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.

Related:
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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    Look, in Zoning Adjustment Board staff reports, they list the heights and character of buildings directly adjacent. The taller structures are mostly towards the “Core and Corridor.” There are very few taller structures further west into the residential-only neighborhood. Please list the taller buildings if you disagree. And I’m not making up the neighborhood lines; the city did. Please look at the zoning map above.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    No. City reports and the DAP list the R-4/R-3 zone as the residential-only neighborhood. Please find me any indication otherwise.

  • Guest

    I look forward to the next phase, in which the the latter-day hippies, etc., move to the suburbs, and leave central Berkeley for the staid and respectable types.

    Long live groovy Fairfield.

  • EBGuy

    Rezoning 2024 Durant as C-DMU Buffer is consistent with the following guidelines (and even the Figure LU-1 map):
    Replace the C-2 Zoning District and portions of the C-1, C-SA, R-2A and R-4
    within the Downtown area to C-DMU and include the following four subareas
    within the C-DMU District: Core, Outer Core, Corridor, and Buffer.

    I certainly can empathize with the light issues of an 8 story building, yet the seniors shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth. I agree that the building shouldn’t exceed 60 feet (six stories), but I’m fine with the commercial buffer zoning designation.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    A strong argument is that 2024 Durant was R-4 for decades and Policy LU-7.1 called for R-4 properties to be downzoned to R-3 which only allows a three story building height. 2024 Durant was upzoned in violation of Policy LU-7.1. This is about protecting the seniors by *following existing rules*

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    This upzoning is not actually listed in the Downtown Area Plan, and conflicts with Policy LU-7.1, which is in the plan. It exactly conflicts. Find me anything in the actual plan document that mentions or authorizes such upzoning.

  • gsr

    I don’t need to look at Google maps because I actually live in the neighborhood; I’m fully aware of all the 5-6 story buildings you’re ignoring. There is actually a large dorm-style apartment complex down near University and San Pablo called Campanile Court. Are they terrorizing the citizens of West Berkeley? Your argument appears to be “we don’t have any student apartments in downtown because we don’t want them downtown, therefore we can’t have any student apartments downtown”…it’s fairly circular.

  • Charles_Siegel

    There have been predictions that the housing built on the fringe before the housing crash will be subdivided into low-income apartments and will become the next generation of slums, as the central parts of the city gentrify.

    Unfortunately, unlike the last generation of inner-city slums, these next-generation slums require you to have a car to get around, so they won’t let you live as cheaply.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    This is part of the whole argument; the DAP doesn’t mention or authorize these upzonings, and trumpets the downzonings. The upzonings of R-4 to C-DMU were kept out of the actual DAP document, and was done somewhat behind the scenes. Also, if the R-4 upzonings were totally in line with Policy LU-7.1, please tell me why in the draft DAP the city decided to downzone 2024 Durant to R-3. It’s so arbitrary to then go along with the owners’ request to upzone it to C-DMU.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    San Pablo is nowhere near Shattuck and Durant; that’s not part of the R-4/R-3 residential neighborhood we’re talking about. We’re not opposed to students, we’re just concerned with student-only buildings right next to a senior home. We welcome a mix of students, professionals, retirees, etc/

  • Boalted

    to: berkeleyseniorzoning – Downtown plans and zoning codes do not exist to protect anything. They are guides which reflect society’s ever changing goals in regulating the built environment. 2024 Durant is a perfect example of society exercising its own power of eminent domain.

    Society, in the form of the city planning dept., sees housing at this site and scale as more important than morning sunshine for a few.

    If you don’t believe the city has a right to make this decision, there is a whole law school of anti-development lawyers around town who would love a contingency fee based open-and-shut-case against the government.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    I know what you’re saying but then why is the DAP policy below called “neighborhood protections”? And why are there extensive sections on protecting historical buildings and resources? So, no, downtown plans and zoning codes do exist to protect certain things.

    “GOAL LU-7: MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SCALE AND CHARACTER OF RESIDENTIAL- ONLY AREAS.

    Policy LU-7.1: Neighborhood Protections.

    Seek to reduce development pressures in residential-only areas, to
    promote the preservation and rehabilitation of older structures – and to
    conserve the scale of their historic fabric (see Policy HD-1.5).

    a) Maintain the R-2A zoning designation and downzone R-4 areas to R-3
    (as shown in Figure LU-1), except for the north side of Dwight Way east
    of Shattuck Avenue.”

    “Residential Neighborhoods. Few opportunity sites exist in
    residential-only areas, but when development does occur, it will be
    subject to residential zoning. Many residents have expressed their
    desire to maintain the scale and character of these residential areas.
    To reduce development pressures that could result in inappropriate
    development, Plan policies call for downzoning the southwest portion of
    the Downtown Area from R-4 to R-3.”

  • Guest

    Adeline near the Berkeley Bowl is a tough sell. When I lived in that area (for several years in the mid-oughties), there were at least three shootings per year that I knew about, and often more. Some of those were not just shootings, but murders.

    If I were a developer, I would not be inclined to build upscale apartments in an area that very few people would voluntarily move to if they could afford to live elsewhere.

  • gsr

    No, but it is an example of student housing that does not demonstrate the problems you are certain will happen if there is student housing downtown. Your main reason for opposing student housing appears to be the potential for noise issues, and my point is that loud students are not likely to live in downtown or other parts of Berkeley. They live in Southside. But by all means, please continue to paint all 40,000 of the students of Cal with the same broad, insulting brush.

  • Guest

    I would love to see more people — students and otherwise — living downtown, walking around, and doing their thing (within reason), and more restaurants and bars, yes, BARS, staying open late.

  • The Sharkey

    While slums are universally bad, perhaps that would finally spur the development of a decent, unified public transportation system in the Bay Area.

  • Guest

    Maybe Sasha has better things to do than spend his/her evenings making vast tubs of healthful vegan soup for the community, before retiring for the night to a still-very-expensive and very small room shared with two other people?

    Sure, some of those places have hot tubs, and you can score some great, er, herbal glaucoma remedies, but not everyone finds that kind of setting optimal for finishing term papers.

  • The Sharkey

    http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/IT/Level_3_-_General/Zoning%20Map%2036×36%2020050120.pdf

    Your map is old. The Map 5 one clearly shows 204 Durant as part of the C-DMU buffer zone. :-/

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    GSR–I’m not painting students with an insulting brush. I’m a Cal alum. I’ve lived in Berkeley Co-ops, various apartments, etc, and in several neighborhoods in Berkeley. I’m *only* addressing the potential for disruptions *next to a low-income senior home* and pointing out problems that some neighborhoods are having, please contact the Piedmont neighborhood association for more info. I am not discussing student-only housing on major commercial corridors like University and San Pablo, or anywhere else. So, to make it clear, I’m not protesting any student-only housing anywhere else, except for right next door to a low-income senior home in place of a quiet, two-story church, where the seniors only have one window which is their only source of light and ventilation, which will be blocked by the proposed six-or-eight story building, and where the senior home was built to the scale of the two-story church. Thanks.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    And to ask, what is your interest in a student-only building next to the senior home? What’s wrong with a mixed-resident building?

  • Guest

    I think the best way for a Berkeley mayor to defend the city’s interests is by promoting business-friendly policies.

    Oh, and by putting some pressure on UCB to build student housing, or at least a parking lot for people (and their cars), on empty block it owns between Telegraph, Bowditch, Haste, and Dwight.

    If both those things happened, the city would probably revive so quickly, it’d be able to subsidize gold-plated sewers to ferry the waste of 60,000 more students, faculty, staff, and post-docs than are currently using the facilities on campus every day, and not even miss the added cost.

  • gsr

    My interest is in the fact that you paint all the potential problems of the new development in terms of the nature of the potential residents: students will look into the seniors’ windows, students will increase bike traffic on Channing, students will be noisy, students will order late-night delivery food, students will cause traffic congestion. Students are a very convenient scapegoat because much of Berkeley has an “us vs. them” attitude towards the university, and so it’s much easier to garner opposition to a development if it’s for specifically students than if it’s a mixed-occupancy residence. If you replace “students” with “residents” most of these arguments seem silly. Heaven forbid our neighbors order pizza at 9pm! I actually believe you have a valid point in that the structure shouldn’t be markedly taller than its neighbors (so, 6 stories instead of 8) but the rhetoric you’re using is the cheap, easy shot.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    In addition, there’s a church group which is interested in buying the 2024 Durant church building for it’s religious purposes. Keeping the church would be a win-win for the neighborhood and the community–there are very few church buildings available. Religious diversity is something the city should encourage.

  • The Sharkey

    I wonder if when the added the 6-story tall senior housing building residents in the adjacent 3-story buildings made similar comments about “a bunch of old people” changing the neighborhood and peering through their windows and into their back yards.

  • The Sharkey

    As a community we need more housing more than we need more houses of worship.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    Look–privacy is an issue for these seniors *because they only have one window.* And most of them are *home most of the day* much more than most people because they are retired, elderly, and many are handicapped. Oh, I’m so sorry for standing up for these seniors ;) And I’m not painting students any which way, except for to point out that a mixed-resident building is more appropriate for 2024 Durant, and in fact, the developer may be leaning that way, it might no longer be restricted to students so that may be a moot point. The lighting impacts and other impacts from a six to eight story building are as much or more of a problem. And, if the developer would make the section in front of the seniors’ windows three stories (the 2024 Durant portion is about twice as long as the area with the seniors’ windows), that could be a good compromise. But the developer has not made *any* concessions.

  • AnthonySanchez

    I’m sorry, we had a thread-long conversation that you’re now chiming in on now; there’s context to be had.

    I’m assuming you’re using the word hypothetical where I used germane, which doesn’t match up. The rent-controlled situation is non-germane since the impetus of the conversation was about new rental units in Downtown -which cannot be subject to rent control -hence, non-germane.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    I agree about the importance of housing. *However,* because of the housing crunch and the cost of real estate, what is the chance that any new churches will be built in Berkeley anytime soon? Very, very slim. Houses of worship are vital for cultural diversity and also offer architectural variety. So for cultural and architectural reasons, on top of the senior home reasons, it would be great to have another church group use the existing church building.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    Also, here’s an idea; why don’t we focus on maybe building more two and three story apartment buildings in neighborhoods that are predominantly filled with single family homes? That’s where a huge opportunity lies. Single family homes waste so much housing space that could be better utilized by moderate two and three story multi-family buildings. Then we wouldn’t be so desperate to justify ignoring health, safety, and quality-of-life concerns of seniors in order to try to build a six or eight story private dorm next door. And yeah, I know, single-family homes are awesome, but they are an ultimate luxury in terms of taking up space that could house more than one family, and if we’re desperate to increase housing density, it’s time to look at building more two-and-three story apartment buildings in residential neighborhoods.

  • The Sharkey

    Vital? Not really.
    Is worship limited to buildings constructed solely for that purpose? Nope.

  • The Sharkey

    So after complaining that anything bigger than a 3-story apartment building would be out of place in a lot next to a 6-story apartment building in the downtown core of the city mere blocks away from the UC, you’re now saying that we should be building 3-story apartment buildings in neighborhoods of single-story homes instead? Wow.

  • Charles_Siegel

    Look up the vote on Waxman-Markey. You will see that virtually all the Democrats voted for it and virtually all the Republicans voted against it. It passed the Democratic-controlled house, and it was dropped in the Republican-controlled House.

    Prisoners and wars have nothing to do with the points I made – that there are major differences between the parties on taxes, health care and global warming. And the Democrats have not just talked but done things about taxes and health care.

    You think there is no difference between the party that passed a bill that would have reduced ghg emissions 80% by 2050, and the party that blocked that bill from becoming law?

  • gsr

    I get that they need privacy — which is why students would make *good* neighbors, because students leave for their 9 am classes and stay on campus late, studying or going to club meetings or labs. They’re gone all day and the seniors can enjoy their privacy. Plus they’re more likely to sleep in on weekends! :) In fact, based on many of the arguments you’ve made, students are *better* than other types of residents in this situation:

    - People at home during the day, privacy concerns: Young families are more likely to have a stay-at-home parent, meaning someone is home during the day who might be looking into the seniors’ windows. Students are at school. Professionals generally come home earlier than students, who are likely to stay out late to study, have part-time jobs in the evening, or eat dinner elsewhere first.
    - Cars, traffic, parking: Families and professionals are far more likely to have 1-2 cars whereas most students have none. Families are more likely to have larger cars (minivans) which take up more space.
    - Bike congestion: Professionals who work in other parts of the Bay Area are more likely to commute by bike (or take their bikes on BART) whereas the students will probably just walk to campus since it’s close by. Many parents in Berkeley bike their children to school.
    - Late-night traffic: Plenty of professionals (and people with families) like techies stay up late and order delivery; that’s not student-specific at all.
    - Noise: This is the ONLY claim in which students are potentially more of an issue. However, I maintain that noisy students are endemic to Southside, a point which you only reinforced by providing evidence that noise complaints are for Southside and frat-row area residences. Hence I find it a largely specious complaint as you have not shown that students OUTSIDE OF SOUTHSIDE are likely to be noisy.

    Your complaint regarding the lighting impacts issue is completely independent of the occupants of the building, so please stop conflating the height of the building with the nature of the occupants. Go ahead and criticize the project based on that line of reasoning, but STUDENTS-ONLY is a red herring that you really should stop flogging as it’s a very unfair characterization of college students and ignores the reality of the facts as discussed above.

  • The Sharkey

    Whether you like me mentioning it or not, parcel taxes are a hardship for many poor homeowners. When our local government keeps pushing more and more parcel taxes rather than doing the hard work of dealing with unfunded pension liabilities and making cuts to redundant programs and bloated budgets, it hurts them the most.

    I don’t resent the government or hate paying taxes, so you can take that straw man and put him back in your toybox. What I hate is things like our local elected officials ignoring their basic duties and letting our infrastructure get into such a sad state of disrepair and neglect that we have to float $30 million dollar bonds just to fix our damn roads and sewers.

  • bahhumbug

    I want to know were these folks are going to park their cars, buy t heir food, clothes, etc, where do the go for recreation & exercise etc. Seems like only 1/2 of the plan has been thought out. They can only live and eat at expensive restaurants in Berkeley… for the rest they’ll be going to Emeryville or farther afield. The Mayor and council need to look at the big picture and build amenities – parks, theaters, gyms, and other public commons open to all ages and incomes or this city will be very transient and very rich…

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    Hey Sharkey, look all around you in residential neighborhoods, there are often two- and three-story apartment buildings, but they seem to have mostly been built between the 1950s and the 1980s. It seems to have been was standard practice at one point, and given the housing crunch, it may be time to revive that trend.

  • The Doctor
  • deirdre

    You consistently provide a real public service.

  • PragmaticProgressive

    no, just no.

  • PragmaticProgressive

    There are a LOT of houses of worship in Berkeley. G-d isn’t in danger of becoming homeless anytime soon.

  • deirdre

    No.

  • Confused

    There are some interesting comments here but the format makes the discussion impossible to follow. What happened to the setting that let you read the last ones at the top?

  • deirdre

    I’m quite concerned that many of the downtown apartments built for empty-nesters or high-income singles become residences for parents with kids who want to attend Berkeley schools. My children are friends with at least two families who live in these new-ish downtown structures. Berkeley public schools are over-subscribed as it is. Can we please anticipate these intended/unintended consequences when we construct 1,000 new homes?

  • http://www.facebook.com/abeboparebop Jacob Lynn

    Twelve years, actually, but otherwise your calculation is correct.

  • wow

    You are the very definition of a NIMBY.

  • berkeleyseniorzoning

    That’s rich…I would love to see one article about development without anyone using the term “NIMBY,” that term is so overused that it’s painful to see someone stoop so low as to use it. Care to make a more well-reasoned response?

    a) I’m all for more housing–I’m concerned about the 2024 Durant site because of the impacts on the low-income seniors, and in general, growth should be well-planned and considered, and the decision to upzone 2024 Durant was rushed and not well-analyzed by the city, and was for the economic benefit of a single land owner. But in general, I support more housing, in 1997 I had a $650 one-bedroom by Channing and Dana, that was pretty much the going rate. By 1999, because of of the dot-com boom, a studio in the same building was going for $900, and prices haven’t come down since, so I’m all for more affordable housing.

    b) I’m for moderate growth for two-and-three bedroom apartments in residential neighborhoods, this is pretty standard in many neighborhoods

    So I support the need for more housing in general, and moderate increases in two-and three-story apartments in residential neighborhoods, and *I’m* the NIMBY? When single family homes cost astronomical prices in Berkeley, and many single family homes are two-and-three stories, and Berkeley is desperate for more housing, it would be a huge problem to have some more moderate apartment buildings? I would think opposing such moderate apartment buildings is the NIMBY attitude. Not that I would use that term myself. In a way I’m offering the idea to see who the real NIMBYs are, if anyone’s going to accuse me of being a NIMBY.

  • PragmaticProgressive

    Actually Berkeley’s school age population is shrinking. If BUSD focused on serving residents of the city, we would likely close an elementary school or two. But since we allow widespread enrollment fraud, we are expanding facilities instead and packing them to keep the attendance-based revenues flowing from other districts to ours.

  • Boalted

    One very big reason (and dirty little secret) our union controlled school board supports enrollment fraud is:

    Their union members (teachers) would rather teach in Berkeley than in Oakland or Richmond. Well, duh. There’s more money, it’s way cooler and there are even a few kids who listen.

    Who cares if Berkeley feeds off the best and brightest of poorer cities…as long as the unions happy!

  • PragmaticProgressive

    And shame on us for re-electing them.

  • PragmaticProgressive

    Insidious is a bit much, IMO. It’s certainly true that without rent control, property tax hikes are passed on to renters. But it is also true that short term residents, who tend o be renters more than owners, and who are often, in a college town, students ( hence often idealistic and perhaps naive) can vote for bond measures without having to stick around and pay for them. Sure, owners can sell and move too, but they have to find a buyer who will shoulder those same bond obligations. It’s silly to suggest that these two groups have exactly the same stake in the outcome.