A block of Shattuck Avenue in downtown Berkeley could see major changes in the next few years with the construction of an eight-story, 209-unit housing complex between Channing Way and Durant Avenue.
William Schrader Jr., of The Austin Group, has become a familiar name in Berkeley development circles, having already built large projects, such as the eight-story StoneFire on University Avenue and the 79-unit Varsity Apartments at 2024 Durant Ave., downtown in recent years.
His new project, dubbed Logan Park, is slated to be built just east of the Varsity building on Durant, wrapping around the Shattuck Avenue block where Staples, Extreme Pizza, Heat Café, Endless Summer Sweets and Chase bank now operate. Schrader told the zoning board he is working closely with all of those businesses so that the new retail spots fit their needs. Logan Park, if approved, would be located on the largest parcel in downtown Berkeley, he said.
Thursday night’s hearing was a preview session, where Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) members give feedback to an applicant and staff about project changes or information they would like in the future. The optional advisory meeting takes place before a vote, which would be scheduled at a later date. Schrader said he’d like to be back before the zoning board for that vote later this year.
Logan Park will be built in two phases, Schrader told the board. Phase 1 will see construction at the Staples corner on Shattuck and west on Durant. Phase 2 would see the construction of the rest of the Shattuck frontage down to Channing Way. The phased construction approach will allow the businesses to stay open while the project is underway, he said.
Schrader said his primary goals with Logan Park are to “design the largest project possible allowed under the downtown plan and the density bonus,” and to keep the existing tenants.
The project includes two courtyards, a seventh-floor terrace and 86 parking spaces. Building residents would not be eligible for residential parking permits to park in the neighborhood.
The few people who spoke during public comment said they thought the building was too big. Several of them reside in senior living facility Stuart Pratt Manor at 2020 Durant. They recalled the Varsity’s construction as a difficult time in the neighborhood, posing challenges in their efforts to get around the block. A number of the Stuart Pratt residents are blind or disabled, they told the board.
Zoning board members were sympathetic to those concerns and advised Schrader to come back with a robust plan to address safety issues and logistical challenges during construction to make it easier for neighbors.
Members of the board were also largely unified in asking Schrader to reduce parking for the project, noting its proximity to BART and AC Transit. They said he might be able to build some ADA units on the ground floor, add more below-market-rate units or reduce the project height if he could take out some of the parking.
Their comments were at odds with the sentiments of some of the neighbors who spoke, who said there wasn’t enough parking in the project as it is.
Schrader told the board he believed the parking ratio would be appropriate, based in part on his experience determining the parking needs at the nearby Varsity building. That lot — which has 34 parking spots for a 79-unit building — is full, he said. He also noted that financers won’t fund housing projects if they don’t consider parking plans sufficient.
Logan Park, which is a density bonus project, is set to include 15 very-low-income units. Schrader said he will also pay approximately $4.5 million into the city’s Housing Trust Fund to fulfill the city requirement for affordable units.
Commissioners noted that Logan Park is also a Housing Accountability Act project. The state law significantly limits what the city can change as long as a project complies with the zoning code. Schrader said Logan Park is fully code compliant.
“We commissioners here do not have the power to change the state law,” Charles Kahn told the sparse group of attendees who had come to hear about the project. “We’re trying to do our best up here by the community that we all live in and care deeply about. But this is a state mandate.”
Kahn said the city had learned the lesson about the limits of its control the hard way: “Lawsuits come out of that and the lawsuits have been lost in the past by the city of Berkeley.”
Commissioner John Selawsky said he wanted to make a similar point regarding zoning board authority for those in the room and those who might be listening to the meeting from elsewhere.
The zoning board, he said, “has less and less discretion over some of these projects. Our hands, I wouldn’t say are tied. But there’s limited discretion in what ZAB can do on some of these projects. And, quite honestly, sometimes it annoys me.”
Selawsky said he thought an eight-story building was too tall and that it didn’t respect the existing neighborhood.
Commissioner Darrell Owens, who was sitting in for an absent member of the board, took a different position.
“We do need to respect the inhabitants of the existing neighborhood — but I don’t want to give the impression that someone who lives in an eight-story building is any less part of the neighborhood. There’s all types of diversities of housing. And, frankly, you know, 40 years from now, this may be considered a historic structure.”
Read the staff report. See more project materials on the city of Berkeley website.
I am excited by the future where the ZAB has less scope to meddle with proposals where they meet objective zoning rules.
Agreed! The zoning board “has less and less discretion over some of these projects.” That just means they can’t meddle and slow down perfectly conforming development projects, Yo.
~1700 BC: Hammurabi develops the Uniform Code of Laws
~2000 AD: Berkeley ZAB replaces the Uniform Code of Laws with “Community Input,” which means whoever shows up and says the nastiest things the loudest gets to dictate the law.
The architect is Dave Johnson of Johnson Lyman Architects, Walnut Creek. He deserves kudos for a highly articulated facade with recessed areas and different materials, as well as balconies, all of which help to break up a large building that would otherwise look monolithic. Johnson also designed the Stonefire and the Durant. The developers are choosing to provide the minimum affordable (below market rate or BMR) units on-site to get the density bonus and the rest of the inclusionary requirement in fees to the housing trust fund. It seems to work for them. Is it good for the City’s goal of building more affordable units?
What’s interesting about them is they seem to have found the secret formula to build efficiently to 8 stories (as they did with the Stonefire using steel studs, poured floors and some concrete structural elements). Most other builders only go to seven stories (5 wooden stories over a two story concrete podium). That said, they proposed 8 stories for the Varsity and then went down to 6 stories, so it could be a negotiating tactic.
The secret is the 8th floor is right at the 75′ height limit this means there is no accessible roof terrace. So the zoning open space requirement needs to be addressed through other areas. it also means the floors are about 8′ apart which makes the units a little shorter then the standard unit of 9′-10′
The project has 20,990 sq ft of open space, almost 25% more than the 16,960 sq ft required.
Also, the building height reaches 86′ 6″, and the project does include a roof deck.
This, and much more information, is included the linked project documents.
The front facades top out at 82′ and 85′. From the plans, floor-to-floor is 9′-8″. They’re definitely building differently than everyone else. In the Stonefire, IDA designed long span metal decking to span to the metal stud walls and eliminate joists – saving the project $1M and reducing the floor thickness.
Do you know if they are using type II then? or is it still type III over 3 stories of type I? I wonder how the fire department feels about a roof deck at that height. They usually are hesitant to allow them at 75′ so Id be interested to hear what Riggs ha to say. I also wonder how metal decking saved the project 1 M do think this will change with the increase in steal tariffs?
Way beyond my pay grade, but this what the plans say: Type IIIA Apartments – 5 stories (R2 Occupancy) over 3 story Type IA Commercial (M & S1 Occupancy) and Apartments(R2 Occupancy) with 3 Hour horizontal separation per CBC 510.2.
I suspect the city will get about 45 affordable units with the $4.5 million. Though it’s getting tougher to find land (that qualifies for subsidies (LIHTC)).
On what basis do you believe that an affordable unit can be had for $100,000?
An affordable unit costs around $700K to $800K in Berkeley, so if you’re thinking that brand new affordable units will be built with the $4.5 million, that would fund about 6 unit. If you’re thinking that the $4.5 million will be used for subsidizing rent, say from $3,500 down to $1,000 per month, then that $4.5 million could subsidize 45 units for about 3 years, assuming that the administration costs over that time are $500K (the same cost as a meter maid in Berkeley) and the interest earned on the unused portion earns income at the same rate as rent increases.
Perhaps I should have said $150,000. When I said $100,000, I was guessing based on San Mateo County. I since looked up the Alameda County numbers. (Caveat, if we are talking about providing affordable housing for extremely low income people, the costs will be higher.)
You’re right that total development cost might be a lot, but the important thing here is local contribution. If an affordable development costs $600,000 per unit, which is probably about right, Berkeley is going to put in $100,000 per unit, maybe $150,000.
Let’s take an 80 unit development that costs $50 million to build. Right off the bat, the rents, even low income rents, will allow for a $10 million loan. Then the feds will chip in $20-$25 million (in affordable housing tax credits). Alameda County will chip in a few million, and the developer will patch together a bunch of other state or federal funding (AHSC, TOD, HOPWA, etc).
Lets say once you get all those other subsidies in, there is a $10-$12 million gap. Berkeley is going to waive a couple of million in impact fees (park fee, the road fees, etc). Then the city will put in the rest in cash.
In alameda county, the average city cash subsidy was just under $100,000 per unit.
Land costs are higher in berkeley than in Dublin, but land costs only account for 20% of total development costs so it is not going to make a huge difference in total development cost. Also higher land costs will result in more state and federal subsidy, partially offsetting the increase.
There is some good data here:
http://www.acgov.org/board/bos_calendar/documents/DocsAgendaReg_9_18_17/HEALTH%20CARE%20SERVICES/Regular%20Calendar/Affordable_Housing_101_CDA_9_18_17.pdf
From the Measure O Oversight Committee Agenda that you linked to:
“Small Sites projects will include a bank loan. Each HTF project is likely to leverage multiple local, state, and federal sources. The total projected units and price per unit will vary depending on factors including project scope, targeted AMI/population, timing, and leveraged outside funds.”
It’s misleading to omit the bank loan from the local cost per unit. And there are a lot of assumptions about “likely” outside funding sources.
However this is sliced, the public cost of each unit is going to be way above $150K.
Drop the cash out of a helicopter. About as likely to get in the right hands (if there are the right hands) than if the CC dishes it out to their concept of the deserving. Six subsidized units will be built and there will be 5000 “deserving applicants”. It will make the college admission scandal look modest. Once someone gets the golden ticket, they will be there for 30 years.
The non-profit developer needs between $120,000- $200,000 from the Housing Trust Fund in Local contribution to build 1 very low income unit. Here is the link to a recent presentation on Measure O.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Housing/Commissions/Commission_for_Housing_Advisory/2019-04-29%20Measure%20O%20Committee%20PACKET.pdf
Or less, 42 units with a local subsidy of under $4 million.
Why focus on one, relatively small portion of the cost (which is just an estimate with a caveat that the number will need to increase, and a statement that since it won’t be increased the number of units will be fewer thus a higher contribution per unit by the Measure O fund)? These fantasy numbers require multiple other government agencies to contribute substantial sums, far in excess of $120,000 – $200,000 per unit.
How about some data on how many subsidize units have been created during the lifetime of the program (or any program in Berkeley), the number of people currently being subsidized, as well as the number of new units in the past 12 months (not under construction but receiving new certificate of occupancy) and the total cost of those units?
What is the status of all the other funding and what does Berkeley need to do before the funds are fully available to create housing?
Note that some actual Measure O costs for 6-unit small sites is approximately $3 million, or $500,000 per unit). Even at the scale of 42 units, the cost is $18 million, or about $429,000.
1) The staff presentation I put in as a link has information on how many units have been created with the Housing Trust Fund and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Below Market Rate (BMR) units.
2) The 6-unit small sites do not qualify for Low Income Housing tax Credit financing so more local funds would be required for the project, and household income levels served would be higher.
IMO, Stonefire and the Durant are both decent looking buildings.
And what’s great is that ZAB has minimal ability to “help” the appearance here by “suggesting improvements”.
The members of the ZAB and other such types live for the purpose of throwing a wrench into the activities of others, as in their own minds it justifies their very existence on the planet.
Shouldn’t this one story shopping plaza, dubbed the Block of Horror, be landmarked as a legacy of the Mayor Dean era? Who can forget Barnes & Noble, Jamba Juice, Blockbuster Video and High Tech Burrito? Ahhh, for simpler times….
I remember Barnes but totally forgot about Blockbuster…
Ha…. I was just the opposite. I had forgotten that Staples was not the original tenant in the northern corner.
This building will bring new life to this block of Shattuck Ave. that once had a Barnes and Noble bookstore. Let’s hope the trend continues further down the street.
The density, number of units in the downtown is fantastic. It’s what Shattuck should be. Also, what’s great about this project is they intend to keep most if not all the current retail leases. The two phased approach will allow this. This will not be another vacant retail space with nothing in it for years.
We’ll just have to wait and see about your predictions about the retail space.
Ugly building but the proximity to BART, the UC Berkeley campus, and the downtown shops makes the scale appropriate.
I do not share your optimism about the ground floor retail. The ground floor retail in some of the new mixed use buildings in town have remained empty for almost a decade. The few spaces that get businesses to lease them usually fail within a year or two since there is no foot traffic during the day. The only ones that seem to have long term tenants have been converted to offices.
It seems like every day I see a long term ground floor tenant being purposely kicked out with 2X or 3X rent increases. And developers only want formula retail with bigger pockets and guarantees. We need to rethink how smaller non-chains can finance their businesses, and make sure they aren’t getting hit with giant rent increases if we want to see those spaces fill up.
These days only Starbucks and VC-backed restaurants/consumer brands can get into the retail spaces.
Wow! Another exciting 8 story building! And people are protesting that it has too many parking spaces?
What planet do these people live on? Has anyone seen a reduction in traffic recently?
I think Berkeley would be much better off to eliminate all of the criteria for low income units, leed gold or platinum certified, etc., and just let the developer build some really nice apartments with plenty of parking.
These are the slums of the future.
I persist in wondering how many spaces Elrond had in Rivendell.
I assume that there was virtually unlimited free parking in Rivendell, based on the low population density portrayed in the LOTR movies.
The supposed virtue of high density living is one of the most over hyped concepts of the 21st century.
If US tax and regulatory policy favored it, most of the jobs currently disrupting the economy of the Bay Area would be locating in less expensive and less crowded areas.
Most people live in and near cities for the jobs-everything else follows. If stronger economic bases were created in rural areas job seekers would be happy to move there.
In Asia and Africa hundreds of brand new cities are being built from scratch. Maybe it’s time for California to do the same.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/12/12/why-hundreds-of-completely-new-cities-are-being-built-around-the-world/#6d3df67614bf
>”The supposed virtue of high density living is one of the most over hyped concepts of the 21st century.”
That’s a very radical assertion. Is there any actual data to support it?
The Forbes article you link to sure doesn’t. Those new cities, presumably planned to optimize a number of economic and life-style parameters, look like extremely high-density developments.
The proof is in the continued popularity of suburban living-including the Bay Area.
There are some who have no problem with living in 200 unit buildings, and that is fine. But we are radically changing an urban landscape that has been relatively stable since the 1940’s, without investing in a vastly upgraded infrastructure. It is far easier to plan and build a green city from scratch, than to tear up every street in a 150 year old community in an attempt to increase capacity.
>”The proof is in the continued popularity of suburban living-including the Bay Area.”
How does that prove that high-density is “over hyped?” The popularity of suburbs could just as easily be the result of increasing desirability of high-density residential neighborhoods close to the urban core – but the suburb is as close in as the suburbanites can afford. The prices should tell us something about desirability.
>”It is far easier to plan and build a green city from scratch”
Perhaps, but the efficient transportation infrastructure of those new green cities depends on high density. We won’t get that infrastructure in an existing city unless we allow density to increase.
Traffic is too bad for new suburb fringe developments to be considered good places to live.
People live in the suburbs because they are priced out of the city areas (and maybe schools if they have kids). We have underbuilt non suburban housing choices for decades. It is time to catch up.
Says who? Believe it or not, lots of people, even those with adequate money, CHOOSE to live in suburban areas for many reasons besides schools. More peaceful, much more greenery, usually safer, not as crowded, homes with yards for gardens and kids to play, etc.
What is your definition of urban? Do you consider Berkeley urban or suburban? I consider it one of many suburbs of San Francisco.
The new building, designed by [the architect Lyman], is an elf prancing among men.
And you have something better that will provide the same number of housing units on that plot of land? Come one now, let’s see a pic or post a link to your proposed design, AND your cost estimates to build it. You seem to think you can do better, then have at it. Or when it really comes down to it, are you merely throwing another excuse against the wall, hoping it sticks?
If people dont like cities why do they move to them?
To get a job primarily.
That is how the Bay Area got into this mess-by adding 700,000 tech jobs in the last 10 years. If those jobs had located elsewhere-all of those people would have no reason to live here. And I am not suggesting people move to a farming community.I am just saying that this area has not yet solved the environmental, social, and transportation challenges of our current population. Let’s catch up before we add more negative impacts on our fragile ecosystem.
>”That is how the Bay Area got into this mess”
This being one of the most desirable places to live in the U.S., it hardly feels like a “mess.”
It is a mess when you ride BART and can never sit down.
It is a mess when you attempt to travel somewhere in the Bay Area where public transit is limited, and you are stuck in bumper to bumper traffic for an hour.
It is a mess when you try to leave for a vacation, and you are stuck in traffic Sacramento or Santa Rosa. We need 3x more transit options.
Let’s fix it-then revisit more housing.
>”It is a mess when…”
Perhaps we are setting the price points incorrectly.
It’s time to charge a congestion fee for gig taxis in SF, starting with UBER & Lyft, of say $100 per day or $20 per hour. And how about $20 per day for everyone else.
But the real solution is rationing scarce public goods, or sliding scale charges. If you’re rich, pay more, if you’re poor, pay less.
To destroy them, of course.
I don’t know, man, an obsession with parking seems like Shadow taint to me.
I grew up with cars everywhere, have been driving for 50 years, and yes, I need parking spaces when I reach a destination.
I use mass transit where practical, but there is no reason for persons to be forced out of their cars due to some folk’s fantastic visions of cities where cars have disappeared.
To use an appropriate analogy, you have put the cart before the horse, and we will need trllions of dollars of investment in mass transit nationwide to make cars unnecessary.
I just continue to be incredibly amused by a person that calls themself “Rivendell Dweller” being so obsessed with parking. You’re just SO PERFECT as a representative of a certain Berkeley demographic.
Some people are unable to have what they consider to be a full life without having at least one car and the ability to travel wherever and whenever they wish. Automobiles replaced horse drawn carriages over a century ago, but mass transit is still generations away from allowing individuals to visit every type of destination from the grocery store to a National Park. Owning a car is still much cheaper than using ride services if you travel daily.
Hill dwellers like myself depend on cars more than those living in the flatlands.The burden of justifying an anti-car mentality lies with the accusers. If electric self-driving cars become dominant, most of the reasons used to criticize automobiles in the past will no longer be applicable. Cars are here to stay for at least this century.
Look, I fully understand that you think “cars everywhere” and “maximum parking” are an essential element of your worldview, and I’m not debating it.
I just think it’s perfectly emblematic of hypocritical Berkeley romantic-pastoralism that you can think that AND ALSO use the name Rivendell Dweller.
Tolkien HATED cars:
“Though, the spirit of ‘Isengard’, if not of Mordor, is of course always cropping up. The present design of destroying Oxford in order to accommodate motor-cars is a case.”
“The slums of the future”? Have you seen the homeless encampments in city? These are the slums of today that we’re trying to avoid growing by having housing build today for low income people. Geez, I swear!
Logan’s Park will be known as Logan’s run in the future dystopic ageist society.
>”just let the developer build some really nice apartments with plenty of parking.”
Just let the developer decide how much parking is needed to sell the units. It will be interesting to see how much each of those parking spaces will rent for.
Note that the new arrivals will not get residential parking permits, so minimal parking seems like a reasonable strategy to get more housing without too many more cars.
This doesn’t look like Paris, as I was told Berkeley would if we allowed more development.
Maybe the folks you believed were talking about Paris,Texas.
Um … I didn’t believe them.
Good for you! Twenty years from now Berkeley is going to be more like Manhattan, without the charm, than Paris, France or Texas. Glad I’ll be gone.
When is the last time an eight story building was built in Manhattan?
Around 1840-50? The Manhattanization of Berkeley won’t be an issue a 170 years from now when nobody alive will remember downtown Berkeley other than as a concrete tunnel or the city other than as a place housing UC Berkeley staff and students.
If design review rules mandated Paris you would get it. Blame the rules.
Looks good. I wish there were more pics of the project in the story.
Click the “project materials” link at the bottom to view the project plans, etc.
Will there be parking for 209 cars? Berkeley downtown will become the Times Square of Berkeley.
I think you need to update your memory of Time Square from the 1980s to 2020s. It’s now a pedestrian friendly enclave. So yes, in retrospect what you said is right: it will be the Times Square of Berkeley. https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15358234/times-square-snohetta-before-after-photos
I would certainly encourage the developer to have at a minimum one parking space for every unit. Assuming at least one person per bedroom, this building could house well over 300 people.And if a tenant doesn’t need the space, they can easily rent it out for $300+ per month. Cars are not going a way just yet judging from the ever increasing gridlock around here. Where are Uber and Lyft drivers going to park if they decide to rent one of these units?
Ugly as usual!
Yes Ugly! How disappointing for the rest of us, though, that [the company] has built itself a stolid lump of a building, one that encourages the public to treat the architecture the way more and more people are treating everything these days by ignoring it.
Such buildings show one of the real dangers of a plutocracy: it gives the masters our civilization an unusual opportunity to exhibit their barbarous egos, with no sense of restraint or shame.
Go finance your own building if you think you can do a better job of it.
So it appears you are not a fan of the architecture? At least three times in this article alone. Maybe you could help the discussion by suggesting something you like?
Please refrain from suggesting The Louvre. Sagrada Familia. TransAmerica Pyramid. And the Golden Gate Bridge
U.G.L.Y. Just for the record, I prefer the term “maladjusted in appearance”.
Ever consider that those who have had to suffer with substandard housing, or no personal housing whatsoever, may not agree with your view of aesthetics? Nobody is forcing you to live there, so why should you even care in the first place?
Because at one time Berkeley was a leader in city design. This craze to throw up the cheapest buildings possible will end, but the damage will endure.
One thing that building is not is cheap…
Given the conflicting desires of the usual ZABatistas, it’s nether cheap nor expensive enough to meet their approval.
Not saying I disagree with you but in a climate like Berkeley where construction projects take a decade to build and can be blocked or slowed for virtually any reason…what do you expect builders to do except copy bland and boring designs which have been approved before?
This comment isn’t directed at you or Doc, but there are certain other people in this discussion who seem to want it both ways – every building has to be the next architectural marvel with the designers “funking it up” but at the same time “affordable”, with their target audience for affordability often being people who are so lacking in marketable job skills that they would be far better off relocating to some less expensive part of the state (or country) where they could actually afford the available housing stock. Seems certain people will only be content with the housing equivalent a cross between a Mercedes SUV and a Burning Man “art car” but at the price point of a 15-year-old Ford Taurus.
Maybe because we’ll still be forced to *look* at this banal monstrosity?
And I suppose vacant lots full of homeless derelicts and their mangy tents, broken bicycle parts, and trash/urine/feces are more your aesthetic preference? Lefties scream about the lack of housing in Berkeley but concoct every idiotic reason under the sun to block it: “It looks ugly. Only techies will live there. It blocks the light for my cucumber patch!” Face it, you people won’t be happy until you turn Berkeley into one huge favela, and then you will blame Trump/capitalism/tech workers for the fact that rents are through the roof because the demand for housing far exceeds the supply.
Im very much pro housing but I think the case can be made that these buildings arnt very attractive and it doesnt cost anything to learn proportion and balance in design. Maybe not worth holding housing up until Architects learn this but still people should encourage a higher standard for the way our cities are built. The other thing we should be pushing for is a higher quality of building, while I know you feel we need housing now at any cost, allowing developers to cut comers to build cheaply only leads to balconies falling and buildings being torn down and moved into landfills.
Do you really think homeless people from the camps you describe are gonna live in this building? Seems very unlikely. Could be that developers and other supporters of such projects wish to give the impression to facilitate its approval, and of course the ineffectual city council members would jump on that bandwagon too.
“Logan Park”, indeed. Very parklike.
God bless the Housing Accountability Act.
Yes and Gold bless those in SacTown trying to push SB50 down our throats. LA already has a version of SB50, JJJ and I’m really tired of the term “housing crisis” being used to justify allowing developers to create monster complexes that just ruin the areas around them. Too many people are riding that term to big payouts, happily helped along by politicians who have sold their souls for campaign contributions.
IIRC you seem to be one of those complaining about the high cost of rentals around here. Please tell us how you plan on reducing such costs when you and your anti-developer fellow travelers find every excuse under the sun to shoot down the only type of higher density housing that can bring enough supply to the market to bring prices down.
I am tired of hearing the term “housing crisis” – and I don’t care that there is really a housing crisis.
Wake me up when 3/2 Craftsman bungalows cost $190,000 again.
Spit take. Actually, the 2/1 bungalow at $200k has always been my baseline (90’s era pricing). I’m curious to see how far they fall this round. My guess would be no lower than half a million (more likely in the $600k range).
No way. With the average salary at the tech giants in excess of $200,000 per year, that can support a home price of close to $1,000,000. Have you driven around the Bay Area? The weather is great almost everywhere, but the built environment sucks in most of it.
Wake me up when you can get a three course meal for a nickel again.
$4.5 Million into the Housing Trust Fund will allow the non-profit developer to build 22-38 very low and low income units- about $120,000 to $200,000 per unit is needed from the local jurisdiction. They can leverage these local funds with Low Income Housing Tax Credits and other state and federal grant programs. If they have a Section 8 or Measure P funds they can serve extremely low income homeless and seniors and veterans. And these low income units will come with resident services geared toward their needs such as food distribution, social service referrals, on site counseling and medical care, after school programs and the like. See the link to the Staff presentation on Measure O if you want to understand a bit more about affordable housing in Berkeley.
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Housing/Commissions/Commission_for_Housing_Advisory/2019-04-29%20Measure%20O%20Committee%20PACKET.pdf
I am curious as to how this will work out financially for the developer/landlord. I am also curious as to how the this will evolve socially with the the opposing mix of financially stable and “extremely low-income” renters in close proximity.
Is ms. Clarke still on ZAB? If so, is her mind already made up?
Thanks Teresa, this is helpful…vs opinions regarding ugly vs not ugly. And other potshots from the bleacher seats
Didn’t Gregory, commenting on the story of the guy shot in District 2, complain about the district having “more than its fair share of subsidized housing with its attendant problems…” As a City haven’t we provided much more that our proportionate share of low income or subsidized housing? (Data would be helpful.) Also, if this housing brings more than our share of “attendant problems,” maybe we should continue to focus on providing this housing in Stockton or other locations where we can build two units for every one unit built in Berkeley.
Such a unique design. I’m sure it will be featured in Berkeley architectural highlight tours 50 years from now, assuming it hasn’t fallen over.
design something unique –> NIMBYs complain that it “doesn’t match” our historic neighborhoods
design something standard –> NIMBYs complain that it isn’t stylish and unique
The pattern is that NIMBYs complain
Fewer parking spaces, yet the young people most inclined to have the income to live in these places aren’t going to take public transportation, they’re going to use ride share services, which increase traffic. They lower the need for parking spaces, but they make more bottlenecks on our streets. The few low income units probably have cars, which will need spaces.
A fact that the average YIMBY always neglects to mention….
Buildings these days are most often planned to be demolished in 30 years.
That’s still 30 years for some people to have housing, isn’t it?
Some proof, please.
I think we’ve got at least half a decade more to determine if some early Patrick Kennedy era buildings withstand the test of time. I ain’t gonna lie; I do have some concerns about water intrusion and engineered lumber…
Ever hear of Library Gardens?
nothing lasts forever
The new development that really disturbs me is the one taking shape at the site of the Touchless Car Wash. SARCASM ON I’ve been going there for forty years. Where will I get my car detailed if they construct apartments here. Why do these developers continue to destroy the fabric of our community? SARCASM OFF
My dirty, unwashed car… oh the humanity!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4079a5f406ad228e126eb8c00081c185d341e619f90782ce196b36a97224cb27.jpg
That’s a legitimate concern clean cars actually reduce traffic accidents. Proven fact, it’s about seeing through the windshield. Besides where will all the tech bros get their cars washed when returning from burning man? Oh wait they can’t drive their Teslas to burning man haha!
Looks like a great project!! Large buildings with mixed use makes for a nice city. These one story commercial buildings along university San Pablo and Shattuck are a true waste of space.
The only downside is the parking. THIS IS NOT ENOUGH PARKING!!!! It might not seem like it but most people still own a car and enjoy going places outside of BART. Try to bring your kids to school without a car as working parents. Or older people who like to keep a radius larger than a few blocks. good luck with that. Not everyone is a 20something hippster.
It is cray to not have at least one parking spot of each new unit. How short sided!! Considering that many units will have numerous roommates it is safe to assume that at least one person of will own a car in such a unit.
But what should I expect foresight and considering others who dont follow the Berkeley mainstream yeah well…..
Interesting. The sample room layouts are showing two people per room with two study desks.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/808b30bcde8f0ec37b6f1ae18f34be4b34f6d557da714b9c9741c28da0a8dbec.jpg
Enough with the grand balconies etc. People no longer have books or records, and most take out food. The time is NOW for small units at affordable prices, with modest secure lobbies with mail boxes and Amazon drop offs.
Every building does not need a 30′ high glassed in lobby. THIS is the approach that will solve the housing crisis. More units x less rent = same rent as fewer units x higher rent.
This project should be double the size given its downtown location and need for student housing.
Was there *any* in-depth discussion of mandatory earthquake-proofing ‘base isolation’ in this or _any_ of the other buildings in progress down there. Should be mandatory being less than 1/2 km from the very deadly Hayward Fault. This article covers this construction and quake reduction process in depth: NY Times | https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/03/us/earthquake-preparedness-usa-japan.html