Town Square

Post a New Topic

Council supports three-story condos at 333 Rengstorff

Original post made on May 19, 2010

The City Council gave thumbs up to a high-density condo project last week after a developer spent years improving on a previously rejected proposal for condos on the Rengstorff Avenue site.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 11:40 AM

Comments (8)

Posted by John the Man, a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 19, 2010 at 2:22 pm

Do it. Do it.

Posted by Where?, a resident of Castro City
on May 19, 2010 at 2:26 pm

Does anyone know if the project is on North or South Rengstorff.

Posted by Marc, a resident of Blossom Valley
on May 19, 2010 at 2:56 pm

North Rengstorff

Posted by Martin Omander, a resident of Rex Manor
on May 19, 2010 at 3:01 pm

I'm guessing it's 333 *North* Rengstorff. The Community Development Department Summary in the city's budget for 08/09 mentions:

Process a rezoning and development project for a proposed 64 unit project at 333 North Rengstorff Avenue.

(Link to budget: Web Link)

Posted by Bruce Karney, a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 19, 2010 at 6:43 pm

Is a 34 units/acre development really "high density"? Compared to projects recently built and approved in Mountain View, "high density" doesn't seem like an accurate description to me.

(Yes, it is twice as dense as what's there now, but does THAT what defines high density, or is the absolute number of dwelling units per acre?)

In any event, I'm pleased with the Council's decision.

Posted by Rodger, a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 20, 2010 at 12:02 pm

We need to stop adding to the density of Mountain View. When will it end?

Posted by snawet, a resident of Shoreline West
on May 20, 2010 at 7:20 pm

Good. I'm buying a house but it's in San jose. All the houses in MV are expensive and they are these post-war wrecks that need to be torn down. Ditto for all of the other "condos" that are just old rotting apartment conversions from the 50s.

Posted by Mike R, a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 21, 2010 at 5:26 pm

Didn't Prometheus say that anything less than 61 units/acre would not be financially feasible? But here it is 34 units/acre? It seems that developers are quick to say that "Anything less than <insert number here> is not financially feasible".

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 3,142 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,398 views

Just say no
By Jessica T | 6 comments | 1,333 views

Questions for Council Candidates--Housing
By Steve Levy | 12 comments | 674 views

Palo Alto quietly gets new evening food truck market
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 614 views