofA building? you can't see it from the west anyway. this does nothing to block current northern, southern, or eastern views. and i'm also a fan of the east west orientation that breaks up the prevailing north south lines of most dtsj buildings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
Let's hope this economic cycle continues for another several years so we can see some of these great proposals come to fruition.

GO SHARKS! 0 - 0 after 1st period.
the first and last two paragraphs under the housing section is good insight as to what gets built this cycle. if the previous cycle is any indication, that means we'll get 14 projects this cycle. the graphics jaws posted support that number as well if you include what's under construction, entitled, and mix in a few that are in process that are very likely such as greyhound and trammel crow.

as long as the election doesn't screw up the economy, there's no reason for this cycle not to continue 3-4 more years. that could mean we see more than the 14 get underway before any downturn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
I think the greater worry the Sharks have is fan apathy someday settling in due to them never winning the Cup. The Finals trip will help, sure, but this franchise needs to take the whole enchilada, and soon, as the team and organization need to actually deliver the goods. Is it much of a stretch to think that the Sharks are the modern day version of the 1990's era Atlanta Braves, but without the actual Championship trophy (1995 World Series)? I remember watching either League Championship games and/or World Series games wherein the Braves fans stayed away in droves. It was largely a result of playoff failure fatigue, I think.

Also, far more than Oakland, I think SJ needs to be worried about the new Arena to be built in Downtown SF. That edifice will be a palace, perhaps making the Tank look even more dowdy than it already is. Yes, the Tank is still a great place to watch a hockey game, but one wonders whether it will pale in comparison to the SF venue. I'm speaking of financial perks here, too, as I'm guessing that the SF venue will built with an eye on providing its tenants with have far more income potential than currently exists in Oakland or SJ (e.g., sheer volume of luxury suites, etc.).
the loss stings. and what you say about the need to win it all soon rings true. but as far as relocation? forget about it. hasso clarified all that last season after signing the new lease. he's more old school european where they don't buy into the notion that sports arena's need to be replaced every 25 years. as long as the building is in good shape, the sharks will play there.

also, the notion that a new arena in SF would be a better revenue generator is flat out false. if they moved up there, the sharks would essentially be a tenant of the warriors and not have any of the non hockey revenue stream to help pad the books. they may be able to charge more for tickets and suites, but that wouldn't cover the amount of revenue lost to concerts and other events.

they'll need a new building eventually though. hopefully that will be in san jose. the mitchell block would be a great location, and the timeline for development could work as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
Ack no!! :eek:hno: Why would you want to put the arena in such a central part of downtown?
From my count, between the 38 home games for the Sharks this year, and the remaining 31 days the area is hosting events, that's a total of 69 events scheduled there. Add in the Barracuda games and the past events that I haven't counted, maybe call the total 95ish. So, figuring that leaves roughly 270 days when nothing is happening there. Sure, event days would be exciting, but why have that block be a virtual black hole during days when there is nothing going on?? To this I say no! :nono: That area is far too important to put an arena there. The Mitchell Block would be better served as a plaza surrounded by shops, restaurants, and residences.

The SJ Arena is fine where it is now. It's near enough to walk to from central downtown, close to several transit options, and has plenty of room for parking. It's got good bones and can be renovated. I agree on all other points though.
why the mitchell block? because bringing 10k-20k people to that block 150-200 times a year is going to generate a lot more economic activity than 5k-7k people 260 days a year in office buildings. office/hotel/apartment towers could also be incorporated into the design similar to what they did in toronto and what they're doing in edmonton and sacramento and what they are planning in san francisco.

if dtsj want's a plaza surrounded by shops, restaurants and residences, they should kick the server farm out of the pavilion and develop the surface lots surrounding it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
it's much easier to convert a hockey arena to basketball than a basketball arena to hockey. the playing surface is nearly double the size and necessitates removal of a large number of prime seating, usually in the 2-3k range. the islanders are dealing with this issue at the barclays center in brooklyn where many of the seats in the arena cannot see the whole playing surface. so unless the new SF arena is configured for hockey, which is unlikely, there isn't a suitable arena in the bay for the sharks to play for 2-3 years while a new arena is developed on the current site. relocating an entity like the sharks that creates mass economic activity in DTSJ for that amount of time would also likely cause many smaller business to close.

there may be better uses for the mitchell block than an arena, but do you risk losing the main economic engine of of DTSJ because you'd rather see high-rise development in that location? the only lots large enough to house a new arena without huge acquisition cost or major street re-alignment are directly north and south of the current location, and the mitchell block. this is all, of course, very speculative on timeline for arena replacement and the continued development of DTSJ and the diridon area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
I think everyone needs to think HUGE for Mitchell Block, whatever ends up there needs to be executed flawlessly.... If you were to listen to SPUR, you would put pure office there since it's right next to BART & LRT. I personally think it needs to be maxed out with mixed use in at max density. Basically the best attributes of the Museum Place proposal, Tramwell Crow, Silvery Towers, Santana Row, etc...For example, the lot is big enough to accommodate an architecturally iconic six tower complex that would have office, residential, hotel, retail, all on multiple floors, linked with paseos and skybridges. You could literally cram every type of use in there, outdoor malls, indoor mall, rooftop terrace restaurants, offices, gyms, spas, homes, the list goes on....it would truly transform Downtown San Jose.
i would be on board with that. i'd say less residential though with the plans for the nearby north san pedro area being put into play now the julian S curve is getting back on the grid.

interesting article from 2002 about the development possibilities. but according to this document, VTA only owns the parking lot, not any of the land under the existing structures.

http://www.vta.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/document/download/06912000001g2JeAAI
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
Does anyone know when Uproar Brewing on South 1st Street is going to open? It seems like they've been closed for almost a year building out the space.
the owners went into the project with a shoestring budget and are acting as their own general contractor on the project. they're doing much of the work themselves and it's pretty obvious they're in over their heads. they're currently on their second architect because they didn't trust what the first one was telling them. now they've run into problems with the building department because they don't really know what they're doing with regards to building codes and regulations.

the project is taking so long, their brewer dropped out. don't know if they've found another yet but if they don't get moving, it's going to be a difficult search. i believe they may be either out of money, or very close to it. the place is going to be great, once they are open, but that could be a while. if they would have ponied up the cash and hired a competent GC, they would have been open 6 months ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
This also just showed up in permits report:



A lot at the corner of Montgomery and San Fernando, across from Patty's Inn.
this lot has been for sale for a while. it would be a shame if the city were to allow a new development on this tiny corner of the larger block bound by montgomery, san fernando, autumn, and the light rail tracks. it's large enough that it should eventually be developed as high rise office/hotel, and not a bunch of piecemeal development.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
Totally disagree. We need more piecemeal development IMO as long as it's done right. A fully business-centric area around Diridon that is a ghost town on weekends would be a shame. Piecemeal development contributes to a much better pedestrian level experience. I think the areas directly next to the station need to be visit-worthy for that area to be healthy all times of the week.
agree on all points, but there are plenty of smaller lots for the smaller developments. the land bordering los gatos creek would be perfect. this block and similar blocks should be preserved for larger structures with ground floor retail to attract the visitors and residents of the large hotel/residential allotment for the area. the neighborhood needs to be a mix of both types of development to successfully execute the vision for the area. eating up all the larger blocks with small buildings doesn't help that vision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
there's an easy, cost effective solution to this issue. pave over empty lots in the area to provide temporary parking while they construct the garage at the old foundry site north of the tank. they've been talking about this garage for the better part of a decade, it's time to see it happen. there's plenty of existing curb cuts that access open dirt requiring minimum grading to make this happen. and once the garage is built in 2-3 years, development may be ready to break ground in the recently paved lots.

why is common sense so hard for this city?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
99 Notre Dame is a registered historic building, so I believe it's staying as is, even after the Court moves out.

http://www.computerhistory.org/storageengine/first-commercial-hard-disk-drive-shipped/

98705806
shouldn't it be exempted because the modifications to the building have taken away the historical value? that's how federal realty is able to bulldoze century 22 and 23 at the santana west site. it would be a shame to see that prime plot remain undeveloped in the hottest part of DTSJ.
 
1 - 20 of 1731 Posts
Top