1,000 new apartments planned for downtown Berkeley

Natasha xx, a leasing agent for The Berkeley Plaza at 2055 Center Street, shows a visitor the main living area of one of the penthouse apartments, which rent for $6,300 a month. Photo: Frances Dinkelspiel

Natasha Moses, a property manager for Berkeley Central at 2055 Center Street, shows a visitor the main living area of one of the penthouse apartments, which rent for $6,300 a month. Photo: Frances Dinkelspiel

The view from the L-shaped deck off the penthouse apartment at 2055 Center St. is spectacular. One side looks west toward San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge. Another side offers a sweeping vista of Berkeley’s downtown and hills.

For $6,300 a month, the amenities ought to be top-of-the-line, and at the recently opened Berkeley Central — formerly known as the Arpeggio Building — they are. From Bosch appliances and stainless steel designer lights to the wood floor (dark or light, depending on the unit), the six penthouse units on the ninth floor promise an urbane, urban lifestyle.

The building, which the developer CityView acquired in a fire sale in July 2012 for $60 million, has been open for about seven weeks, and about 35% of its 143 units have been leased, according to Natasha Moses, a property manager for Riverstone Residential Group, the leasing agent.

Berkeley Central is emphasizing its proximity to BART and downtown cultural amenities in its marketing materials. Photo: Frances Dinkelspiel

Berkeley Central is emphasizing its proximity to BART and downtown cultural amenities in its marketing materials. Photo: Frances Dinkelspiel

With the rent for a one-bedroom starting at $2,500 and a two-bedroom at $3,900, the apartments at Berkeley Central are being marketed mostly to empty-nesters and well-paid professionals. Advertising materials for the complex highlight the building’s walkability score (a perfect 100), its proximity to trendy restaurants such as Comal and Gather, performance spaces like Berkeley Rep, Aurora and Freight & Salvage, and the fact it is 226 steps to BART.

“All of that is desirable,” said Moses.

Five years after Lehman Brothers collapsed, triggering a global economic meltdown that made banks wary to lend and developers wary to build, the apartment market is heating up. Nowhere is that easier to see than in Berkeley, where developers are proposing to build more than 1,000 units over the next few years in the downtown core and surrounding neighborhoods. If the city allows the projects to go forward, it could bring thousands of new residents and dozens of new retail spaces downtown, potentially transforming the area.

“It’s transformational for a number of reasons,” said John Caner, the director of the Downtown Berkeley Association, a business group that represents 187 property owners and 850 merchant and business tenants. “One is the sheer number of residents it will bring downtown, but also for the mix of residents it will bring. For the first time, we are seeing projects that are not just serving the student market. I think that’s really important.”

City Councilman Jesse Arreguín, whose district includes downtown, said the influx of new housing is a positive step, although he thinks the developments need to be closely monitored to make sure they fit into the scale of  surrounding neighborhoods.

“I think it’s very exciting there is so much development happening in the downtown,” he said. “It’s been so many years in which the real estate market has been in decline, and there really haven’t been a lot of new projects happening.”

Spillover from San Francisco

One reason for the explosion in building permit applications is the spillover effect from San Francisco’s surging tech economy. Companies like Twitter, Yammer, Salesforce.com, Autodesk and others are growing rapidly and their workforces need places to live. Competition for apartments in San Francisco is intense, so many workers are looking across the bay for a place to live.

“The number one investment region of the country… is the San Francisco Bay Area because of the incredibly robust job market fueled by the tech sector on the Peninsula,” said Mark Rhoades, whose Rhoades Planning Group is advocating for two of the biggest projects proposed for Berkeley: Acheson Commons and The Residences at Berkeley Plaza. “And when the tech sector pushes into San Francisco and starts creating an enormous amount of demand, the bleed-off effect of that is a push into Oakland and Berkeley, which are just a few BART stops away. That changes the economics with regard to apartment financing. With the commensurate increase in rents, the lending institutions and equity investors have more confidence in the market and are willing to spend their money on new development.”

Another factor contributing to the increased interest in building new housing is Berkeley’s Downtown Plan, which was adopted by the City Council in March 2012. It sets out guidelines for areas that can take increased density, specifically along a stretch of Shattuck Avenue, and it will allow for the construction of up to three 180-foot buildings and four 120-foot buildings. (Two of those are reserved for the University of California.)

“Things are improving a little bit in the economy and the new Downtown Plan has sent a signal to people that the city is really interested in providing more housing downtown,” said Arreguín.

Officials from Hill Street Realty, the Los Angeles-based developer that purchased the former Hinks Department store building for $20 million in November and plans to build a 17-story, 180-foot tall residential tower called The Residences at Berkeley Plaza, cited the Downtown Plan as one reason the group made an investment in Berkeley. The plan provides some certainty in a town long known for its difficult development climate.

Mike Towber and his wife Natalie Richardson are typical of the types of professionals who are moving into downtown Berkeley apartments. When the couple moved from London in late 2012, they stayed with friends in North Berkeley. Both of them have jobs in San Francisco — Towber is in high tech and Richardson is a fashion designer — so they considered moving there. But they eventually decided against it.

“For someone who is not familiar with San Francisco, it is such an intimidating prospect to look in the city and try to find something that feels affordable,” said Towber. “It is hard to stomach the amount of rent people are asking for. Berkeley was a lot more palatable and we felt we would get a lot more and be a lot more comfortable.”

Berkeley Central has a sign in its rental office pointing out nearby restaurants and other attractions.

Berkeley Central has a sign in its rental office pointing out nearby restaurants and other attractions.

The couple, who are in their early 30s, also wanted an easy commute and ended up renting a two-bedroom apartment on the eighth floor of the existing Berkeley Plaza, just a block from BART. The view of the Golden Gate Bridge, Oakland harbor and downtown Oakland, is “gorgeous,” said Towber. A number of other couples on their floor are just like them — transplants from London, New York and other cities, he said.

“We have certainly been enjoying all the culture downtown, including Berkeley Rep,” said Towber. “That has been very appealing.”

Housing needs, rising rents

But the bubbling tech economy and its spillover effects have meant that rents are going up, making it more difficult for students to afford an education at UC Berkeley. One Cal student complained at a recent Chamber of Commerce meeting  that she had been priced out of downtown because her rent at Library Gardens on Kittredge Street had increased by $500 a month.

Rents on one-bedroom apartments in Berkeley have been steadily rising since the end of 2010, going from an average of $1,789 in the fourth quarter of 2010 to $2,111 in the fourth quarter of 2012 — a 11.2% increase, according to RealFacts, a real estate data analysis group based in Mill Valley. Rents for two-bedroom, two-bath apartments went up 17.7% in that period, from an average of $2,591 to $2,917.

The construction of 1,000 new units should help with rents since it will put more units on the market and relieve some of the pressure, said Rhoades. Most of the proposed rentals are designed for students, although about at least 370 units will be relatively large and more suitable for professionals. RealFacts reported that Berkeley’s rental occupancy rate was around 97% until late 2012 when Berkeley Central came on the market with 143 available units. That skewed the numbers and dropped the city’s occupancy rate to 86%.

The Association of of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined in the late 2000s that Berkeley should set a goal of constructing 2,431 housing units to deliver its fair share of the region’s housing. Since 2007, Berkeley has issued permits for 860 building units, according to Jordan Harrison, an associate planner for the city. (The proposed projects are not included in this count.)

Many of the new developments will contain some affordable housing. Berkeley law mandates that 10% of all units be affordable, and some of the developers are asking to add an extra story to their structures in exchange for building more below-market rate units. As an alternative, developers can pay an in-lieu fee of $28,000 per affordable unit to Berkeley’s Housing Trust Fund. Developers have not been rushing to do that, and the City Council will consider in a few weeks whether to offer a discount for developers who contribute to the Housing Trust Fund over the next two years. That way, Berkeley could build up a reservoir of money to finance more affordable housing.

As the new projects move forward, city officials need to be aware of their impact on existing neighborhoods, said Arreguín. While high density is appropriate for Shattuck Avenue, for instance, it might not work everywhere, he said. He mentioned a proposed apartment complex, The Durant, which started out as a six-story structure on Durant connected to a four-story structure on Channing Way. Now the developers want to make it eight stories on Durant and neighbors fear that is too big, he said.

“We need to be more sensitive to the existing scale and character of the neighborhoods,” said Arreguín. “That is going to be a challenge, I think. How do we balance housing with the need to build projects that really fit into the urban environment?”

“Local folks have first and last names, not LLCs and Incs”

Very few new apartment buildings had been constructed in Berkeley for decades until the early 1990s when developers like Patrick Kennedy’s Panoramic Interests started construction on a number of projects. Kennedy eventually built or renovated around 400 units in the downtown area, including the Gaia building on Allston Way and the Fine Arts Building on Shattuck. In 2004, Kennedy sold seven apartment buildings to Equity Residential, a real estate investment trust controlled by Chicago developer Sam Zell. Since then, real estate investment trusts (REITs) have played an increasingly large role in Berkeley.

Equity’s presence in Berkeley is about to get larger: its 205-unit Acheson Commons project on University Avenue is scheduled to come before the City Council in March for final approval. And Equity is in the middle of acquiring Archstone, another REIT, for $6.5 billion. When that merger is finalized, Equity will likely gain possession of a 99-unit project currently under construction at 651 Addison Street in West Berkeley.

A regional REIT, Essex Properties, built the 171-unit 4th and U apartment complex on Fourth Street. Hill Street Properties, which hopes to build the tower on Shattuck, is not a REIT but has hundreds of millions in capital to spend.

REITs have the advantage of being able to better weather the ups and downs of the economy than small investors. When the market dropped in 2008, a number of small builders had to sell their entitled Berkeley projects for pennies on the dollar to so-called “vulture funds,” said Rhoades. In contrast, Equity, which is backed by many retirement funds, provides its own financing and can forge ahead with projects when banks are not lending, he said. They also can pay more for land than smaller developers, he said.

Chris Hudson, whose Hudson McDonald built the New Californian apartments on University and Martin Luther King (commonly known as the Trader Joe’s apartments), lamented the rise of REITS because they are less involved with local communities, he said. REITs often use national architects and don’t necessarily hire local contractors. Hudson said 50% of the money spent on the New Californian apartments was spent on Berkeley architects and contractors and 75% was spent in the Bay Area. In addition, many local developers sit on the boards of non-profits like Berkeley Rep and the Berkeley Public Education Fund.

“I think when you have local folks you get a little bit better local involvement,” said Hudson. “The people I actually work with have first names and last names, not LLCs and Incs.”

One clue to the intense competition between REITS and local developers came at a Dec. 20 meeting of the Zoning Adjustments Board when it considered the application of Equity Residential’s Acheson Commons project. Rhoades, who is handling the entitlement process for the REIT, had been working with city staff for months on refining the design and application. Five hours before the ZAB meeting, Hudson sent a letter to planning officials bringing up some additional concerns. It was an attempt to “stall the project,” said Rhoades. While neighborhood groups opposed to a project often use that tactic, that was the first time Rhoades saw one developer use it against another developer. ZAB approved Acheson Commons project that night.

Avi Nevo, who has developed numerous projects in Berkeley the last 17 years, is amused that REITS are setting their sights on Berkeley. “I was working here before it became so fashionable,” he said. “Now everybody from all over the country is coming here.”

Nevo thinks there is still plenty of opportunity for the smaller developer. He is getting ready to rent out apartments at Telegraph Gardens, a complex across the street from Whole Foods at the intersection with Ashby, and has a project on Addison under review. The more that is built in Berkeley, the more demand there will be, he said,

“The 1,000 units are not going to saturate the market,” said Nevo. “There is a lot of demand,” from UC Berkeley students, professionals, and high tech workers.

“I think it will change the whole landscape of downtown Berkeley,” said Nevo. “Restaurants now close at 9:30. With all these new tenants, a lot of places will come along. The restaurants and pubs will stay open longer. A lot of good things will be happening.”

Here are summaries of various projects recently completed, planned, or under construction in the downtown core and nearby. Collectively, they will create 1,220 units of housing, although about 220 of them are outside the downtown core. (The number does not include the 143 units already on the market at Berkeley Central.) The projects will also create 60,000 square feet of retail space.

Please note that some of these projects are in the preliminary phases and will change as the architects get new ideas and Berkeley’s planning bodies — the Planning Department, Design Review Board, Zoning Adjustments Board, neighborhood groups, etc. give input into the design.

Acheson Commons: 1979-1987 Shattuck Ave.

A rendering of the Acheson Commons project at University Avenue and Shattuck Avenue.

A rendering of the Acheson Commons project at University Avenue and Shattuck Avenue.

After three years of planning, meeting, and community discussion, Equity Residential’s Acheson Commons is expected to be brought before the City Council for final approval sometime in March. This enormous project incorporates four historic structures and is loosely bordered by University Avenue, Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley Way, and Walnut Avenue. The developer will retain the historic facades of the 1921 McFarlane Building, the 1911 Krishna Copy Center, the 1908 Acheson’s Physician’s Building, and the 1915 S.J. Sills & Co. Grocery and Hardware building (now housing Ace Hardware). Equity will build 205 residential units designed for students in the block. There will be 21 affordable housing units. Kirk Peterson is the architect.

The Residences at Berkeley Plaza: 2211 Harold Way

A rendering of the Residences at Berkeley Plaza as seen from Shattuck Avenue. Courtesy of HSR Berkeley Investments

A rendering of the Residences at Berkeley Plaza as seen from Shattuck Avenue. Courtesy of HSR Berkeley Investments

A Los Angeles-based real estate group has applied to build a 17-story, 355-unit tower that would be linked to the historic Hinks Department Store building on Shattuck Avenue. HSR Berkeley Investments, a spin off of Hill Street Realty, paid $20 million in November for the structure that now holds The Shattuck Cinemas, Habitot Children’s Museum, and a number of small retailers like Starbucks. The developer plans to market the apartments, called The Residences at Berkeley Way, to professional high tech workers, although 10% of the units will be set aside as affordable housing. The developer promises to transform the east side of Harold Way, which is now mostly a blank wall, into a thriving retail scene. Guests staying at the Hotel Shattuck Plaza, with a different owner, would be able to use the new structure’s parking garage and athletic facilities. Preservationists and movie lovers have already expressed concern that the developer does not plan to keep the movie theaters. MVEI Architecture is doing the design.

Lion’s Hall: 2300 Bancroft Ave.

Construction next to Berkeley City Club 1/2 1.28.13 Photo: Tracey Taylor

Construction is under way next to Berkeley City Club for Lion’s Hall, a private dormitory for 164 students. Photo: Tracey Taylor

St. Mark’s Episcopal Church is building a 2,800 square foot Lion’s Hall building and a four-story 44-unit building over a 59-space parking garage on an L-shaped parcel that fronts Bancroft, Dana Street and Durant Avenue. The building will be a private dormitory for 164 students. They would each rent a small bedroom built around a common area. The rooms will rent for around $1,100 a month, according to Chris Hudson, whose firm Hudson McDonald is developing the project with the church.

2107 Dwight Way

A rendering of the proposed apartment complex at 2107 Dwight Way.

A rendering of the proposed apartment complex at 2107 Dwight Way

Menlo Management Company wants to build a six-story building with 99 rental units, ground floor retail, and 73 parking spaces at the intersection of Dwight Way and Shattuck Avenue. The developer has asked for a density bonus to add the sixth story in exchange for providing affordable housing. The would allow the structure to be 65 feet high rather than 60 feet high.

The Garden Village Project: 2201 Dwight Way

A rendering for the 18 buildings proposed for 2201 Dwight Way.

A rendering for the 18 buildings proposed for 2201 Dwight Way

Anthony Levandowski, one of the leaders in Google’s driverless car program, has hired architect Stanley Saitowiz to design a multi-building complex called The Garden Village Project. The plan is to spread 84 units over 18 separate three- and five-story buildings linked by paths, outdoor walkways, and stairs. There would be 21 two-bedroom units of about 660 square feet and 39 four-bedroom units of 960 square feet. If the developer gets a density bonus, he would bump that number to 84 units. The structures would sit over an underground parking garage.

The Durant: 2024 Durant Ave. and 2025 Channing Way

A rendering of The Durant, which will straddle from Durant to Channing Way.

A rendering of The Durant, which will straddle from Durant to Channing Way

The Austin Group wants to build a 96-unit building that has an eight-story section on Durant and a four-story structure connected to it with an entrance on Channing Way. The new building would be next door to the Stuart Pratt Manor senior center and the Berkeley High Neighborhood Association has expressed concern that the structure is too tall and out of character for the neighborhood. Residents (presumably students) would be able to look into into the seniors’ apartments from the proposed roof top garden and balconies, affecting their privacy, according to some neighbors. The group is asking the developer to change the design to make it more compatible with the neighborhood. The architects are Johnson Lyman.

The Fidelity: 2321 Shattuck Ave.

A rendering of The Fidelity

A rendering of The Fidelity

Prasad Lakireddy is building a five-story, 15 unit building with ground retail in between his Namaste Restaurant (housed in the historic Fidelity Bank building) and Mechanics Bank on Shattuck. The apartments will mostly be large two-bedroom units from 850 to 1,300 square feet, according to Jim Novosel, the architect. They will be “bigger than the typical student apartment in the downtown” he said. Construction has already started and the building should be completed by the spring of 2014,

1931-1935 Addison St.

Preliminary rendering for 1931-1935 Addision.

Preliminary rendering for 1931-1935 Addision.

Developer Avi Nevo wants to build a 69-unit building with ground floor retail and 15 parking spaces at Addison near Milvia. Since it is a half block from the Arts District, he wants to include some sort of art space on the ground floor, he said.

Other projects in progress outside the downtown core:

2701 Shattuck Ave. (at Derby)

A rendering of 2701 Shattuck Avenue by Todd Jersey Architects

A rendering of 2701 Shattuck Avenue by Todd Jersey Architects

The Urban Core Development Corporation wants to construct a 69-unit building with 42 parking spaces and 7,000 square feet of retail space at Shattuck Avenue between Derby and Ward. There would be 63 studio apartments of 275 square feet and six one-bedroom apartments of 440 square feet. Todd Jersey is the architect.

Parker Place – 2658 and 2660 Shattuck Avenue

A rendering of the proposed 155-unit Parker Place development.

A rendering of the proposed 155-unit Parker Place development

CityCentric won approval in Jan. 2012 to construct a 155-unit building at the intersection of Shattuck and Parker, the current home of Berkeley Honda. The project calls for two five-story mixed-use buildings at 2658 and 2660 Shattuck (both sides of Parker on Shattuck) and a three-story residential building at 2037 Parker. In addition to the 155 dwelling units, there is nearly 23,000 sq ft of commercial space on the ground floor. Patti Dacey, a Berkeley planning commissioner, and other neighbors, have filed a lawsuit challenging the project.

Telegraph Gardens

A rendering of Telegraph Gardens at the intersection of Telegraph and Ashby,

A rendering of Telegraph Gardens at the intersection of Telegraph and Ashby,

This five-story, 38-unit building on the corner of Telegraph and Ashby is nearly complete and was opened up for rentals on Feb. 1. All the units are two-bedroom, two-bath apartments ranging from 800 to 1,100 square feet.

First high rise in 40 years proposed for downtown Berkeley [12.21.12]
Council sets fee for affordable housing mitigation [10.18.12]
New mixed-use building going up at Telegraph and Ashby [09.12.12]
Acheson Commons: Large change for downtown [04.12.12]
Parker Place wins council approval [01.18.12]

Berkeleyside publishes many articles every day. To see all our stories in chronological order, and read ones you may have missed, check out All the News.

Print Friendly
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comments policy »
  • Mrdrew3782

    I am glad to see so much new development in Berkeley. Some of the architecture being presented looks very fresh and will make the landscape much more vibrant. I especially like the Garden Village Project and Telegraph Gardens. With that said Acheson Commons is a bit disappointing. For what will be one of the most visible buildings in the city it’s very bland. It looks like every other apartment building that’s been built recently. It would have been nice to have something a bit more edgy. Hopefully though it will look better than it appears in that sketch. As for Berkeley Plaza It should not exist if it means removing Shattuck Cinemas.

  • dop

    Good for Berkeley. The more high density housing the better (in my opinion). The Bay Area is in the midst of a housing crisis, and anything to increase housing supply is a good thing.

  • The Sharkey

    I’m glad to see so much activity in Berkeley, but $6,500 a month?!?
    At that price it’d be cheaper to buy a house.

  • Mfox327

    Yes, the activity is indeed welcome. Re: $6,500/month, that’s just for the penthouses, most units in the building are not that expensive. Also, I don’t think the building is trying to attract the type person who wants to be tied down with the responsibilities of home ownership…

  • Charles_Siegel

    It is interesting to see the wide range of architecture that is being designed today, as shown in these pictures. I would range them from comfortable to weird, with Acheson Commons and Telegraph Gardens at the comfortable end of the spectrum and with Parker Place and Garden Village at the weird end of the spectrum.

    Notice that both Parker Place and Garden Village are basically just boxes, with some weird feature added to make them less boring – the strange orange indentation at Parker Place and the out-of-alignment windows at Garden Village.

    I have to disagree with mrdrew’s comment that Acheson Commons is not “edgy” enough. I don’t see why anyone would want to live in an edgy building, rather than in attractive, comfortable building – just as I don’t see why anyone would want to eat edgy food rather than tasty, healthy food. I guess some people are bored enough that they do look for “edgy” food; anything for a new sensation. When did “edgy” become a compliment, anyway?

    Finally, I am amused by the claim that there is a great view from Berkeley Central. One of the great things about that view is that you don’t have to look at the ugly Berkeley Central building.

    I have supported more housing downtown for decades, but the housing does not have to be as ugly as Berkeley Central or as the sterile glass boxes proposed for Berkeley Plaza.

  • Charles_Siegel

    “Acheson Commons …looks like every
    other apartment building that’s been built recently.”

    I disagree. This sort of traditional design is rare, because the architectural establishment frowns on it.

    Many recent apartment buildings try to achieve this sort of traditional massing, but very few have the traditional detailing that you find on Acheson Commons.

  • The Sharkey

    Good point. If you’re only going to be someplace for a couple years, renting would still make more sense even at that price since you wouldn’t have to deal with closing costs, reselling, etc.

  • The Sharkey

    I agree. I think The Durant is probably the most generic modern apartment building on the list. It looks like a zillion other buildings throughout the bay area.

  • 3rdGenBerkeleyan

    Even though we voted against making downtown more dense…I think our leaders are dense, another case of city council doing what they want regardless of the wishes of the people.

  • Mrdrew3782

    The style of Acheson Commons reminds me too much of the Gaia building on Allston or the building the Trader Joes is housed in on University. Nothing wrong with them just nothing new or different.

  • The Sharkey

    I think the your criticism of Berkeley Central/The Building Formerly Known As Arpeggio is a little harsher than it needs to be. While it’s certainly not going to win any beauty contests, it’s much less ugly than the Berkeley Community College building on the same block, or the parking lot it faces.

    Garden Village has all the visual cues of being some kind of experimental modular housing complex from the 1960s. It looks like you took the cubes from something like Habitat 67 and then stacked them all in neat little piles instead of letting them spread out. The uniformity of height of the 16 buildings and their completely unadorned roofs makes it look like someone chopped the top off with a laser.

  • Mrdrew3782

    A few days ago on Berkelyside there was an article on the cities plans to revitalize downtown. One of the proposals was to change the layout of Shattuck. I believe they wanted to reorient the streets to be more pedestrian friendly and slow vehicle traffic down. With all these developments all around the same area you have to wonder if this isn’t going to make traffic much worse for cars.

  • Gus

    I’m afraid that you’re mistaken. In 2010, the Downtown Area Plan passed with over 64% approval. Berkeley voters have enthusiastically endorsed a denser downtown.

  • PragmaticProgressive

    Frances, thank you for this fascinatingly detailed article. It’s a great piece of research and writing (and photography).

  • Gus

    I sure hope so. There are way too many cars in Berkeley. Making more difficult to drive here would be a good plan.

  • Gus

    Bear in mind that none of these units are subject to Berkeley’s Rent Control Ordinance.

  • Charles_Siegel

    I see what you mean. I thought you were talking generally about other apartment buildings built recently, but you were talking about other apartment buildings built recently in Berkeley.

    Gaia Building and Trader Joes were both designed by Kirk Peterson, the same architect as Acheson Commons. That is why they all have similar traditional detailing. I think we are lucky to have this architect working in Berkeley.

    But look at the other pictures above, and you will see that we also have lots of new buildings without traditional detailing.

  • Charles_Siegel

    “While it’s certainly not going to win any beauty contests, it’s much
    less ugly than the Berkeley Community College building on the same block”

    I agree completely. That block is a sad missed opportunity. It could have been much more attractive if those two recent buildings had been designed differently.

  • Mrdrew3782

    I did not know it was the same architect. I guess that means my eyes weren’t playing tricks on me. I would like to see Kava Massih design a new building for downtown Berkeley.

  • Charles_Siegel

    Our tastes are very different. For my take on Kava Massih, see http://preservenet.blogspot.com/2012_02_01_archive.html

  • HaHa

    And surely those luxury penthouse people will never drive cars…

  • Mrdrew3782

    oh dear. I agree those two buildings are awful but two misses doesn’t negate the other great designs they have done. In particular the Berkeley Bowl West and Pyramid Brewery have been great additions to the landscape.

  • The Sharkey

    Making it more difficult to drive in Berkeley will just push more shoppers out of Berkeley.

  • Charles_Siegel

    Don’t get me started on Berkeley Bowl. Sharkey gets angry at me when talk about it.

  • Charles_Siegel

    Actually, the way that Shattuck currently crosses University creates delays for northbound traffic. Straightening out the intersection should speed up northbound traffic and should not increase congestion – at least, not significantly.

  • Fran Haselsteiner

    On my state salary I could not afford a one-bedroom at the Central.

  • The Sharkey

    Ha ha ha! :-)

    But I agree with you about it being terrible from a pedestrian standpoint. The side of the building facing Heinz is awful.

  • Chris J

    Yes, lots of housing for people with lots of money, it seems.

  • Terry94705

    Thanks for this article, which I find more than a little frightening. If all of these projects do indeed go ahead, Berkeley will become “Block City.” Areas of Emeryville already have this appearance.

  • Sasha

    So I’m very curious will this new housing push out all the affordable housing in downtown? I live in library gardens we are paying something like 2300$ a month for a shitty 2 bedroom on the 4th floor. they want to raise our rent on our next lease to 2692$/mo! Thats outrageous! i think back in 2011 i was paying 2126$/mo! Where is the affordable housing for students at? because it looks like these developers are coming in and making Downtown a place for people working in SF which is stupid! I’m so irritated its so expensive to live in this city. it seems like there is no place that is safe, affordable and has easy access to lots of bus lines and a BART station within walking distance. Also i was told by the leasing office people at Library gardens and they told me that everything in downtown berkeley is selling at market price for 2692$/mo so why would i stay in shitty library gardens when i could move to the gaia which is newer and closer to BART?

  • Gus

    I suppose such an effect is theoretically possible, but I am certain you have no evidence whatsoever to back up such an assertion.

    Regardless, I am one who feels that promoting retail activity is somewhat less important than not destroying the planet. So you and I will have to just agree to disagree on that one.

  • RFScalf

    I’ve always wondered about rents like that. Indeed, who would pay that much in rent and get no equity from it? Mystifies me. Yet ‘luxury’ apartments are all over and seem to fill. Don’t get it.

  • PragmaticProgressive

    Not by a long shot.

  • AnthonySanchez

    High rents is mostly, but not entirely, derived from a nexus of supply and demand. Logically, if there is more supply, rents would go down. And while it is true that supply has not kept up to regional demand to an extent, that does not fully explain why rents have continued to go up despite a slew of new units over the last decade.

    At risk of oversimplifying the issue, it’s the type of unit being developed and marketed. The new supply is not so much a response to existing, local demand, but rather out-of-town demand that is more lucrative. Simply put, there’s new supply, but it does little to alleviate existing demand within Berkeley.

    I, for one, think we need more development and housing, particularly in the Downtown, if we’re going to accomplish many goals, like sustainability, economic vitality, and affordability. But I cannot help be wary of the manner we’re looking to change our community: import certain demographics with high incomes.

    I recognize the actors involved are simply responding to what the market incentivizes, but I cannot help but resent the fact we’re told we need to build more housing if we’re going to make housing affordable and yet we get 1 bedroom’s for $2500. Even at $60,000 a year, that half of your income. We cannot usher in prosperity through gentrification alone.

    Maybe at some point the developers are correct and that more units will take pressure off of the existing stock, but it hasn’t done that so far -and new student housing has been geared towards those with rich parents paying the rent, not students working or living off of loans.

    I guess I’m just complaining because the market bears what it bears and there’s no tenable or practical policy fix to this trend other than affordable housing, which is, to an extent, addressed by new development. And there really is no other realistic vehicle to accomplish these ends.

    I can’t wait to feel that trickle-down from those luxurious condos. Until then, let’s hope for the day that supply finally catches up with local demand so that it doesn’t increasingly push out certain types of residents in favor of others.

  • Andrew D

    I’ve never understood this argument. If the way to discourage driving is to make sure it is hard to drive, you guarantee that traffic will perpetually be awful. Even if one somehow lowered the volume of awful traffic somehow by restricting it more, it’s still perpetual crappy traffic, car’s idling as they stand still ect ect. I much prefer strategies to funnel traffic onto designated arteries, and out of neighborhood streets coupled with pedestrian and bike friendly additions rather than simply “bad for cars is good for me”. There are tons of studies and examples of how making *more* parking actually can reduce vehicle traffic as people can easily park and then walk, rather than driving in ever widening circles looking for a space. E.G. downtown Santa Cruz or the promenade in Santa Monica.

  • southberkeleyres

    You realize what 1,000 units of renters means….. It means that the City Council can continue to be in denial about unfunded liabilities for generous city employee pensions, keep cutting quality and quantity of service to residents and continue to send us proposals for increased taxes and bond measures to fund their gravy train and social experiments. Renters don’t have to pay the higher property taxes and bond measures so voting “Yes” has little consequence to them. When will the city ask their city employees to pitch in for their retirement? Many residents are still unemployed and underemployed.

  • Zelda Bronstein


    Are you a student?

  • guest

    The designated east-west arteries are already overburdened. And so is BART to and from San Francisco at commute periods.

  • Bryan Garcia

    On the one hand, I am all for urban infill, but on the other hand I am skeptical that this is actually going to cause rents to go down. I hope it does, but if the commercial property market is anything to go by, I am not all that hopeful. Many commercial landlords seem content to let spaces sit empty for years at a time rather than lower the rent. Not sure if the same applies to residential property, but I think it just goes to show that economics isn’t always as simple as “supply and demand.”

  • Guest

    I hope that the planning dept, city council and the mayor will see to it that a portion of the construction budgets for these projects includes art commissions.
    Where is the downtown section 8 housing going to be?

  • Sarah

    If I could walk from BART to my job with my computer without worrying about being harassed by pan handlers, I wouldn’t drive. Since that isn’t the case, I will continue to use my car.

  • Sarah

    This seems fairly relevant. Prices are per bedroom.


  • Charles_Siegel

    I have seen many studies saying we can reduce traffic by pricing on-street parking properly, so there are a couple of vacant spaces on each block, and people can find a space rather than circling around. Donald Shoup of UCLA is famous for making this point.

    I have not seen studies saying we can reduce traffic by building more parking. On the contrary, San Francisco limits parking in downtown in order to limit traffic.

  • Charles_Siegel

    I think rising housing costs have to be addressed regionally. One small city cannot have a big enough impact on the market to affect prices.

    Housing costs in Berkeley were low in the 1950s and 1960s, because the federal government encouraged huge amounts of suburban sprawl construction. Even into the 1980s, there were lots of houses in central Berkeley that were built for middle-class home owners in the early twentieth century and that became low-income rentals when the middle-class moved to the suburbs during the 1950s.

    In some cities, urban housing rented for so little during the 1950s and 1960s that whole neighborhoods were abandoned, because owners of older housing couldn’t collect enough rent to make any profit at all – most famously in the south Bronx. But note that it was increases in the regional supply of housing that drove down costs in these older neighborhoods; they were not building any new housing in the south Bronx, but they were building lots of housing in the suburbs.

    In the 1970s, environmentalists began to limit housing construction on the fringe to preserve open space, and NIMBYs began to limit housing construction in existing neighborhoods for reasons I won’t go into. This ultimately created a scarcity of housing that has driven prices up.

    I think the response has to be regional. For environmental reasons, the only viable response is to promote development of new housing in walkable neighborhoods with good transit. If we did this in the entire region as effectively at they built suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s, then housing costs would go down as supply outstripped demand.

    I think that Berkeley should do its part, by building our share of the new housing that is needed regionally. And I think that Berkeley should support regional planning to promote more transit-oriented development.

  • The Sharkey

    I’m not entirely sure where you’re going with this comment.

    I agree that rents in Berkeley are generally higher than they ought to be (shockingly high compared to what I paid when I was last a renter) but I don’t know what anyone can reasonably do about this given Berkeley’s reluctance to add new housing, and the fact that Berkeley exists as a bedroom community for San Francisco.

  • Charles_Siegel

    By the way, I think that post-war housing policy inadvertently contributed to the rise of the beatniks and hippies in the 1950s and 1960s. The unintended effect of building all those suburbs for the middle class was to drive down housing prices in older, central neighborhoods, making it possible for those who did not want to be middle class to get by on a low income.

    Eg, Alan Ginsberg lived in a house on Milvia St. that was built as a middle class family house in about 1910, that was abandoned by the middle class after World War II, and that was a low-cost rental during the 1950s.

  • The Sharkey

    If you want to avoid destroying the planet, you should contact your elected representatives and suggest that they pressure China into agreeing to some environmental accords.

    The environmental impact of driving from Point A to Point B in Berkeley is laughably nonexistent compared to the environmental impact of the coal-fired factories in China that produce disposable plastic garbage for the US market.

  • PragmaticProgressive

    Since the buildings aren’t rent controlled, they might have to pay the higher taxes indirectly. But your point is still a good one as they may not stay around to pay for the programs they vote in.

  • PragmaticProgressive

    Certainly not an English major.

  • The Sharkey

    If you don’t like where you live, move.
    BART offers so many opportunities that you shouldn’t stay for a second in a place you don’t really like.

    Have you considered Oakland or El Cerrito? Some friends of mine recently rented a cute 2bdr craftsman cottage in Albany for less than you’re paying for your “shitty” 2bdr apartment.

    Rentals and house buying are seasonal. Wait until your lease becomes month-to-month and then start searching for alternatives during the winter. Once you’re into the “off-season” (the time when college kids aren’t searching) you can score some good deals.