|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Talk about pricey. The developer of a condo project on Bryant Street estimates that he’ll get an average of $1.2 million for each unit.
The City Council approved the seven-unit project last week, which will replace a 1927 home at 324 Bryant Street on a .26-acre lot. The three-story units range from 981 to 2,367 square feet and each comes with a patio and a garage. Architects on the city’s Design Review Committee gave a thumbs-up to its design. The average price was mentioned in a city staff report.
Council member Laura Macias was the only member to vote against the project, saying she preferred that the 1927 home stay, though it was not deemed historic. Member Jac Siegel expressed similar concerns about developing “every little quarter-acre” of downtown, but voted for the project. Member Tom Means was absent.
“I guess the idea of replacing that cute little 1927 house with this is not that appealing to me,” Macias said.
Mayor Mike Kasperzak and council member Ronit Bryant expressed support for the project, with Bryant praising the new access to the street that neighboring properties will have because of the project.
With a total estimated value of $8.4 million, the project brings the city $252,000 in new below market rate housing fees, $168,000 in park fees and $11,280 in new property taxes.
Eric Peterson of developer Pacific Peninsula Group said after two years of work, “We feel the project as represented will be something Mountain View will be pleased to see developed.”
Yep, let’s ruin the neighborhood. Beautiful 1927 house for a few yuke 2012/13 condo..
Oh well what is cutting down a few more trees. Mountain View and Palo Alto are good at that…
MONEY MONEY MONEY. Sure would be good if people knew how to say NO!!!!
I approve of this project. More residences near downtown brings a better downtown and less sprawl.
Mountain View is a living city and I would hate for it to turn into a museum. I’m sure there were people who didn’t like it when wilderness gave way to orchards in the 1850s, or orchards to houses in the 1920s. But times change and the city with them.
Wow I have one house on a quarter acre and according to the city I have used all the land that I can for my one house on the size of lot that I have. How then can you put 7 condo’s on that size of a lot? Stop screwing up Mountain View with all the crap housing.
Re: Martin
Hear Hear!!
Laura Macias is a hypocrite. It was under her watch that the city built a 4 story parking garage and a 4 story office building directly across the street. These structures are so tall that this junky house from 1927 no longer get’s direct sunlight.
More over, it was under her watch this this piece of property was surrounded by high density housing on both sides. The only appropriate use for this land any more is more high density housing.
How can she be so willing to give money to a non profit religious organization to tear down a 100 year house on Chaquita Ave and replace it with 10 new ugly houses, but object to private investment on private property?
Clearly there is more to the story. And if not, wow, just wow!
Dear $weet Mtn. View Downtown area is like The Boardwalk in The Monopoly
Game, means more $$$$$ for me. So all you losers better eat CROW and don’t be jealous.
I live in Mountain View and been here for more than 20 years and I rarely patronize any of the businesses in the downtown area except the the book store that sells used books and cds which has been there for a long time. This town has been driven to the ground with all the development and arrival of google. I don’t like the high rise buildings and dense dwellings. If only people with little bit of common sense and stop visiting the downtown and take our dollars to some other town, we can see Mountain View back to its old glory. Another dot com bust where google goes out of business would be a welcome thing too. the city council people are just plain greedy and bootlickers.
“I moved here before everyone else. I don’t like change. I hope a major employer in the city goes out of business and decimates the city’s tax base. And I want all of the stores downtown to go out of business except for that one store that I care about.”
If the parking situation during peak hours downtown is anything to go by, Mountain View will get along just fine if the the curmudgeons who can’t stand anyone under the age of 50 moving in on their turf take their business elsewhere.
Judging from the change in the immediate vicinity, its the 1927 house that is now out of place. I like old houses and maintaining the heritage and small town feel of Mountain View. But in this case, its seems appropriate to redevelop.
I think there’s enough room for both the progressive twenty somethings that are looking ahead, and the conservative older-somethings, that long for the past.
At least I hope there is. Mountain View is one of the few places left that has striven and succeeded in accommodating both groups, with the result that we get enjoy all different types of people and culture.
If enough people really want to see the pretty little house from 1927 stay where it is, they could go ahead and pool their money and buy the place. Then they could run a museum there, or leave it vacant, or whatever they please.
Is it possible that despite the squawking, they don’t feel strongly enough about it to put their money where their mouths are?
Good one Ed, these Squawkers let there mouth work overtime but won’t pony up any $$$ to get results.
The new condos look gorgeous. This old house is surrounded by nothing but newer, high density housing and let’s face it, the house is dilapidated. Kudo$ City Council!!
Wait a minute, i thought i saw a burrowing owl there.
Don’t remember what this house looks like but I am sure it is small, being from the 20’s will need lots of work. Taxes, with the price going that high, just think how much more money will be added to the schools and the city.
Someone isn’t watching how Macias studies issues BEFORE she votes! She has been a persistent champion of the R1 small single family neighborhoods. But she usually realizes that development does have it’s place. (as do Bryant and Abe-Koga)
My old birthplace of Glendale CA now has a newer, higher density downtown with a regional banking center and regional shopping centers. But the 1924 California bungalow my father and I grew up in still exists in a well tended, modest residential area away from “the action.” A great city can have the best of the old and the new with good community planning.
The haves vs have nots divide in Mountain View just keeps getting bigger. I think new housing is fine, but the influx of many millionaires into our town creates a demand that is changing our town into just another upscale suburb, with those few out of sight sections that people don’t talk about. Don’t worry, MV, soon all low income housing and people will be gone, and, with it, that economic diversity that we used to brag about. Don’t delude yourself into thinking that we will maintain diversity. I think the window for that is now closed.
number one thing that chases out the working class are the nimby types who choke the supply of housing.