2315 Valdez Site

The plans for a seven-story building with 265 residential units over parking for 350 cars and 18,000 square feet of retail space to rise across a 1.4-acre site composed of the two parking lot parcels at 2315 Valdez and 2330 Webster near Oakland’s Broadway Auto Row are working their way through the City’s Planning Department.

The ground floor of the proposed building along Valdez Street, as rendered above, would provide space for multiple retail/commercial tenants, while the ground floor along Webster would include the residential lobby, garage entrance and some retail space as well.

Floors three through seven would be residential units, consisting of approximately 56 studio units, 141 one-bedroom units, and 68 two-bedroom units. Approximately 15 percent of the housing units would be below-market-rate units, affordable to very-low- and moderate income households, although the number of affordable units and range of affordability have yet to be determined.

The main residential entrance and lobby would be on Webster Street; additional pedestrian egress for the project would be on Webster Street and 23rd Street. The parking garage would be accessed from a 24-foot curb cut on Webster Street. Two residential loading spaces and one commercial loading space would be accessed from 23rd Street, requiring a new curb cut and removal of up to four on-street parking spaces on the northern side of 23rd Street.

Of the total 350 parking spaces provided in the garage, 242 parking spaces may be purchased by the City of Oakland and operated as a public parking garage. The remainder of the parking spaces would be provided as unbundled parking available for residents.

The proposed development would also include new street lights, furniture and trees, along with bulbouts at the northeastern and northwestern corners of the 23rd Street/Webster Street intersection and the northwestern corner of 23rd and Valdez.

The project site was previously entitled for a 281-unit condo building and was purchased by the City of Oakland for $4 million in 2010 after the market crashed and the two parcels were foreclosed upon.

2315 Valdez Site

Harrison TDP Partners has been in exclusive negations with the City to purchase the project site and has been working with KTGY Architecture + Planning on the design.

The development team is currently planning to break ground in spring 2016 and be ready for occupancy by fall 2018, assuming the project and purchase are approved and survive any challenges.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by jamesjr

    OMG. Soooo boring.

  2. Posted by curmudgeon

    trying to understand why there is more than 1:1 parking.

    • Posted by MayorBuffalo

      Because some people live with spouses/partners/roommates, and maybe there’s more than one car per household? This is the East Bay, after all, and people drive a lot more.

      • Posted by zig

        Yeh but you are right there near BART. Dumb to include so much parking

        • Posted by Pfffttt

          BART is not necessarily a convenient means of transport for EVERYONE for work or recreation.

        • Posted by condoshopper

          zig, right because BART connects to everywhere we could possibly want to go and it is no worry having your family riding it home at night especially passing through west or east oakland.

          • Posted by woolie

            Perhaps one of the dumbest comments I’ve read here in months. Weeks, at least.

          • Posted by anon

            um, Uber.

  3. Posted by Amewsed

    242 parking spaces (out of 350 spaces) may be purchased by the City of Oakland to be operated as a public parking garage? So the residents will be sharing their private secured parking space with a public garage? Doesn’t sound safe or enticing.

    • Posted by seriously

      i’ve seen it done before. the private area is completely fenced off and the residents badge a gate to drive in.

  4. Posted by sf

    I know that good looking architecture doesn’t pay and that the cheapest most bottom line possible is the new American way, but what was it about our forefathers that inspired them to build beautiful, articulate structures even in the most “middle class” of neighborhoods.

    I can’t see anybody fighting to preserve this type of junk in 100 years.

    • Posted by ElitistPig

      This is HARDLY bottom line architecture. Have you seen the garbage over at Emery Bay in Emeryville? It looks like it came from a box at Walmart and all they had to do was pull off the plastic.

      I’m sure someone will fight for it, after all the stuff built 100 years ago that you probably love was most likely moaned about when it went up.

      • Posted by Brian M

        The Victorian frou frou we love today was made possible by new more automated production techniques.
        After the turn of the century, Victorian architecture definitely went out of style in favor of much more restrained and simple bungalows.

        Plus, it is not all about the greed. Earlier architecture occurred in an era in which there were not 300 million Americans (or 7 billion people) and there was plenty of cheap redwood that could just be sawn down.

        This is just a drawing, but the design as shown here does not even look that bad, to be honest. Better than a lot of the stuff being shown here.

      • Posted by Brian M

        To me, the worst stuff in Northern California is “Downtown” Pleaseant Hill. Bland, absolute dreck which incorporates plenty of efficient big box shopping!

        Similarly, the faux downtown for Windsor in Sonoma County is pretty thin and cheap looking.

  5. Posted by woolie

    The city shouldn’t be wasting precious dollars on parking. But otherwise it’s great. Need 100 more just like it.

  6. Posted by Some guy

    The architecture is nothing to write home about but it’ll do, and do well. Hope those balconies are well supported and properly waterproofed.

  7. Posted by don

    Soooo… Since the city owns the property, does that mean this is another proposal that will be threatened with lawsuits because the city isn’t requiring 100% affordable housing as a condition of the sale? Asking for a friend; I’d never be so cynical.

  8. Posted by don

    Also, a hundred years ago no sensible tastemaker would have imagined anyone fighting for the preservation of Victorian row houses. And look at us now. No accounting for future nostalgia.

  9. Posted by gone on

    wow — the SF disease has spread to Oakland.

  10. Posted by dogwood

    Its better than the vacant lot now occupying the space, but I wish it were higher and had more units. This neighborhood already supports some higher residential and office buildings and I think it is a good place for more. Also, are they rentals or condos?

  11. Posted by Sutro_Tower

    Oakland rising while SF debates moratoriums and “No Wall on the Waterfront” platitudes. The only downside to all this proposed new construction in the East Bay is the high parking count to unit ratio, roughly 2 spots for every unit on average. I get that getting around in the EB without a car is slightly more difficult but this site is within walking distance of 19th St. Station. If we’re serious about having BART run past midnight we need to move beyond these outdated parking formulas that increase the cost of housing and delay meaningful public transportation improvements in our core urban areas.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      BART only gets you to a few places. we are nowhere near a post car culture. we will still be a car culture in 25 yrs, albeit self driving and zero emission

      • Posted by anon

        Uber is for those other places. I can’t believe that smart people in the Bay Area (of all places) waste so much of their own time sitting in traffic behind a steering wheel where they can’t do anything else. So incredibly inefficient. Maybe if car companies paid me my going rate to do that. Insane that the technology capital of the world is so willing to throw away hours of productivity for nothing.

    • Posted by woolie

      Most Oakland projects are 1 spot/unit. This one has extra spots because the city is crazy and wants to buy most of them for a public garage. Several prominent Oakland projects — such as the E 12th Tower — are going up with significantly less than 1 spot/unit parking.

  12. Posted by Matt in Uptown

    The building looks fine, you can’t please everyone (or anyone on SS). We could ramble on with anecdotes about the need for parking, but 2010 data says only 33% of downtown Oakland residents commute alone by car. Let’s say 66% of the new residents commute by car -then 1:1 parking is still quite over built. This project is in the middle of everything and if you need a car there are still Zipcars everywhere.

    • Posted by CH

      Just because a person doesn’t commute by car doesn’t mean they don’t own one and need a place to park it when they’re at work. I don’t commute by car but I own one. None of my co-workers commute by car but nearly eveyone owns one. I would rather build more parking than add to the growing congestion on neighborhood streets.

      • Posted by Brian M

        Is this neighborhood severely underparked with street parking, though? I would guess that the issue of “cars circling the street” is not as serious here.

      • Posted by Matt in Uptown

        CH give me a break, nothing is absolute, but if only 33% of residents commute by car then 1:1 is a waste of resources. I also own a car and park it on private property and that’s my problem. If it get’s too expensive I’ll sell it or move. I don’t think the neighborhood owes me a parking space.

  13. Posted by moto mayhem

    i for one dont want to spend 3 hrs a day on publlic transport, when i can spend 1 hr 15 minutes in my car, and also don’t want to spend $70/day on uber. seems pretty logical to me, and im about the most efficient person i know. I take uber at night all the time, but doesnt work for commuting.

    • Posted by woolie

      It’s less than 20 minutes to San Francisco on BART. Good luck driving over the Bay Bridge and parking in anything approaching that time.

      • Posted by Emanon

        because the only place people in Oakland could possibly want to drive to is SF…..

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        what about east oakland to san rafael? many places people can drive to. My case is inner richmond SF to south san Francisco. its only 13 miles, but takes 1.5 hrs on public transport. No thank you

  14. Posted by Amewsed

    Land is cheaper in Oakland than in SF so parking spaces inside the building is an affordable luxury. Why do people insist on their carless way of life? Who cares about how people choose to travel? Are you going to dictate if I fly business class or economy class? Especially if I am, not you, are paying for my airfare.

    • Posted by Matt in Uptown

      Who cares? Well, cars are killing off our future, the planet can’t sustain car ownership … so I care. Why do people insist on a car way of life? Which is the anomaly in the grand scheme of things -cities built for people or cities built for cars? People are driving less and living longer -I like that option.

      • Posted by carma

        About 2 billion vehicles are estimated to be on the roads by 2035, according to a report from Navigant Research. Currently, there are about 1.2 billion vehicles worldwide. About 70% are cars, 30% trucks and buses. The anti-car people lost over a hundred years ago. Worldwide people are driving more and living longer. Maybe a few stern lectures can reverse the carma.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        you dont need to be anti-car to sustain the planet. you can be pro-car and pro-sustainable energy. a future without cars aint happening, so be reasonable and support the best practical solution. electric cars still need parking

        • Posted by Matt in Uptown

          Moto, environmental studies for the last two decades actually do say you need to be anti-car to sustain the planet. Carma, we reached peak mileage in the US over ten years ago which coincides with a shift towards American’s choosing urban, walkable communities.

          • Posted by carma

            Now is the peak VMT USA, per Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Commission latest report on Traffic Volume Trends, data through April. The 12-month moving is greater than ever. Also, up more than 3% since last year. Strong economy and weak gas prices.

  15. Posted by Pablito

    In a City like Oakland where people own cars – off -street parking is good thing
    In a City like Oakland where most of the housing stock is old – 250+ units of new housing is a great thing.
    Oakland isn’t San Francisco – nor does it want to be. There is no one best land use or way to live…..
    It is okay to be different. 🙂

    • Posted by Matt in Uptown

      20% of Oaklanders do not own a car, and that number is growing. I can’t find a stat for Downtown, but if only 33% of Downtown residents commute by car I’m betting the majority of residents don’t own a car. Anecdotaly… of the Downtown residents I know only ~40% own a car.

      SF and Oakland have a lot to learn from each other. One thing is certain about living -sprawl will kill off our species, unless you don’t believe in science.

      • Posted by Pablito

        Putting a 7 story building where there is currently a parking lot does not count as sprawl. It is an urban density much like the Paris or London.

        Dublin/Pleasanton, Marin, most of San Jose, are sprawl…..

  16. Posted by 510 anon

    I’m late to this conversation, but I live in Oakland and know several people that park in downtown lots near 19th or 12th or West Oakland and then take BART in and out of the City. That’s probably the rationale for the public parking as those DT parking garage spaces get filled by SF commuters quickly.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles