Housing at Mayfield mall site dumped for offices Around Town, posted by Editor, Mountain View Voice Online, on May 4, 2012 at 3:02 pm
After almost a decade of contentious planning and untold millions to design, the 27-acre housing community planned for the Mayfield Mall site has been ditched for a $90 million deal to re-use the existing buildings as an office campus.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, May 4, 2012, 1:48 PM
Posted by Steven Nelson, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on May 4, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Good, reuse rather than demolish.
sorry citizens but cant resist - Let me see if Janis Pepper of Los Altos (League of Women Voters) believes this. An industrial 'campus" built in 1966, can actually be economically reused. BUT NOT 48 MOUNTAIN-VIEW WHISMAN classrooms from the same era? ('50s-'60s) "Simply renovating the existing property" is what the high school district is doing to get art rooms into science rooms (at MVHS). That results in a 5X per square foot savings (talk to Joe White).
This type of "reuse" makes economic sense. As Council member Bryant and Mayor Kasperzak commented on for an 'economical' community center - it can make sense for public spending also. (MV Voice last issue)
-WHY NOT REUSE most of the 48 classrooms the architect wants for "demolition" in the MEASURE G Facilities Plan? (most of line items 22, 23, 5 in the SFIP Budget pg. 7). LET THEM TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY ON BEFORE YOU GIVE IT TO THEM. Advice I got from a different 'Nelson."
Posted by Martin Omander, a resident of the Rex Manor neighborhood, on May 4, 2012 at 3:14 pm
That's a surprise. The residential housing plans for Mayfield approved last fall looked really good. But I guess office space is also sorely needed. And it's good that the existing buildings won't have to be torn down. If the buildings worked for HP in 2002, they should work for new businesses now.
Finally, it's been a waste of resources to let the buildings sit empty for so long, when office space is tight. Good thing they'll be put back to good use.
Posted by Home Owner, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on May 4, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Bravo to office space vs. housing and all the traffic that would bring. What a lot of wasted time and money over this past decade trying to fight the housing development(s). Went to a lot meetings at City Hall to fight the developments and did not feel our council members did enough for the existing neighborhood. Am very grateful the existing structure will be reused and that our beautiful trees will remain. I hope traffic through our neighborhood will be kept to a minimum. The old Mall/HP campus is lovely when the trash is picked up and and the weeds are kept down.
Posted by Steven Nelson, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on May 5, 2012 at 8:59 am
Yeh, this back and forth of developers is sort of strange. The last one that I tracked that did this was the high(er) density townhouse development now being built near the downtown station (Evelyn and Phyllis?). Saw the developer present to council, them approve, and then a few month's later want to build a 'close to transit' commercial complex. [zoning change not approved] So - now we (by accident) end up with two developments near transit - housing and commercial. I'm really glad seeing THIS REDEVELOPMENT - all paid by private dollars - none from property tax dollars diverted from education (or county general fund).
Both these area will be much better for the city (taxes) and us (near transit). It's also good for the transit systems to have users within walking distance!
Posted by Steven Nelson, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on May 5, 2012 at 9:07 am
to neighbor - resident of Monta Loma. Of all the general (and specific) criticisms I have of the school Bond Plans, the least is their impact on parks. This commercial reuse will probably impact the school (and lease to city parks) less than residential development. I talked with the parks manager directly responsible for the MANY school-park leases. The schools (Goldman) did a good job of limiting impact of expansion at most sites (( but geeze ! how can both Whisman AND Slater classrooms be 'surplus' !!!))
Posted by Political Insider, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on May 6, 2012 at 7:47 am
Suverkropp says neighbors don't view the tunnel as a necessity for themselves.
"In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it's a top priority," Suverkropp said of neighborhood's desire for the tunnel. But Suverkropp said it was unfortunate to lose the three acres of public park space in the approved housing project plans.
Curious how city staff and some council members felt just the opposite. Most of the neighborhood pushed staff/council to extract more concessions from the developer. Now the neighborhood will get nothing in terms of public amenities like a park, etc.
Posted by ML mom, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on May 7, 2012 at 10:36 am
For the life of me I can't figure out why certain spokespeople in Monta Loma are determined to see this as good news. I would far rather have new families, new parks and a tunnel to connect to transit than yet another giant office complex with thousands of commuters clogging up Central Expressway even more during rush hour. This makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever and I feel like dissent has been actively discouraged on the neighborhood message board. This is BAD news for Monta Loma, without a doubt.
Posted by Mike Laursen, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on May 7, 2012 at 1:28 pm
ML mom, the Monta Loma Neighborhood Association has never necessarily represented the consensus or majority view of the neighborhood, although it is perceived as such. Personally, I would have been happy to see residential use of the property and I'm happy now to see it used for office use. I just wanted to see it used!
I stayed out of it because I live all the way on the other end of the neighborhood and because some of the most active anti-residential proponents are friends and neighbors of mine. Wish it were possible to calmly express a difference of opinion about local politics without it leading to hard feelings.
Posted by Monte Loman, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on May 7, 2012 at 1:33 pm
If you just wanted to see it used, then how could you claim to have an opinion either way? Is your difference of opinion that led to hard feeling just based on wanting to see it used? You should be a politician!
Posted by neighbor, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on May 7, 2012 at 2:45 pm
To Steven Nelson, if you reread my post, it was merely a comment on others' views, not necessarily a reflection of my own. If you have an opinion, you are free to extend it without assuming that someone else is against your own (which I am not - I was merely pointing out one aspect, not necessarily addressing the entire issue - if you actually lived in Monta Loma, you would realize why this point is important).
Posted by Garrett, a resident of another community, on May 7, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Would have guessed this, the office space is so badly needed in the SV, we keep adding jobs from one end to the other end, up and down 101. Where is everyone going to live, you have the people that have lived here for some many years, you got their kids, the grandkids, then people coming here to get jobs, then you got the ones that won't work in tech, but everyone else. Hope the ML won't be used as a fastway to somewhere.
Posted by Garrett, a resident of another community, on May 8, 2012 at 10:46 am
The homes were of nice design, better then the 450 units that were planned before. I support more density but not at the cost to ovdercrowding a space, parks, greenways and more of mix, single family, row homes and flats with some rentals. When they remodel this building, are the residents going to get some green space, yes you get to keep the trees but they are in a parking lot. One good thing just think of the property tax bill, 90 million dollars for the MVWSD.
Posted by Steven Nelson, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on May 9, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Monta Loma School, like many, has a large land fraction leased (no cost) to the City for park use (goes back to the 60's as innovative 'dual use'). A residential development would have put more students into Monta Loma. So you would need some expansion [IF you don't reopen Whisman School] I don't think you need to totally demolish the 15 'Steve Jobs' era classrooms to do that. Replacement then costs at least $8 Million to rebuild those rooms + the expansion classrooms. [that's one of several reasons I think the BOND PLAN unwise)
- Mike's BIG GAIN - if property was really 'sold' $90 M, that is a lot of new property taxes for city and schools. IF there are SALES OFFICES, that additionally brings in sales taxes. Both help balance city and school operational budgets.
Posted by Vinnie, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Jun 2, 2012 at 1:19 am
I grew up in Palo Alto, and have lived in Monta Loma for 30 years. I remember Mayfield Mall. I remember HP. This Mayfield Mall building is almost 500,000 square feet. How many people do you think will occupy a building this size after it's renovated? I currently work in an 80,000 sq. ft. office building that houses almost 400 people. Do the math. Fully occupied, this Mayfield office building will create much more traffic than the housing development would have. No new parks, new streets, new houses, or new families. However, it's great to know that the Monta Loma Neighborhood Association president and board finally got their way, and stopped the housing development. That's what they wanted all along. You don't like increased traffic? Get ready 'cause you 'aint seen nothin' yet!