With plans for the first building of the massive Brooklyn Basin project (a 64-acre East Bay development which will yield up to 3,100 units of housing, 200,000 square feet of commercial/retail space and 30 acres of open space along Oakland’s waterfront) having been approved for the project’s “Parcel B” last year, the designs for the second building have been rendered and refined.

As designed by Studio T Square, the eight-story “Parcel C” building will rise to a height of 86 feet along Brooklyn Basin Way, between 8th and 9th Avenues, with 241 apartments (a mix of 142 one and 99 two-bedrooms) over 3,500 square feet of ground-floor retail space; 7,000 square feet of amenity and lounge space for residents; and a podium floor garage for 240 cars.

And with the residential units arranged in a “U” above the third floor, the opening to which has been flipped from 9th Avenue 8th, a 14,000-square-foot podium terrace with pool would overlook the future Shoreline Park and waterfront.

50 thoughts on “Design for Second Brooklyn Basin Building Revealed”
    1. Oddly enough when you’re up wind from 880 you don’t really notice it when you’re a block or more away.

  1. Will be interesting to see if this tips the scale toward the Laney site for a new A’s ballpark. I hadn’t seen reference to this development in the recent reporting on the ballpark options.

    1. The Laney site would be fantastic. It would really be a neighborhood ballpark in the same mold as Fenway and Wrigley. The site would be walkable, bikeable and even accessible by watercraft from the neighborhoods surrounding Lake Merritt, Jack London Square, Chinatown and now Brooklyn Basin. An extra 6,000 residents at Brooklyn Basin would sure be a nice addition to the over 30,000 situated near Lake Merritt. The A’s at Laney would be a fantastic location in a lovely setting in the heart of Oakland.

      1. A’s stadium there would be the most unpleasant of all clusters… imagine trying to get there from ANYWHERE by car? 880 is now, today, most days during the 5-7PM time frame that one would be on 880 for baseball, almost impassable from the Jail to past 92 southbound and from 238 to 980 northbound.

        And Lake Merritt BART would need to be expanded both on the platform and in the lobby.

        I suggest that the Athletics new stadium should be placed at the Coliseum site where a new neighborhood would be built around the new stadium. See Brooklyn Basin and or the Braves new park for templates.

          1. That arena is still very nice and needs to remain there to compete with the Warriors SF arena for concerts and for even a possible expansion NBA franchise for Oakland.

        1. Yes, but isn’t the current Coliseum on the same “impassable” 880 section?

          A better argument could be made on the comparative merits of BART access, since the current station – being a center platform elevated one could have side platforms added relatively easily; but offsetting that is the much closer siting of the Laney site to the Concord line, opening up the possibility of it effectively being served by two line as opposed to the current one (assuming, of course,people will walk those dozen blocks)

          1. There is an easy time transfer from the Concord line to the Fremont line at the Macarthur BART station.

        2. No, the A’s need a beautiful site in DTO. The Lake Merritt Station was able to handle traffic for the Warriors parade. I don’t see a problem handling passenger loads for a 35,000 seat walkable neighborhood baseball stadium located next to 880 with possible ferry access via the Oakland Estuary. How does 65,000 seat Memorial Stadium in Berkeley handle CAL football games?

        3. Wait. The platform at Lake Merritt is the same size as the platform at Embarcadero, the busiest BART station. Why would that station need to expand to serve a baseball field?

          Note that there is already a BART station right next to the existing A’s field.

          1. The platform and the mezzanine level at Lake Merritt both have tons of space, I’m not really understanding formerly native’s comment above. And it is not “easy” to add side platforms to Coliseum, it is expensive and requires dealing with the fact that the station is squeezed between San Leandro Street and the UP tracks, requiring some fancy cantilevering. Plus all that new vertical circulation you would need. Likewise, widening a center platform is difficult and expensive. Any ball field/concert hall/etc creates crush load potential that can only be dealt with by metering entrance, and that would definitely be easier at Lake Merritt than Coliseum. Post game crowds have plenty of room to gather in the street and in the mezzanine of the station. And as an urban location, hopefully, there would be more diversions too (restaurants/bars, etc) to slow people down on their way to BART. Plus AC, walking, biking, etc. At Coliseum (now) when the game is over there is only one place to go.

          2. Great points. I completely agree. The transfer from the Concord line to the Fremont line heading to Lake Merritt is also a timed and seamless transfer at the MacArthur station.

          3. I didn’t mean to imply it would be easy, and indeed my phrase was “relatively easy”…as in relative to the difficulty of adding side platforms to Lake Merritt.
            Whether LM is adequate as it is currently is, of course, an issue that can be debated, but I think BART itself put the idea in people’s head’s during the recent Warrior’s Celebration when it suggested that people consider alternative stations to forestall overcrowding; of course that’s not the level of attendance a typical A’s game will generate (they can only wish !!)

        1. Its the strangest of all the current trends, this wood paneling craze. Developers can’t seem to finish it in an appropriate manner and the stuff ends up looking weather beaten and awful after as little as one winter.

    1. The area was named after a Mormon ship called ‘Brooklyn.” This area has always been a part of Oakland’s Brooklyn. Long before the area was named Brooklyn it was part of the Peralta Hacienda land grant.

  2. I wish there was some rationale for such an awkward ratio of residential “amenity space” to retail (nearly 2:1).

    Any building I’ve ever visited, lived in or seen in passing has the same problem with amenity space; it never gets used.

    1. Retail is dying. I imagine the wealthy millenials who will rent here will order everything from Amazon. If there ARE any wealthy millenials as the overall economy collapses due to consolidation, automation, and rationalization. 🙂

      1. yeah, this area won’t need much retail. neighborhood services (dry cleaners, barber/hairdresser, corner grocer, etc) but those don’t take up a lot of square feet.

        1. Hey! I am looking for funding. An automated, web-connected Internet of Things robo-barber. You just sit in a chair. Strap the thing on your head, and download the style you want from the web. No need for awkward barber chair conversations or heck, to ever leave your house or apartment again!

      1. The rest of the huge amount of new housing in Oakland is being built in Jingletown, JLS, Old Oakland, City Center, Uptown, Auto Row, & Temescal.

  3. Developers are destroying the bay area with these awful tasteless monstrosities… Go pour money into Detroit and leave us alone. And to all you newbooties out there displacing locals and outpricing those who were here first… You can work from your hometown and not overcrowd ours… Remember, that’s how the internet works.

    1. Change is inevitable, and Oakland needs all the housing it can get. This area will be better served as a neighborhood with great parks on the waterfront, instead of abandoned warehouses.

    2. Change is inevitable and Oakland needs the housing. Duh. Also look you’ll be enjoying the park on the waterfront and biking laps and running training for the annual races on lake Merritt.

    3. I love all the new housing filling empty parking lots and underutilized warehouses all over Oakland. All the new housing makes for a much more vibrant and interesting city.

      1. And a potentially more congested city is terms of getting around. Without substantial transit upgrades that provide viable alternatives to driving, expect more traffic on local roads and highways.

        1. Most of Oakland’s new housing is in walkable areas near a BART station. Oakland is the perfect city for infill housing.

          1. THIS building isn’t close to transit, but most new housing in Oakland is, as E. Gonsalves notes. This housing needs to be knit into the urban fabric. The developer has a requirement to support a shuttle to Lake Merritt BART. Eventually, the area will be better served by AC, and also by bike and ped infrastructure (some of it paid for by the developement).

          2. So true. Brooklyn Basin is probably the housing development currently furthest from public transit in Oakland. Even so, it’s not a great distance by any means. As you correctly state, a simple shuttle and improved biking infrastructure will go a long way.

  4. Doesn’t look like they are keeping any of the warehouse (aside from a tiny bit of the facade). Oh well, could’ve been a great space.

  5. Wow, a “massive development” and area roads are already choked with traffic. No hopes of building a BART station on E 8th within walking distance? At least people would have viable options to driving.

    1. A nice little trolley line down Embarcadero would be great. They could use part of the Amtrak right of way.

    2. There is a big gap between Lake Merritt and Fruitvale BART, and one of BART’s long term plans is to look more seriously at an infill station in East Lake. I wouldn’t hold my breath, but of anywhere in the system, this location makes the most sense, and is quite feasible to construct (tracks are elevated along 8th and there is room to build platforms).

Leave a Reply

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