As proposed and rendered along with a placeholder for the approved 24-story development to rise at 2270 Broadway, the building permits for which are in the works, the refined plans for a 35-story tower to rise on the parking lot parcel at 88 Grand Avenue, on the southern border of Oakland’s Broadway Valdez District, have been drawn.

While the parcel is zoned for development up to 250 feet in height, the project team is seeking a density bonus for the 395-foot-tall tower.  And as designed by KTGY Architecture + Planning for Seagate Properties, the development as proposed would yield 275 residential units, with a ground floor retail space fronting Grand Avenue and the entrance to a stacked 45-car garage on Webster.

And as eagle-eyed readers might note, the renderings include an intended renovation and repurposing of the ground floor space in the adjacent 80 Grand Avenue office building, and its surrounding plaza, at the corner of Broadway, as well.

33 thoughts on “Refined Plans for a 35-Story Oakland Tower (And More)”
  1. Love that they are incorporating a redo of the building on the corner, because that ground floor space is so bland and forgettable. There’s a nice low scale retail strip across the street, and it would be great if both sides of Grand get activated.

  2. Love that weird gold building at 80 Grand; great to see they’re fixing up it’s ground floor. And always happy to see surface parking go vertical!

  3. It would be nice if they resurfaced the gold building glass skin at the 80 Grand building. It throws quite a bit of glare onto Grand Avenue, esp. the retail establishments across the street.

  4. These monstrosities are destroying the bay area. Bland, frigid, and unoriginal these parasitic developers are leeches draining resources and stressing locals. This is embodied greed and it is ugly to look at; go build that crap in your own neighborhood.

    We could take the money from the wealthy, and redistribute it so everybody wins, or we could continue build these systems that separate, segregate, and help elevate the wealthy above the others.

    Privilege is disgusting

    1. Yes, let’s build a wall around Oakland. Immigrants from outside the area should under no circumstances be allowed the relocate here. Anyone who can’t prove that all 4 of their grandparents are California natives should be immediately deported to other states. Hence forth the only new housing allowed shall be non profit and built from locally sourced drift wood.

    2. Lives in a city
      Uses the internet to complain about wealth and privilege
      Wants less housing built
      Believes wealthy people are ipso facto bad people
      Refuses to move somewhere more bucolic

      diagnosis: millenial

      1. hahahha

        Moves here

        Doesn’t care about local sensibility

        Imposes myopic perspective

        Doesn’t listen to those who have been here longer ad those who will be impacted

        Thinks in fallacies, can’t make complete sentences

        diagnosis: russian troll, fb bot or greedy developer

        Did I do it right?

        1. Are you under the impression that Bay Area natives can’t and aren’t often greedy? Because spoiler: they can be and are. Case in point, large demographic and geographic swaths of NIMBYs.

    3. This entire rant is nonsensical, contradictory, and contains a series of non sequitur thoughts. You can’t just string buzzwords and vague generalities together and call it a position.

    4. Um. Pretty sure anti-development attitudes dating back to the 60s are well documented to have ruined the city in the way you describe so you’re part of the problem, not the solution.

    5. I empathize with folks who feel displaced by the bay area boom. It grew faster than anyone anticipated and city/state officials just weren’t prepared. Look at BART, it was never designed for these loads. 880 is likely the worst portion of interstate in the country.

      The way out is through, native son. My advice, is to embrace the change. Anti-development is not the answer here. All God’s grace has shined on California. You shouldn’t be asking why 35 stories, you should be asking why not 135? The lack of development has led to a housing crisis. Absolute supply-demand 101. There is (for the moment) unlimited demand. Due to misguided NIMBYism, there is very fixed supply. There are thoughtful ways to have your cake too native son, like ensuring 20-30% of new development is reserved for low income housing. Also, permits and construction should be ran by native sons and daughters (local workers). New income from new taxes, could be applied to the local schools to help native sons and daughters get better jobs and be a part of this boom. Local leaders, real leadership and vision for Oakland 2050 is required. Demand more of your leaders, don’t rail against imigrants and progress.

      There should be 35, 100+ story projects in the bay right now. There are trillions of untapped dollars available for all the native sons and daughters to capture, but only if they want to. The way out is through.

      Alternatively, 15,000 companies left California for Texas last year. So you may get your Flint Michigan apocalypse after all. Go watch “Roger and Me” … paradise.

      1. Well said! The people will come here, just like all of us did, or our parents, or theirs, whatever….the “good old days” of less people are not the future. The future requires hi density, hi transit focus, less cars, and much more density in the core areas.

        Encouraging ALL people to chase thier dreams, offer up the freedom to do so, and give as best a FAIR chance to do so will yield the best results overall for the masses over time. We need much more housing here. And much more open mindedness to let others have the opportunity to live in this great place. It is not yours or mine it is the earths and we are all part of it and must protect the natural resources (IE kill sprawl to preserve nature, while massively densifying our cities in an environmentally good way….IE less cars)

        Its so clear. Off my soapbox.

        This project looks FANTASTIC! The are around Broadway and Grand is getting better and more urban / dense feeling everyday. Such cool little bars and cafes and other gathering spots in that area as well.

      2. “You shouldn’t be asking why 35 stories, you should be asking why not 135?”

        That, right there, is the crux of the entire matter. SF is still attached to its cultural “small city” mentality, to the scale and shape of things as they occurred across the 20th century.

        There is no reason at all, except politics and sentiment, why SF could not be built up like NYC, Hong Kong, or any of a 100 other first-rank metropolises worldwide. Against a historical time frame SF is entering its adolescent identity-crisis phase, not sure if/how/when to really “grow up,” a process that will entail letting go of “small city” character while growing truly dense, and becoming truly sophisticated.

        Meanwhile.. us folks over here in Oakland will hold down the fort on the “smaller town / 3rd-tier city” vibe.

      3. Well put. I’ve lived in Oakland/Berkeley since the mid 80’s and have seen the up’s/downs of good/bad development in Oaktown. One thing that threw everyone for a loop was almost overnight the rental market skyrocketed as well as 4 sale. Unlike, Emeryville (15% -20 % BMR) and SF, Oakland never set a “standard” for BMR (Below Market Rate) Units and/or affordable housing.

        There’s less than 6% Affordable Housing under construction and when a project comes to market, there’s 10K applying for 100 Units. I’m ecstatic that Oakland finally is getting its just due, but pushing out the working class, seniors, ect… doesn’t do it and POA needs to take place ASAP.

  5. Loving that low 0.16 parking ratio, versus a 1.17 ratio(!) and hideous 5-story parking podium for 2270 Broadway around the corner. That’s progress! Investors finally catching on that people don’t move downtown because we want to drive.

  6. I don’t think that trumpisim is a solution. Instead, having a level headed approach would be more productive don’t you think?

    The bay has always welcomed participants, not money hungry people who promote self indulgence at the cost of peers. I don’t think that wealthy people are inherently bad; just sick. Similar to obese people, overconsumption causes problem in other areas; greed at the expense of others, is prohibitive of their opportunity.

    Benioff: The Bay Area is a train wreck.

    We know which train you’re on, new guy.

    1. Why double down on the position that wealthy people are inherently bad and that wealthy is inherently evil? It’s a morally indefensible position, based entirely on willful ignorance and the inability to understand the difference between correlation and causation, as well as the inability to hold two opposing thoughts in your head at once.

      Meanwhile, you actively called for exclusionary policy with a spritz of grossly misguided nativism. It’s as hilariously hypocritical as it is pathetic.

    2. I literally walk around and see “f*ck you techies” on the city streets, and I’m also hearing the hypocritical “welcomed participants” as this guy says. What a joke.

      The “f*ck you techies” reminds me of the “f*ck you jews” signage we’ve all seen.

  7. Well yeah when your perception of the world is limited to a 5.5″screen, it would be hard to think outside the box and see the world with your own eyes.

    Try getting out of your comfort zone and live a little. You too can see that there is a lot more to the world than money…

    Good luck with your demons. I wish you well

    1. My dude, you’re the one literally advocating for outsiders to be excluded while simultaneously basing your non-argument on forcibly redistributing money to people you personally deem worthy. So how exactly are you not the greedy nativist here?

      And quit trying to unsuccessfully hide behind transparent, unclever name changes. It’s yet another admission that you can’t defend your own shattershot thoughts.

      At the end of the day, just know that your rage and frustration is completely impotent.

  8. Back to the building… which is designed by a local firm!! I think it’s a handsome thin design and a welcomed addition to the Oakland skyline

  9. The rendering makes the 80 Grand building (the gold-colored former savings and loan building) look like 15 stories. I believe it’s actually 8 stories.

    I agree with George about the reflected glare from that building. There used to be a women’s wear store across Grand. As soon as the new building went up they had to keep clothing out of the display windows; the reflected sunlight was fading the fabric.

    1. ? The building went up about 1970. Perhaps the problem was the building across Webster…or maybe they cleaned the windows or something. (Or do you mean this happened 50 years ago?)

      1. Yes. 50 years ago. The women’s wear store was on the south side of Grand between Broadway and Webster. In the middle of the day, when the sunlight came from the south, the reflected light shone in the store’s front windows.

  10. I can’t wait to see the building completed, I welcome any increase in the housing supply. Part of me wonders why city hall is broke even after taxing all of our ever growing population though… You’d think that with more things and people to tax we would be able to afford more…

  11. a parking lot (for a tiny office building) turning into a tower for housing — what’s not to like? the dappling of balconies across the facade is a nice design, as well. subtle but effective, and cost-efficient.

    and to be clear, there’s no way in god’s good earth that this here millennial immigrant who has lived here only 8 years could afford it — but i know it will alleviate the stress on the rental market that i’ve been victim to since moving out from my parent’s home when i was 18.

  12. there’s a long answer to that. Part of it is that the benefits of growth come only gradually (due to prop 13). But those new buildings certainly help by adding to the tax base…once they are completed. Another is that there is a tremendous backlog of work to do…the City has been broke for decades, and so being improved does not mean it’s suddenly rich..there’s a lot of catching up to do. Finally, the cost of employee pensions is skyrocketing (not just in Oakland but throughout California) because Calpers is being more realistic about how much Cities need to contribute to fully fund the system. Long term this is good (particularly because pensions are more affordable for everyone hired after the great recession due to changes that Jerry Brown insisted on), but short-medium term it’s a world of pain. The fact that Oakland is growing so substantially SHOULD help get through the next several years…according to projections it should begin to get better in the mid 2020’s.

  13. From a planning perspective, this is about the best possible site in Oakland to build on. It’s near BART and a lot of bus service. It’s near a lot of workplaces. There are tons of bars and restaurants; and grocery stores not so terribly far away. It’s not in the middle of low rise residential neighborhood where it might feel disruptive. The rich people will be here if Oakland allows more housing or not. If Oakland doesn’t allow more housing, the rich people will just buy up existing houses–and it will be poor people that will be displaced. What’s not to like?

Leave a Reply

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