SkyscraperCity banner

26001 - 26020 of 26186 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,618 Posts
Visualized version of Dirk's opinion:
View attachment 305544
excellent visualization of my point! well done sir! not to nitpick, but the facchino property in the notch to the north of the station is being entitled for and additional 820 units and 340k sqft commercial. enough with the housing already!
To be honest to maximize the value of the BART station it should be prioritizing office (and maybe some retail to serve said offices) within 1/4 mile of the station, while dense residential within the 1/2 mile around that. But VTA which I think owns the surface lots/empty lots labelled BART should also consider a landlease for office there as well as a long term play. Sure parking itself is not that useful, especially when compared to office, but some of that is necessary to get commuters into the station. But yeah, last mile, having work a less than 5 minute walk from the station would be ideal, and at 4-5 workers per 1000sqft, versus what 1.4 - 1.6 commuters per 1000sqft of residential. It becomes obvious what is the ideal. Granted you can't force anyone to work there, but it is better than forcing them not to by zoning all residential.
what bart does with its station area land will be interesting. they'll likely take the best offer weather that's office or housing. it's more likely that they'll prioritize housing though like they're doing at their east bay redevelopments like west oakland, macarthur, north berkeley, walnut creek, etc. makes me wonder if they've seen the density comparisons you point out. if they do prioritize housing at the new south bay stations, they're missing a huge opportunity to make san jose a destination line rather than a commuter line. so much capacity goes unused during reverse commute times, why not focus on utilizing that to add riders? not everyone needs to be funneled through the tube to dtsf every morning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
It may be an unpopular opinion, but I believe any new housing around major transit should be as dense as the developer is willing to build to. The houses around Berryessa, for instance, aren't going anywhere; if we're going to add housing density (only where housing is planned, already), now is our opportunity to do it rather than wishing in 25 years that we had more housing along transit around stations.

Lord knows I hate how poorly the region uses its transportation investments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,147 Posts
excellent visualization of my point! well done sir! not to nitpick, but the facchino property in the notch to the north of the station is being entitled for and additional 820 units and 340k sqft commercial. enough with the housing already!

what bart does with its station area land will be interesting. they'll likely take the best offer weather that's office or housing. it's more likely that they'll prioritize housing though like they're doing at their east bay redevelopments like west oakland, macarthur, north berkeley, walnut creek, etc. makes me wonder if they've seen the density comparisons you point out. if they do prioritize housing at the new south bay stations, they're missing a huge opportunity to make san jose a destination line rather than a commuter line. so much capacity goes unused during reverse commute times, why not focus on utilizing that to add riders? not everyone needs to be funneled through the tube to dtsf every morning.
BART doesn't own the land around the stations or the stations themselves IIRC. Who owns the BART stations in Berryessa/North San José and Milpitas? Who operates the different services? | VTA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,618 Posts
It may be an unpopular opinion, but I believe any new housing around major transit should be as dense as the developer is willing to build to. The houses around Berryessa, for instance, aren't going anywhere; if we're going to add housing density (only where housing is planned, already), now is our opportunity to do it rather than wishing in 25 years that we had more housing along transit around stations.

Lord knows I hate how poorly the region uses its transportation investments.
from the biz journal article:
the team is confident that 3,450 units is the right number of residential units for Market Park's southern half. He said that because San Jose's planning department wants half the land in the village to be for jobs and the other half to be for housing, that yields a density of 280 residential units per acre, which Schoennauer said is denser than most parts of downtown San Jose.
"We have to build what the market is willing to build, and we're confident that we have studied enough density to build the maximum that the market will build," he said.
i definitely agree with you re: density. that's why i've been frustrated with many of the proposals in the dsap and west of the station. at berryessa, it looks like they have the density in the sweet spot. could it be higher? sure, but it's already very dense compared to anything else in the valley. 280du/acre is also well above where the city needs to be so it's not a drain on the budget. these are minimums we should see in the core and dsap, the fact that we're seeing them in a suburban area of the city is a bonus.
well it looks like we're screwed then. the best we can hope for the bart land will be 4/1 podium stick built apartments. in reality we should see a 200' office building.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Crane Watch: Downtown mixed-use tower project (The Carlysle), big transit-oriented development near Tamien Station clear key hurdles

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2020/07/15/crane-watch-san-jose-transit-oriented-development.html

For this month's Crane Watch update, I looked at two projects that could add a combined total of 859 residential units to San Jose's housing supply if approved and completed. Each received key approvals from the city of San Jose over the past two months.
@Dirk_Birkin unfortunately, no new updates to report on The Ohlone, I haven't gotten around to asking the developers about that. One of Swenson's other projects, The Grad, is slated to be open for residents by mid-August.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,147 Posts
Crane Watch: Downtown mixed-use tower project (The Carlysle), big transit-oriented development near Tamien Station clear key hurdles



@Dirk_Birkin unfortunately, no new updates to report on The Ohlone, I haven't gotten around to asking the developers about that. One of Swenson's other projects, The Grad, is slated to be open for residents by mid-August.
I'm guessing they won't be targeting students the first year if classes are all online?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,147 Posts

The future of Caltrain is uncertain.

The cash-strapped agency faces a potential shutdown of its rail commuter line after a bid to put a sales tax on the November ballot failed. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors failed to support it at a Tuesday meeting.


Caltrain is in a dire budget situation as the agency is reliant on fare revenue and ridership is down due to the pandemic. A sales tax in the three counties where it operates — San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara — would have provided a new revenue stream to keep train service afloat.

...
Looks like Caltrain is going to shut down. So I'm guessing any advantage for Google to locate near Diridon will be gone, I think that will likely mean Google will pull out of downtown. BART might mitigate that, but I doubt it. I would imagine they were counting on the expanded rail service south to be able to recruit people as housing is more affordable a 30 minute Caltrain ride from the office, etc, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,749 Posts
I'm guessing they won't be targeting students the first year if classes are all online?
They've already got a bunch of units leased to students (pre-Covid). I've seen complaints from students who signed the leases (on the SJSU subreddit) that AMCAL isn't budging and won't allow them to break the leases. Instead, they are telling them that they could relet the units.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,618 Posts
Crane Watch: Downtown mixed-use tower project (The Carlysle), big transit-oriented development near Tamien Station clear key hurdles



@Dirk_Birkin unfortunately, no new updates to report on The Ohlone, I haven't gotten around to asking the developers about that. One of Swenson's other projects, The Grad, is slated to be open for residents by mid-August.
thanks for the update matt. for reference @CAAndrew the density of the new project at tamien is only 81du/acre vs. 280du/acre at berryessa. this is a huge missed opportunity for density adjacent to the second busiest transit station in the city.

Looks like Caltrain is going to shut down. So I'm guessing any advantage for Google to locate near Diridon will be gone, I think that will likely mean Google will pull out of downtown. BART might mitigate that, but I doubt it. I would imagine they were counting on the expanded rail service south to be able to recruit people as housing is more affordable a 30 minute Caltrain ride from the office, etc, etc.
nice bait and switch by caltrain. the sales tax was originally to upgrade the timetables to bart-like headways. now they want to use the money for operating costs during the economic slowdown. if they do shut down service, it will only be temporary until the SIP restrictions are lifted and ridership returns. no way the line is shut down permanently and the billions of dollars in recent ongoing upgrades end up as sunk costs. the peninsula needs this type of service, even if most of tech decides to stay home permanently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Wow! Caltrain might (emphasis on "might") get shut down temporarily, and all of a sudden Google is going to pull out of Downtown SJ...WOW! :LOL:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
thanks for the update matt. for reference @CAAndrew the density of the new project at tamien is only 81du/acre vs. 280du/acre at berryessa. this is a huge missed opportunity for density adjacent to the second busiest transit station in the city.
Not sure if higher density really fits here. Skyline at Tamien has not exactly been a great success and looks out of place,

nice bait and switch by caltrain. the sales tax was originally to upgrade the timetables to bart-like headways. now they want to use the money for operating costs during the economic slowdown.
Not really. The money is to subsidize operations in either case. When commuters return it would be use to increase mid-day frequencies as proposed. Right now it would be used to keep any service going.

if they do shut down service, it will only be temporary until the SIP restrictions are lifted and ridership returns. no way the line is shut down permanently and the billions of dollars in recent ongoing upgrades end up as sunk costs. the peninsula needs this type of service, even if most of tech decides to stay home permanently.
True, but it still sucks for people who depend on it right now if it is shut down for a year or more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
739 Posts
Caltrain ought to take advantage of a temporary service shutdown to get electrification work done faster. If trains aren’t running, more work can be done, right?

Here in DC, WMATA is taking advantage of COVID gutting ridership by expanding their already planned maintenance shutdowns (pgs 7 & 8) of certain stations all over the system. Service at affected stations is supplemented by a frequent bus bridge. They’ll be able to get a lot more work done than previously anticipated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Caltrain ought to take advantage of a temporary service shutdown to get electrification work done faster. If trains aren’t running, more work can be done, right?
but we forget about the NIMBY's on the peninsula who will complain about the noise, bright lights and lost trees.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
but we forget about the NIMBY's on the peninsula who will complain about the noise, bright lights and lost trees.
It's amazing the CalTrain tracks were put down in the mid 1800's, as can you imagine trying to run a heavy rail commuter line through ATHERTON today?!? One concern if they shut it down because of COVID and low ridership (until a vaccine) is that if it ever stops running through Atherton, they might get really used to it. :-(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
Metro Station Tower update from Matthew Niksa of SVBJ


But since filing a formal project application for Metro Station Tower in January 2017, Nelly-Amas has been "cold called relentlessly" by developers and brokers inquiring about the 0.52-acre project site, according to a real estate industry source with direct knowledge. That, combined with the Bay Area's ongoing housing crisis, led her to change her mind and recently put the site on the market for sale.

"I believe after putting all of the work into designing this beautiful building and that so many people need homes in San Jose, it is better for some of the 'deep pockets developers' to build it for the community to enjoy and for me to look for something else to do," Nelly-Amas said in a Thursday email.
One reason the two parcels are expected to command a premium is a developer or an investor has the opportunity to build an up-to-30-story highrise with a maximum residential density of 800 units per acre.

"The next developer will 100% opt for a sleek, modern, glassy design reflective of other high-rise student housing towers around the nation," a source said.
A 30 story residential tower at this site would be an interesting development for this part of town. Good scoop Matt!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Metro Station Tower update from Matthew Niksa of SVBJ






A 30 story residential tower at this site would be an interesting development for this part of town. Good scoop Matt!
Thank you very much, @aphelion2100. Glad you thought the story turned out well, much appreciate you sharing it with the forum. I went back in and added an aerial photo of the two existing buildings at 439 S. 4th St. and 451 S. 4th St. Here are a couple of sentences I added that I think you might be interested in:

Another reason the two parcels are expected to command a premium is that the existing tower project is exempt from providing onsite affordable housing or paying any in-lieu fees under an affordable housing impact fee exemption waiver, provided it receives a certificate of occupancy before June 30, 2025.

SJSU has six on-campus residence halls that can accommodate only 12% of its student body, according to CBRE's offering memorandum. That means 30,890 students, or 88% of SJSU's total enrollment of 34,992 students as of fall 2019, can't live on campus, the memo noted.
Also, color me embarrassed, I accidentally misspelled Keziah-Nelly Amas' name in a previous version. Her last name is Amas, not Nelly-Amas, the hyphen threw me off. Sorry for the confusion, the change has been reflected in the recently updated version.
 
26001 - 26020 of 26186 Posts
Top