SkyscraperCity Forum banner
1 - 20 of 693 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
I updated my map with their recent purchases (orange pins). The central zone seems to be mostly acquired. The northern zone is somewhat empty. I'm still unsure the goal of the property on Lorraine Ave in the southern zone (yellow is D'Arpino properties). I wonder how high Google would bid for the TOJD parking lots after BART finishes construction. With the completed infrastructure projects, the height increase and last commercial opportunity near Diridon, those properties should fetch prices much higher than the previous sale: double @ 140/sf?, triple @ 210/sf?)

That's a nice map. What did you use? With the announcement of the turndown of Fusion Tables, I'm looking for an alternative to MyMaps for my neighborhood's dev map without going so far as arcGIS (eg, Santa Clara's dev map)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
Like you (had) said, yeah, it'll be interesting to see what Google does or doesn't do with that parcel, considering the location, the changes to height (not all of my neighbors agree on this point, and we're having a meeting about the DDG upcoming), who owns that block. "Cautiously optimistic."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
*whistles*

Might try to make it just to hear what Sobrato has to say.

With overwhelming success, SCU's first two Real Estate Symposiums focused on industry as it related to innovation in technology within the Silicon Valley and beyond. This year, the Leavey School of Business and School of Law are proud to bring an incredible line-up for the 3rd Annual Real Estate Symposium. Including an exclusive fireside chat with John A. Sobrato, Sr. '60, Founder and Chairman of the Sobrato Organization, plus a special presentation by Mayor of San Jose, Sam Liccardo. We hope you can join us as we provide a conscientious viewpoint of the real estate industry and tackle the topic of affordable housing while answering the question of how best to manage the balance between jobs and housing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose...trust-sv-diridon-area-affordable-housing.html




Courtesy of: Salvatore Caruso Design Corporation

This will definitely enhance the aesthetics of this rundown area of downtown. There's still a lot of room in this part of town for this kind of development that will clearly improve the look & feel of this long neglected neighborhood.

Thanks. I'll have to update our neighborhood info. I had heard from a neighbor that Eden had bought the project.

But the render is a bit confusing, as it's not from the corner of Delmas and Auzerais. Here's the more instructive render:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
i really hope this turns from a residential project to office. this is one of the most prime pieces of land within the downtown boundaries. hopefully a project befitting that location will materialize.
I get where you're coming from, but I can tell you that an office tower *at that location* would face significant opposition from the neighborhood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
the neighborhood is a changing. this is one of only a handful of plots in the city that can reach that 300' level and the city needs to capitalize on that mark everywhere it can. 20 years from now, this area will look more like san fernando street than the current sfr residential neighborhood it is. the small pocket of historic victorians that is the lakehouse blocks will be the only exception. the writing has been on the wall for some time now, neighbors should embrace it, not fight it.
Personally, I'm on board with height. If nothing else, it's more room to make asks of devs.

But, my neighbors aren't--making some sweeping generalizations here--as accepting of towers. Even goes for residential, and my neighbors have been welcoming of residential projects, saying "yes, get started soon" even as other neighborhoods froth at small projects. A 250' or greater office tower, though? Non-starter at that corner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
there should be no such thing as a non starter within the borders of downtown district in a city of 1MM+ people. you don't get to move to an area within the borders of downtown and then advocate against height, regardless of weather it's residential or office. just like you don't get to move next to an airport or train tracks and complain about noise. this plan has been in the works for nearly 20 years and has been a concept since before my time when 87 was planned and built in the early 60's. your neighbors need to get with the program. hopefully you can help them get there by imparting knowledge on them.

this makes sense as office because of it's location: next to a freeway with easy north and south access, between 2 light rail stations, and less than a 10 minute walk to diridon. the office will be less invasive to the neighborhood than a 300 unit condo/apartment tower. a taller structure will also help block freeway noise everyone in the 'hood loves to hate on. the revenue generated by taxes from this would also help pay for neighborhood services at a greater rate than residential would. save the land further south and west for the residential towers, they're coming in due time as well.

Many of the residents have been here since prior to it being treated as part of downtown, and since prior to downtown's revival. Downtown came to this neighborhood.

This neighborhood has repeatedly been walked on by government entities for "the greater good." What was a much larger neighborhood was cut up by freeways and plans for expressways, repeatedly rezoned, and sometimes left to rot. Even so, neighborhood leadership has consistently said yes to projects. It's been welcoming to developers, even as other neighborhoods like Willow Glen have gone apoplectic.

Arguing that the neighborhood should just accept whatever the city needs, though, isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
if anything, your neighbors should be ecstatic about the development plans in the area.

...

but if they chose to stay and attempt to block any kind of development while advocating for things like affordable housing, they are the worst kind of nimby's there is. if they are okay with a 5 story market rate apartment development, yet would oppose a tall office tower on that plot of land with some of the best transit and car ingress/egress in the area, they're just as bad as they guy from palo alto that sues his neighbor for installing an air conditioning unit within 50' of his living room window. if they're okay with that same office tower going up on just the other side of 87, they're even worse.
In truth, neighborhood leadership is excited about development, BART and HSR. It's going to bring new energy to the neighborhood. Even the ghastly viaduct option from a few years ago had resigned acceptance because HSR will be so transformative. The neighborhood has been on board with well-designed projects that interface well with existing housing. The #Diridon project was well-received, despite directly facing existing housing. Sal Caruso's project, now owned by Eden Housing, was well-received because of its set-back from the SFHs on Gifford Av. Within our small footprint, we have more than a thousand apartments in the pipeline. The "worst kind of NIMBY" suggestion makes no sense.

But, time and again, someone else from On High has laid out their vision for what's good or right or needed. So, the idea of air-dropping a 300' office tower because downtown needs it is a mis-directed line of argument that's going to earn heated opposition in a neighborhood that's been YIMBY.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
It wasn't clear from the Mercury News article if Robson Homes was selling one or both of its parcels on Delmas Ave. Both are zoned residential. The article seemed to lazily lump them together as one. Also, Robson Homes doesn't own the whole block, and there were four or five property owners there that didn't want to sell.

If they are selling the "Filice" property (it's their parcel at the corner of Delmas and W. San Carlos), it'd be an interesting site for a hotel and I'm confident the neighborhood would be welcoming to something like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
if we're not going to use the new airspace unlocked because the city spent millions of dollars studying what was best for the city and all of it's residents and businesses, then what was the point of the study in the first place? having more than a thousand units in the pipeline in the neighborhood is great, and more than many neighborhoods in the city can boast, but it doesn't justify an eleven figure investment in transit infrastructure in that neighborhood. governments don't spend $10,000,000,000+ bringing transit to neighborhoods that insist high density infill projects interact well with existing SFR. that's as misdirected of an idea in urban planning as it gets.



rather than talk in circles, lets table this discussion until the land sells and there is an actual proposal to discuss.
The neighborhood is going to continue to be supportive of existing projects and receptive of new ones. What you're missing is the central complaint and how your argument is more of the same: being told to go die on a hill because that hill needs dyin' on for the greater good.

The neighborhood is going to change and urbanize. We all know it. But that line of argument is not the way to go about changing minds. And it makes it harder for people like me who are taking a softer approach, trying to lead them to water instead of trying to force them to drink.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
the full block contains 20 parcels. with the new height limits here, i wouldn't be surprised to see a developer purchase the entire block and propose a similar sized structure as what gary d wants to put up at valley title. these two blocks are similar in size.
Possibly. The profit motive is there to pursue that, assuming the four remaining property owners on that block could be persuaded to sell. Any project of the sort would hinge on architecture, massing, on-site and off-site community benefits. I know that my neighbors have been mixed about that kind of stuff, with some being more on board and many being afraid of some big public and/or private entity (CSJ, Google, etc.) running us over, eg, poor neighborhoods in the 1950s and 1960s. As a result, could a developer overcome the initial shock of something of this scale? I don't know with certainty, but I'd say the answer would be opposition if something like this was suddenly proposed:



What I'd like to see first is somebody take a stab at the 341 Delmas site, since the main explicit complaints have been massing (overwhelming the housing on Gifford) and privacy, both of which I believe could be responded to with good architecture (eg, a slender tower with a green wall facing the neighborhood).


I believe, personally, that introducing the neighborhood to good architecture via a conciliatory approach, not take-it-or-leave-it love-it-or-hate-it antagonistic approach, could soften opposition to future taller towers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
Why are we acting like an office tower is something bad that must be placed somewhere for the good of the city, like it is medicine.
It's not about good or bad. It's not about value judgments on offices or resi towers. Consider the context within the neighborhood, though. Most of the neighborhood is 2-3 stories. The tallest building is 95' at one end of the neighborhood. The prior proposal at this location was a low 55'. That "fit" in to the neighborhood's current vision of itself. What I'm trying to convey--really, all I've been trying to convey--is the opposition to something that is shockingly different *from what is familiar* if someone very suddenly proposed 250' or 300'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
New vision for Cityview Plaza from Jay Paul. 3.4 million sf triple tower.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose...paul-co-downtown-san-jose-cityview-plaza.html
BTW, the reference number for this project is H19-016 for 150 Almaden Boulevard, in case anyone wants to keep track of it.

Bummer, but the current render doesn't show Almaden Av or San Pedro going through as paseos between San Fernando and Park. That, and the project is for 6.9 ac, so is Jay Paul not developing the full 10ish ac Plaza?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/04/22/bay-area-paradox-we-need-housing-but-we-dont-want-to-build/

Amazing how many people consider high cost housing a non-issue. Also crazy how many housing towers in downtown San Jose are still sitting on the sidelines. The building boom in San Jose needs to become real.
The article suggests its a generational issue, and I see some truth to that, but I tend to think of it as those who have bought in and want to maintain that vs. those who haven't bought in or cannot; seems to correlate with generation, but not perfectly.

But I also see it as fear of an ambiguous future that we may not fit in to or understand, just like what I've seen around Google's campus.

Too bad more people don't connect high traffic with the high CoL. Article points out that both are viewed as big problems, but people don't seem to get the relationship. Yeah, of course there's a lot of traffic during rush, people are driving from Gilroy and Union City and Pleasanton to Cupertino, MV, and PA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
San Jose needs to plan for traffic volumes across the downtown area instead of leaving it up to each project in a vacuum. After seeing Adobe's plans and reading the traffic report, plus the prior TC #Diridon proposal on the Water Co site, it's pretty clear that the system for accessing our freeways and generally navigating the city would break down with all these proposals, even with robust TDM plans at each project and making assumptions about BART in 2027 and about Caltrain after CalMod:

  • 4k employees at Adobe tower 4
  • ~1M SF as was entitled at the #Diridon project
  • Potentially 25k employees across the rest of the hypothetical Google campus
  • 1M SF at Platform 16
  • Potentially 20k employees at CityView.
 
1 - 20 of 693 Posts
Top