The parade of proposed Oakland towers continues with the plans for a 24-story tower to rise on the Uptown parking lot parcel at 2305 Webster Street.

As designed by Studio KDA for Segula Investments, the 24-story tower would rise to a height of 240 feet and yield 130 residential units, 81 percent of which would be two-bedrooms, over a five-floor podium garage for 84 cars and 3,000 square feet of ground floor restaurant/retail space fronting Webster and 23rd Streets.

Sitting within the boundaries of Oakland’s Broadway Valdez District Special Plan area, the development has been qualified for a streamlined environmental review.

And assuming the streamlined review is upheld, and the tower’s design is approved as proposed and permits issued, construction on 2305 Webster could commence in early 2018 and be finished 18 months later.

13 thoughts on “Uptown Oakland Tower Qualified for Quick Review”
  1. things just need to hold together for 1-3 more years, and then we can truly say oakland has turned a corner. its already happening on the margins with smaller developments, thriving bars/restaurants, and SFH renovations in west oakland…but if the downtown core gets to a place where we see a material number of new apartment and office towers (and maybe a new Howard Terminal ballpark?), then Oakland will have actually used this cycle to become a new Brooklyn. so close!

      1. of course it would. brooklyn is a mostly nice place to live. oakland is still one of the most violent and crime ridden cities in america. I say this as a resident of oakland for the past 5 years. more brooklynization = better.

        1. I see. If you think a few apartment buildings, bars/restaurants + a new ballpark will accomplish this, though, you might be disappointed (speaking as an Oakland resident of 51 years)

          1. I think that filling in prime, downtown EMPTY lots with large office/apartment towers is a very strong move in the right direction. more density, more people = better services, culture, vibrant businesses, things to do, etc. nothing will change oakland overnight, but not sure why you seem to be resistant to the idea that more development = better quality of life for most residents? do you think more buildings like these are bad? do you think becoming a “new brooklyn” is not a good thing? do you not notice a fairly huge change in oakland over the past 10 years, 20 years, 30 years?

          2. No, no I definitely support the buildings…I just think someone will end up disappointed if they feel it will effect some miracle transformation.

            As for the changes in Oakland over the past few decades it’s a mixed picture: crime has declined in absolute numbers, but it has declined by even larger percentages elsewhere, so in relative terms it’s probably worse; downtown retail has seen the loss of most consumer goods stores, but improved in restaurants; rehabbing the Fox was nice, but the state of the Auditorium is depressing; service at OAK is almost entirely better, but the city’s finances (pensions, debt, etc. ) is almost entirely worse…. It’s a mixed picture.

            As far as being “Brooklyn,” perhaps I misunderstood you: if you simply mean a nice place to live, then “Yes, I like that”; but if you mean an annex to some other city, then “no”…I’d rather be a FTt Worth to SF’s Dallas than play the part of an outer borough.

          3. For Oakland to be more than the artsy, budget alternative for people who mostly work in San Francisco, it really needs more office development. My understanding is that some large office landlords in San Francisco are trying to suppress that by land-banking in downtown Oakland. San Francisco’s Planning Department is also trying to greedily gobble up the office demand with the massive upzoning in the Central SoMa Plan, where jobs would greatly exceed housing (though as an SF resident, my greater concern with that plan is the massive increase in rents and displacement that the imbalance would cause on this side of the bay).

          4. I think you’re referring to Shorenstein, which has been landbanking since the last recession. However, construction is finally starting on their building in City Center (to house Blue Cross). I don’t really agree with your slightly conspiritorial explanation…it’s really an issue of demand, construction costs, etc. Institutional money has moved in to Oakland commercial real estate, buying up a lot of the available inventory. Vacancy is low, lease rates have gone up. Projects are finally (FINALLY) penciling out, even with high construction costs. Knock on wood for another year or so of economic growth before the cycle ends; we’ll see.

        2. Brooklyn has plenty of crime ridden and shabby areas. Brooklyn has 2.6 million residents and isn’t just Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, or Manhattan Beach. Also, Oakland is more than just deep East Oakland and also consists of neighborhoods like Rockridge, Piedmont Avenue, Temescal, Crocker Highlands, Lake Merritt, etc.

  2. Very nice tower. Oakland has nothing to apologize for. Over all Oakland is one of the top ten big cities in the country. Also, SF is not Manhattan, Oakland is not Brooklyn, nor is it SF’s anything else. I was just in NYC and the comparisons don’t make sense. NYC is the only world class city in the U.S.. Brooklyn has 2.6 million residents while Oakland has 426,000 residents. Brooklyn has a higher poverty rate and a lower education level than Oakland. Manhattan is massive and much much larger than SF.

Leave a Reply

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