With a 24-story tower rising across the street at 1700 Webster, the final plans and renderings for a proposed 25-story tower to rise at 1721 Webster Street, in Oakland’s Central Business District, will be presented to the city’s Design Review Committee on Wednesday afternoon.

As proposed by the Holland Partner Group, the existing two-story brick garage and commercial building on the half-acre site, which stretches from 1717 to 1739 Webster Street, would be razed in order to make way for the new 270-foot-tall building designed by Solomon Cordwell Buenz (SCB).

And in addition to 250 new apartments, the plans include 2,100 square feet of new retail space fronting Webster; 5,000 square feet of office space on the fourth floor; a 250-car garage; and 15,000 square feet of open space between a podium terrace and rooftop terrace with an outdoor pool.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Dubs

    The blue and yellow are a subtle dig at Oakland losing the Warriors I assume?

    • Posted by Notcom

      Very subtle…as in: I doubt one person in a thousand would think that

    • Posted by E. Gonsalves

      I’ll take this beautiful building and San Francisco can have the disloyal, disrespectful, and manipulative, Warriors.

    • Posted by Some Guy

      One thing that may be misleading in this rendering: glazing looks almost water-clear, no tinting. Doubt that is possible in real life, the building would be a giant greenhouse. Probably would have considerably darker glass

  2. Posted by beachplease

    Yellow is the new orange?

    • Posted by SocketSite

      Speaking of which, from Oakland’s Planning Department with respect to the yellow accept panels:

      “While staff often does not comment on specific colors of finished building materials, the bright yellow fins are of concern. The material is used at the base of the building façade as well as in the return of the glazing recesses that create the basket weave look to the building façade. Staffs concern is that the yellow accent panel while seemingly meant to add attention to the glazing recesses it may somewhat diminish them since the bright yellow classes so much with the glazing and it could look dated quite quickly and possibly take away from a more timeless design of the tower.”

      We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

      • Posted by oakland lover

        Wow, that is the most IMO subjective thing for them to say! We need more color and unique design in our skylines. Im not really to fond of this particular one, but at least it stands out…if they turn that yellow grey or black this building losses much of its noticeablity. Either way this will be a great addition if built in this cycle. I just wish more creativity would be allowed to flow through into our skylines.

      • Posted by JIPB

        “Look dated quite quickly”. Check.

      • Posted by Lego

        The whole ‘color’ thing is a complete red herring – what the hell is ‘timeless’ anyway? anonymous 60’s style modernism? a building can’t help but be part of its time – this is always a moment to roll eyes.

        European cities are filled with color. We used to joke the the Bay Area (and SF in particular) have an enforced color code of white, beige, and more beige

      • Posted by Some Guy

        Is that verbatim from the printed page? Lord I hope not but I fear the worst. Love the yellow stripes. Oakland planning needs to stop acting snooty, the paper reads like a first year architecture student’s at a second-tier school, errrmahgerd. The bright yellow classes with the glazing. No it don’t (sic); it’s tasteful, refined, even a little distinguished. Qualities that tend to repel no-taste-having OPD (planning dept that is) staff.

        Put it up for a plebiscite I say, let the voters call this one.

    • Posted by SFRealist

      Ha! That’s the first thing I noticed too!

      Thanks for the additional info, socketsite. Hopefully this is the start of a counteroffensive against those dumb accent coloured panels! 🙂

  3. Posted by Jay78

    All these towers with resort-style rooftop-pools is super! Oakland definitely has the weather for them. It would be nice if they start incorporating rooftop restaurants/lounges.

    • Posted by Occupied in Oakland

      Many Adams Point and Lakeside district buildings have pools -Sunny Side!

      • Posted by Jay78

        Yeah, so many pools in Oak, and these resort-like rooftop pools are pretty awesome. Take a swim, with a Bay view.

  4. Posted by Casey Hildreth

    One-to-one parking. Sigh…..

    • Posted by SocketSite

      While technically true, the developer’s intent is to limit the number of dedicated residential spaces and operate a portion of the garage as a publicly-accessible facility (which is one of the reasons why Oakland’s Planning Department is okay with the size and openness of the proposed garage opening on Webster).

    • Posted by Friscan

      I agree-sigh as well. I know lots of folks who moved to Oakland in the last three years, live near Uptown, Old Town, Lake Merritt. None have a car: all have good jobs. I wonder why builders aren’t being smarter about reaching this market?

  5. Posted by SFRealist

    This would be great for Oakland. Development like this is much better for the city then the Raiders anyway

    • Posted by E. Gonsalves

      I agree completely. This is what Oakland needs. The Raiders and the NFL brought nothing to Oakland.

    • Posted by Jay78

      Yep, agreed. They also bring in property tax revenue for the city, and we need all the tax $$ we can get. Unlike Davis who just kept taking it away from us.

      • Posted by E. Gonsalves

        Exactly. Good riddance. I hope Oakland finds a way to legally evict Davis and the NFL.

  6. Posted by oakland lover

    I saw an article of 10 or 20 buildings coming online or close to approval in Oakland and pretty much all of them were 250-400ft, most in the 300-400 range. Oakland has some tabletop situation developing in its skyline with this current wave. I hope they address that with some 600-800 towers.

    • Posted by Turin

      I agree, but am still excited about all those proposals. How many of those 10-20 have started or will start soon? I’ve seen a lot of great proposals and approvals, but not so many cranes filling the skies. Can’t wait to see a lot of those get built.

      • Posted by Calvin

        Anyone have a list of actual under construction Oakland projects?

      • Posted by curmudgeon

        The list of actually broken ground projects is much shorter, and that SF Business Times article listed a lot that have been proposed and not even approved yet.

        I believe that only one tower has actually broken ground (as opposed to stick over concrete 5-7 story projects) and that is the 17th/Broadway project by Lennar Multifamily.

        In addition, two office projects recently announced with secure tenants and financing: Shorenstein’s hole in the ground at 12th/Jefferson in City Center and 12th/Broadway; both are expected to break ground soon. There should be more, but I think that is it for now.

        • Posted by curmudgeon

          oops, and 1700 Webster has also broken ground, of course. Also residential.

          • Posted by Oaklandlover

            Huh.. SS moderator pulled my link but posted it in yours (the biz times one). All good at least it’s posted for curious minds.

            I was guessing about half of the sf biz times list would break ground before recession, which is actually pretty good… for Oakland. That and Brooklyn basin is under construction. Those 2 together will noticeably change DTO.

            That said I was in DTO yesterday driving around JLS, uptown/telegraph and China town…. the hobo camps have drastically increased and it’s looking pretty bad (even by Oakland standards)

            [Editor’s Note: Links without a summary/context are typically flagged for removal.]

          • Posted by Jay78

            Yeah, mine was removed too even though I provided the official list from Oakland City, and mentioned that I follow each project closely since I live in the area and can confirm they have broken ground. Pff. Anywho. Over 3,000 units are currently under construction.

        • Posted by E. Gonsalves

          Oakland will have at least four highrises under construction this year.

        • Posted by Turin

          Thanks! One that I’m really hoping to see get going is 1100 Broadway — as much for the new tower (and filling that hole) as for seeing the old Key Systems Building get refurbished.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            That is very true. Very exciting seeing that historic Key Systems Building restored,

          • Posted by Dubs

            Aww, i’m starting to get attached to that giant hole

  7. Posted by Weaksauce

    Missed the cycle – this won’t get built.

    • Posted by E. Gonsalves

      May have missed the San Francisco cycle but not the Oakland cycle. The Oakland skyline will be much bigger within the next 3 to 5 years.

      • Posted by scott f

        I suspect you may be right, with rents down in San Francisco but still up in Oakland.

        [Editor’s Note: S.F. and Oakland Rents Have Dropped 8 Percent.]

        • Posted by E. Gonsalves

          But home prices are up 10% in the last month while being flat in San Francisco. We may have people not renting in either in SF or Oakland but instead buying in Oakland. This may bode well for turning under construction apartments in Oakland into condos.

          [Editor’s Note: We wouldn’t quote Zillow if we were you, at least not if you care about your credibility.]

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            What is a credible source for Oakland and SF home appreciation in the last 12 months? I’ll look at other sources if you have different information.

    • Posted by AlamedaRenter

      Couldn’t agreed more. The boom is almost over and if they aren’t starting construction this for most projects in Oakland they won’t happen.

      I work for a PGE contractor and spend a ton of time driving all over the BayArea. There is tons and tons of construction in process now. Look at Alameda, Dublin, San Ramon, Concord, Foster City, Millbrae etc etc…acres and acres of townhouses and condos.

      Same with office space….why move into Oakland when there is new space in SF or even new mid rise tower in Foster City (which is a better location IMO)

      Overall…Oakland missed the bubble run up.

      • Posted by E. Gonsalves

        Why move to Oakland? A more central location, great transportation, great weather, a more populated East Bay region, great restaurants, walkability, biking infrastructure, arts, zoo, museum, science center, views, hiking, interesting commercials districts, convenient and growing airport, closer proximity to Tahoe, Napa, Monterey, 9 BART stops, Amtrak station, Ferry Terminal, Oakland A’s, etc. I could go on but I’m tired. Too much to list.

        • Posted by Panhandle Amigo

          You forgot about religious architecture! Who could forget the religious architecture?! 😛

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Yes, you are so right. The list is long and I can’t possibly list everything.?

        • Posted by Some Guy

          So disrespectful, come ON. Sideshows, gangbangers, “community trash piles,” lead poisoning, public “schools” not fit to be called such, city govt dumber than the SFBOS (a noteworthy achievement, have to work at that, high bar but Oakland makes it over,) biggest fatal structrue fire in state history, whistle tips, industrial air pollution (mostly for the poor below 580 so don’t sweat it,) atv/dirt bike gangs lovingly curated by local PD inattention/helplessness. What’s not to like?!!

          Better weather over here though, way better.

          And I will concede that since I moved in awhile back, my corner of fruitvale has gotten a bit more tolerable.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Everything you listed that happens in Oakland happens in SF with a fraction of the publicity. Sideshows, ganbangers, community trash piles, bikers assuaging people on 101, sideshows at hunters point, Fishermans Wharf, Golden Gate Bridge, 55,000 crimes in 49square miles, 700 more violent crimes than in Oakland, tent cities, etc.

          • Posted by Out of Town

            Really? Per E.G. Oakland has: Better climate, better location, better freeways, better public transportation, better housing, better entertainment – so why isn’t people and companies flocking to Oakland? could it be the violent crime rate (per 1,000 inhabitants)?

            Oakland 16.85
            Stockton 13.31
            Emeryville 10.66
            San Bernadino 9.92
            Vallejo 8.65
            San Francisco 7.95
            Sacramento 6.15
            San Jose 3.21

            Source Wikipedia – I selected the cities (I would never have used them as a source in the past, but they have become quite reliable)

          • Posted by Out of Town

            Sorry, I left out Foster City 0.43

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            If it were about crime there would be no one working in downtown San Francisco or shopping at Union Square. Violent crime rates about entire cities mean nothing regarding particular areas or neighborhoods. San Francisco has more crime per square mile than any city in the United States. That would be 55,000 crimes divided by 49sqm.

            The greatest density of that crime is just two blocks from posh Union Square. Much less crime in Oakland City Center, Old Oakland, Uptown, Lake Merritt, Jack London Square, Frank Ogawa Plaza, Chinatown, etc. than in the Tenderloin, 6th Street, Civic Center, Mid Market, etc. You should go look at for downtown SF. No it’s not crime for Oakland. It’s SF fear monger who have nurtured that image by using stats which mean nothing for downtown Oakland or other dining, shopping, and entertainment districts all over Oakland.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Also, people are flocking to Oakland. A home in Oakland is snapped up on average in just 15 days. That’s faster than homes in any other city in the Bay Area. Also, why are there so many businesses in Emeryville since it borders one of the highest crime areas of Oakland? See, it’s not crime. Also, San Francisco experienced 700 more violent crimes than Oakland in a smaller area. Not about crime. It’s all about image and perception.

          • Posted by Jake

            seeing as how more than a few of the great fortunes of San Francisco, past and present, were/are in no small part “about crime”, I’d say that downtown SF is as always open for giving you the business. Elsewise, EG, your alt-actuarial appreciation of risk is as peculiar as ever.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Yes, the Barbary Coast and the gold prospectors. Don’t forget the longshoremen riots on the docks. Crime and money seem to go hand in hand. Downtown Chicago doesn’t seem to suffer from 800 homicides and 5,000 gun shot victims in the city.

          • Posted by Jake

            yes, and you left out Uber and Aridnb. Lack of money and crime also go together, e.g. Oakland. The (in)human condition persists.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            There’s plenty of money in Oakland. Oakland has a lower poverty rate than LA, Chi, NYC and the top 5% in Oakland make more in yearly income than the top 5% of any city with the exception of SF, SJ, Boston & DC.

          • Posted by Jake

            There’s always money in the banana stands of the Oakland hills. Meanwhile, the inconveniently located lowlands of Oakland have one of the greatest concentrations of poor people in the Bay Area. Median income is lower in Oakland than California statewide, and the lower 20+% of Oaklandians live in poverty.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Jake, you’re reaching for antiquated stereotypes. Lower Rockridge is not in the “hills.” Neither is Trestle Glen, Piedmont Avenue, Temescal, Lake Merritt, Uptown, Jack London Square etc. You have to have money to live in those relatively flat areas. Most of Oakland is actually hilly. Not too much completely flat land in Oakland unless you are taking deep East Oakland below Foothill Blvd. West Oakland is pretty flat but that’s only about 30,000 people. How about the San Francisco flats? Any poverty there?

          • Posted by Jake

            yes, there is dreadful poverty all the way to ocean beach, sf. Those poor people get by with a median income only about twice the median in Oakland. Those of us in the wealthier south beach tidelands marvel at their frugality. I’ll take your utter lack of utterance wrt to the actual Oakland economics as acceptance of the previously stated facts: Oakland has one of the greatest concentrations of poor people in the Bay Area; and the median income is lower in Oakland than California statewide; and the lower 20+% of Oaklandians live in poverty.

            Of course “you have to have money to live in” just about anywhere USA, even the large areas of Oakland with very high poverty rates “have money”, though sadly not as much as the banana stand lands uphill.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            There is plenty of poverty in San Francisco. The real poverty level is far higher than the advertised rate due to the high cost of living. The median household income in SF is only about $77,000 per year compared to about $56,000 in Oakland. Being poor in San Francisco at $24,000 four a family of four is a much meager existence than being poor in Oakland at the same poverty level. SF is for the rich with at least 50% of the population struggling to live in real poverty. Don’t kid yourself with the inflated incomes of the few very rich. Living in San Francisco is a struggle for most people. San Francisco has a very low percentage of kids. As a matter of fact only 12% of the population is under 19yrs. This is the lowest percentage of children of any city in the United States. By contrast, Oakland is at 27% for kids. SF is a transient city for most people.

          • Posted by Jake

            SF median household income is over $92k, per US Census ACS 2015. BTW, it hasn’t been as low as $77k since 2013, but you know, good times. SF’s economy has been so strong that we are even pulling along laggards like Oakland, the perpetual lifo of the party: last in, first out.

            FTR, Oakland median household income was under $59k, per US Census ACS 2015. FWIW, Oakland median household income was about $54k, per US Census ACS 2013. If you are going to gum up the statistics, then you may as well pick all the gum from the same pack. I think you have well established your “reality” bonafides; so many alt-facts, so little reality.

            FWIW, the median housing cost in SF is not that much higher than in Oakland, about 16%, per US Census ACS 2015. Rent control for nearly 50% of SF housing units….Fortunately, there is a place for those too poor to afford SF and without the benefit of the very generous largess of the SF rent control ordinance. And it is only a far bridge away, or a BART stop or 4 or 5, depending. SF’s cup overflowth downmarket, Oakward.

            To summarize, the facts (as of 2015 Census ACS) are: SF median income 56% higher than Oakland, while SF median housing costs 16% higher than Oakland.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Wow, SF is only 16% more desirable than Oakland? That’s great to hear. I knew the gap was closing, but didn’t realize it was closing this fast.

            Are you sure that’s accurate, or did you happen to step into a discarded pack of gum across from AT&T Park?

            Jake, I appreciate the wealth of information. You can never stop learning. That will be another valuable 16% arrow in the endless war to educate anti-Oakland folks.

          • Posted by Jake

            Median price paid is a poor measure of desirability, especially with price controls that overweight past prices. Recent prices will be more accurate. And if you want to measure change over time, such as gaps closing or widening, then you will need more than one time sample. I’m at least as confident in the accuracy of the US Census data as I am in the inaccuracy and ineptitude in your alt-facts and alt-analysis, respectively. They say education begins at home; evidently, miseducation too.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Always enjoy our discussions. You are a very creative and colorful writer. Very entertaining and amusing. The Oak puns and digs are delightful. Now I just crack up.

      • Posted by MKP

        …the notion that foster city is more appealing/a better location than oakland…just no.

        • Posted by AlamedaRenter

          my wife has worked at two starts over the last 5 year. Oddly enough neither are in Oakland both in the Foster City and Millbrae area. So I guess most of business CEO don’t know as much as you.

          Trust me I love living close to downtown Oakland (except the drivers in Chinatown). But it isn’t a great spot for a start up tech company for now…it’s getting there…but not yet.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Just curious, why wouldn’t be a great spot for start up tech companies. From what I understand there are already quite a few with all the incubators downtown.

          • Posted by Jay78

            Actually, there are approximately 6,000 tech employees in Oakland.

          • Posted by AlamedaRenter

            I think the reason there is less Oakland tech companies and limited ability for expansion is the type of housing being built and existing housing.

            These new towers and buidling in Temescal and along Broadway…and even the crap on San Pablo in Berekeley and into Emeryville…those buildings are more for hipseter/scenceters aka whites and some Asians (second generation kids that went to Cal etc but are probably Filipino and grew up in Vallejo).

            Most of the larger tech companies in the large sprawling complexes from Tesla in Fremont down to San Jose are spread out to allow for more favorable housing for Indian and Asian populations. Drive around the Cisco complex, Fisher Thermo, NetGear..etc.etc…all those complexes have massive condo/rental complexes around them. Acres and acres of 4-5 story building along Tasman and Zanker…nothing like that exists or can be built in Oakland. And, yes, it’s happening in the Foster City/Millbrae around the Playstation HQ…and out in Dublin near all the Oracle/Kaiser complexes.

            Oakland simply doesn’t have the space to build that and that is what the tech coder drone from Indian and China want (or are willing to accept).

    • Posted by Jay78

      In case you haven’t heard SF has slowed down, but not in Oakland. Oakland is just getting started with the boom.

      • Posted by E. Gonsalves

        Yes, Oakland is just getting started. San Francisco built too many expensive condos which were being purchased with foreign money. San Francisco built for the 2%ers. If the condos in SF were listed for 800,000, they would sell without much of a problem. Prices in Oakland and SF will continue to come closer together as the respective building booms reach their maturity.

        • Posted by Some Guy

          it is true, at least anecdotally, I am seeing a great deal of heavy construction and infrastructure rebuilding around Fruitvale. Many many sidewalks replaced, intersections completely re done, new overpass over 880 at 29th ave.

          Heard today that the 20 acre Owens glass bottle plant at the Fruitvale ave bridge to Alameda is permanent closed, up for sale. If/when they do an enviro cleanup it’ll be prime condo territory, going for 700K each or more no doubt.

          It’s about… _______in…. time.

          • Posted by curmudgeon

            really? that’s great news. That property is going potentially very valuable for residential. And the City is going to be re-doing Fruitvale Avenue between International and the Estuary in a few years for better bike and ped access.

        • Posted by E. Gonsalves

          Yes, just look at all those charming bridges crossing the Oakland Estuary. Oakland really is the city of bridges and that charming waterway good really be a unique feature for Oakland if developed properly. Think of the rivers and waterways running through London and Paris. The Oakland Estuary is really an underutilized gem for Oakland.

        • Posted by E. Gonsalves

          Some guy, I get you. I complain to the city constantly about the graffiti and illegal dumping in East Oakland, West Oakland, and in the fringes of downtown. Much of the dumping near freeways and caltrans property. I get your frustration but Oakland is still a great town and many exciting things are finally happening.

          • Posted by Some Guy

            This guy is so bullish on Oakland I’m almost starting to believe him. Almost. Shows weakness of character on my part.

            But yeah that Owens glass plant parcel is el Primo numero uno condo territory. Facing the alameda channel, low traffic, 5 minute WALK to bart, large shopping center near by ready to be upgraded from “Foods Co” to “Whole Foods.”

            The air in fruitvale is SO much better now that that plant is shutdown. Was a major source of emissions here. Viva los techies en fruitvale.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Thanks. I think. That was my olive branch. Thanks for not completely snapping it off.

  8. Posted by boink

    I wonder how good the hvac will handle the summers just in case for this tower.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles