Nope, the facade is not done. The railings you see are for the outdoor paneling installation (Formawall comes to mind):I was under the impression that the facade is not done, given how different it looks from the renders.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/...town-san-jose-portfolio-sells-to.html?ana=twtExclusive: Historic downtown San Jose portfolio sells to institutional investor
The deal, valued in total at about $33.5 million, is certainly not the largest sale in recent years in the compact business district. But it is notable because it signals the arrival of a new investor downtown and raises intriguing possibilities about future plans.
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area...witter&utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1471567567Hundreds of San Jose State freshmen who were expecting to move in to the university's newest student housing this weekend will instead have to bed down in "the bricks," an antiquated 1960 dormitory slated for demolition, campus officials announced Thursday.
the ac hotel looks like a jail building lol ... but nah actually it's not bad, it's all business, I like that... not everything has to be flashy, artsy or innovative, at the end of the day it's just a building, the majority of people won't even think twice about what it looks like, they'll just use it and go in and out.
What part of it is clearly worse than the renderings, if the facade is incomplete?No. We still need good design in San Jose. Is it better than the Hampton Inn proposal? Yes. Is it as good as the proposed renderings? No. Which means the city failed to hold the implementation of the design to the vision.
Also, the retail frontage will not empty out on to the sidewalk. People can only access it by going through the hotel entrance which faces the driveway.
Does that mean that we won't be able to call him Nate Dog anymore?In related news, one of the big story breakers for this forum is moving on from SVBJ.
Nathan Donato-Weinstein: Moving on from the Silicon Valley Business Journal
Hell, given the number of VTA routes within 500' (17, 22, 23, 72, 73, 82, 304, 323, 522, and LRT), having some high rise here would already be a win. BART is the cherry on top.The potentially good news is that the new owner of One N. 1st Street will eventually demolish the old Lincoln Law School building and build a high rise building in its place being that it will be very close to the future downtown BART Station. Let's hope the new owner will have a new high rise development in place for the grand opening of downtown BART. So, Hip Hip Hurray for this potentially good news.
We should have just annexed those bastards back in the days. Would have been able to build both offices and housing to our hearts' content, instead of playing this give-and-take game that we now play.http://www.siliconbeat.com/2016/08/19/report-tallying-new-apartment-construction-silicon-valley/
And people wonder why rents are so high in Palo Alto where Nimbyism reigns supreme. San Jose continues to be the biggest provider of housing in the South Bay by a wide margin, while our neighboring city of Santa Clara provides a lame 445 units. Shame on all of the cities north of San Jose where its O.K. to build unlimited amounts of commercial office buildings while
neglecting the building of housing units -- there ought to be a law.
SF's case is that it didn't build enough housing over the last 30ish years, to keep up with residential pressure and the capacity to pay. 9k units is quickly swamped by the population pressure; it's gone from 678k in 1980 to 746k in 1995 to an estimated 864k last year, but new housing units never exceeded 3500/year between 1995 and 2014. At the same time, average incomes have exploded for SF residents, meaning the whole system can reach an even higher boil.Interesting data on SF. It builds the most number of housing yet has the highest increase of housing prices year by year. Doesn't look like building more housing made SF any affordable. Or maybe we need another year to see how the market absorbs the SF supply. That will be interesting to watch
I would instead suggest the city needs to focus on putting units in places that best help the city keep workers within city limits and working with the VTA to radically improve transit for those places. Basically, this means focusing on corridors within the city: 1st/Monterey, San Carlos, Santa Clara/Alum Rock, Winchester, plus a few others. Make it as easy as possible to get to downtown and to SR, focus efforts on getting units along corridors to those places, and limit residential development elsewhere in the city. In this way we can get the units we need, but minimize the benefit to neighboring cities.It's ridiculous that we have half of the County's population, yet builds 2/3 of its housing. We need to cut down the housing supply immediately outside of Greater Downtown, and any housing in Greater Downtown needs to go forward with proportionate office/commercial space.
I would expect that trend to continue, if not accelerate, as Caltrain improves in frequency with electrification.The following article makes a strong case for development along mass transit lines:
CBRE: Caltrain Premium Grows as Developers Take Notice