Speaking of new developments to rise along Oakland’s burgeoning Auto Row, plans to demolish everything but the façades of the existing buildings at 3000 Broadway (which wraps around the corner of 30th Street) and 3012-3020 Broadway have been granted an Broadway Valdez District Plan-based exemption from having to complete an additional environmental review.

And if approved by Oakland’s Planning Commission, a 127-unit apartment building designed by BDE Architecture for Lowe Enterprises Real Estate Group could soon rise up to six stories in height across the 3000 Broadway site, integrating the existing facades along Broadway into the development but displacing the 3KB Sports Bar:

3000 Broadway Rendering

In addition to the 127 apartments, the proposed development, which would take an estimated 26 months to complete, includes 7,900 square feet of new retail space along Broadway and a 97-car garage with its entrance off Brook, stepping down along 30th Street between the two.

3000 Broadway Rendering - 30th Street

17 thoughts on “Add 127 Apartments to Oakland’s Burgeoning Auto Row Tally”
  1. so great that oakland is managing to get a bunch of housing in the pipeline while maintaining the urban character that only older buildings can afford. anyone who claims “facadism” probably has too much ikea furniture.

    1. This is great news. Very nice design and great they are paying attention to the streetscape.

      It will take a while, but if this keeps up Oakland eventually will have a more architecturally vibrant cityscape than SF. Not to mention a more pedestrian friendly feel.

      1. Oakland is on a roll. There is no reason Oakland will still be in SF’s shadow in a short time. All they need is a few super talls in the downtown core and you will see more SF companies flee across to the East Bay city.

        1. As an Oakland resident for the last 20 years I sincerely hope you’re wrong. One of the things I treasure about Oakland is it is NOT SF.

  2. I wonder how long before some proposal comes along to demolish/replace the Grocery Outlet (nee Safeway), prompting a battle royal b/w people claiming (with some validity) that we’ll be replacing a store which serves the needs of the community – even if it’s not necessarily the community in this particular neighborhood – versus those who want more density, tax revenue and a streetscape more vibrant than a parking lot offers.

    1. I drive past twice a day and it seems as if Grocery Outlet is always crowded still, but every time I go in the Sprouts it’s surprisingly empty inside. They’ve got probably 8 checkout lanes but I’ve never seen more than 1 open at a time.

      1. I think they just need to build up the name recognition: the one’s out in CoCo are very busy Or maybe they’re going to have a hard time tapping into the Berkeley Bowl and/or Trader Joe’s loyalists – the Bay Area doesn’t suffer for want of avant garde grocers …guess time will tell.

  3. I’m excited about the project, but the concerns of some about the blank concrete parking wall are valid. Hopefully this can be addressed in design review; possibly by reducing the parking further and putting in live/work or townhouse units.

  4. I live a block away from this project and I endorse all the new development. The location for higher density couldn’t be better, there is good freeway access and it is one short bus ride to downtown Oakland and BART.

    There is a lot of new development coming up Broadway since Uptown is pretty much built up. I hope some of the dealerships and small garages can survive. Bring on the trolly! I would be bummed if the Grocery Outlet gets pushed out. I occasionally shop at Sprouts and it’s convenient but their prices are a bit higher than Safeway or Trader Joe’s. The richer condo dwellers can shop there.

    1. A large parking lot separates Grocery Outlet from the street. That’s not very compatible with a moderate density downtown area. Keep GO (the business) but redevelop this fragment of suburbia that’s only here because central Oakland was depressed.

      1. Except (1) this really isn’t the “downtown area”, and (2) GO is a low-cost model that depends, I would imagine, on doing things like re-using cast-off former Safeway’s; I doubt they could survive the costs of a purpose-built location, or the loss of both frontage/parking that would come from developing the lot. Ultimately that may end up under the category of “gee, that’s too bad, but…”; my comment wasn’t either for- or against- such development, just that it seems inevitable that a conflict will arise.

        1. OK, not technically downtown but hardly suburban density. And GO franchisees do invest in demolish and rebuilds of old grocery sites. There are several examples around the bay area. For example the Palo Alto store was built in an area less dense than this and did not place the parking between the street and the store.

          1. So, then, it’s s actually: gee that’s good but… maybe we’ll never have to find out (nobody has actually proposed anything yet AFAIK). It’s unfortunate these preservation schemes weren’t popular years ago: the site was home to a Studebaker dealership/shop, w/ a great Art Deco design, that would have made a nice bookend to the CVS(Firestone) building at the other end of the block; and before that it was a monumental domed school.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *