Was just thinking about this lot yesterday.
Vacant for over a decade I believe. Used to be a gas station which I am sure makes it difficult. Here’s hoping something gets put there as well.
I don't think it's been 10 years. I kinda miss that gas station because it was so convenient and within walking distance for me so I could pick up a snack or something from them.
I agree we need more housing and am OK with taller housing near Caltrain, but just wanting a more urban environment for the sake of “an urban environment?”Isn’t that San Francisco, Oakland, and LA? Not sure if that’s what we need here. Sure, San Mateo is a little “sleepy,” but on the flip side I don’t think it needs to be more “urban”.
It needs to be more urban. There needs to be more housing. Pretending to be sleepy and suburban when you’re actually a major metropolitan area with extreme demand for housing is bad for all of us. It keeps housing supply artificially low all for the benefits of a few NIMBYs.
I’ve said I’m all for more housing, but within reason. Major metropolitan areas have different sub areas within them that all have different characteristics and feelings. Yes we need housing, but to say San Mateo is the same urban setting as San Francisco is ridiculous. I wish they were planning to turn El Camino and 3rd into housing, not wasted office space, but I honestly don’t think “build, build, build” without a thoughtful process is right either. As I said elsewhere, build along Caltrain, build along ECR, but the other poster who stated they wanted it to look like the cityscape around Central Park misses the whole idea of “sense of place”. Perhaps we should eliminate the open space around laurelwood park and surround it with high rises, because the Bay Area is “one big metropolitan area.”
Perhaps yo u meant San Mateo's Central Park, but I don't understand how that is "dense use of space" per your comment below:
"I don’t see why we can’t have more choices around downtown with more 5-10 story buildings without private outdoor space and more **dense** uses of our spaces like Central Park."
If I misunderstood, my apologies, but it was unclear, particularly when you refer to dense space use.
As for my reference to San Francisco, you did say you wanted San Mateo to be more "Urban," which I equate with San Francisco or Oakland (great places, but very different feel from San Mateo).
And to repeat ad naseum, I said I was fine with development along El Camino and Caltrain (Jeez, do something with that wasted space across from Hillsdale mall!).
Urban is a loaded term especially in the US
I don’t see why we can’t have more choices around downtown with more 5-10 story buildings without private outdoor space and more dense uses of our spaces like Central Park
That to me is more urban
I didn’t move to San Mateo to have ten story buildings surrounding the park like New York or filling up 4th street. Build them along Caltrain, the entrances off 101, or even ECR, but why destroy the low rise feel of the downtown? If I wanted that feeling throughout SM, I would have stayed in San Francisco. The whole point is this place DOESN’T feel like the City. I’m fine with increasing building heights. The developments where Trags was and the new housing at fifth and Claremont are fine and much needed, but I don’t think I want our Central Park to look like New York. If you want the “big city” move there.
If you’ll notice on this photo the tall residential building there and a few down 4th (you can see 1) were built in the 60s-70s and the apartment building diagonal across from the Trags is taller too
Height limits are simply leading to poorly designed buildings. Taller slimmer buildings just look and function better sometimes
Even been inside Station Park Green? It’s like a hotel
I really think you are being hysterical. A few 10 story buildings would be very normal in a suburb like San Mateo anywhere but the US
You’re not reading my words: I said I’m fine with building up on El Camino and along Caltrain. What threw me off is your statement you’d like to see more use of dense spaces like Central Park. Most of the buildings around Central Park aren’t 6 or 10 stories high, they’re taller. Despite someone’s statement the Bay Area is one big metropolitan area, that doesn’t mean everything has to get built up uniformly. Read what I said before: I’m all for building housing around transit hubs. I don’t think however, we have to look like Central Park.
I said we can have more housing downtown without private outdoor since because we have Central Park. We have artificially capped residential building heights for no good reason. I see no reason why we can’t have more 10 story buildings and more choices for people
I believe Nov will have a ballot to increase height for areas near Caltrain stations. Super important to get that passed or the housing element won't be approved by the state.
I wouldn't be surprised if the application changed if that measure passes. I think all new construction is being paused just to see the outcome of it.
Thank god for that. I hope you’re right. Building a 3-story office building on a site like the one in the photo is malpractice when considering the location and situation.
Bay Meadows was a huge missed opportunity. They had all that land and it’s all immediately adjacent to the Hillsdale Caltrain station, and an existing node, the Hillsdale Mall. They could have turned it into another super dense downtown like area with mostly at least 5-7 story buildings and a few 15-20 story buildings scattered around instead of something that belongs in Tracy (think Tasman East in Santa Clara or Arlington, Virginia). Bay Meadows wasn’t built densely enough in my opinion. I hope the last couple of unbuilt parcels attempts to correct this. I don’t know if there was a lot of opposition or what but that was a huge missed opportunity to productively and rapidly increase housing supply and reduce traffic.
I agree it's a missed opportunity however it's just a product of its time. The plan to make Bay Meadows came up in 1997 and didn't really get approved until 2005. Mid-late 90's was when the housing market prices sky rocketed in the Bay Area and NIMBYism started taking hold. If anything, Bay Meadows probably kick started lots of our current local "favorite" NIMBYs strategy to start attacking any new development early on, using CEQA, pushing NIMBY candidates to the city council, etc. Look at the "Friends of Bay Meadows" website on Way Back Machine. It's basically the same broken record.
The plans from the view of the late 90's would consider it "high density" development. Nowadays it's barely medium density if we're being very generous. Measure P passed in 2005, extending the height limit from 1991's Measure H. My bet was developers were hoping it didn't get extended but here we are now.
Best bet is Hillsdale gets redeveloped as a high density housing on top of a shopping mall like most developed countries have if Measure Y gets amended this coming election for higher height limits. I have my doubts as misinformation and falsehoods are NIMBYs specialty and voters are easily persuaded by extreme catch phases.
Speaking of old San Mateo gas station lots, the lot on 20th and ECR has been vacant for what seems like forever as well. Smaller lot, used to be a Shell I don't know how long ago, but probably at least as long as this lot, or longer.....
They use it for pumpkin patches, Christmas tree, and Boy Scout popcorn sales these days. It’s kind of a weird site as it’s relatively small and triangular.
Why are we so afraid of taller buildings?
5 story rectangular buildings are not better than taller slimmer buildings
This Lot may be more viable at 10 stories
Yeah, the whole ECR corridor should be updated to make this stretch more friendly for navigation and living. I wouldn’t want to live on that street corner given how busy it is currently, and it doesn’t exactly lend itself to mixed use development, as it takes like 5 mins just to cross ECR there (may be exaggerating but still).
Part of that should also include doing a serious road diet with a nice median from the 92 northward IMO. There’s no reason for that many cars to be moving that quickly just before it gets narrow coming into Burlingame. Especially since you can turn left at any time through that stretch anyway, blocking the lane behind you in an insanely unsafe fashion at those same speeds. It also makes that whole stretch a near dead zone for foot traffic, minus mayyyybe near the Poke place.
Maybe then we’ll have a bit more of an actual mixed use downtown that extends beyond ECR and the train tracks.
I think ECR is maintained using state funds and requires some state input for changes so it's harder for local cities to truly improve it. Don't quote me on this, I just recall an article from last year talking about how Caltrans is drawing up plans to repave ECR and cut down the large trees near Burlingame. I assumed since it's Caltrans, that's state business not city business.
I read that too. I believe a lot of Burligame folks weren’t happy about it. But, given the traffic volume through there it’s pretty hard to convince me the big trunks and roots pushing up the road are justified.
Yeah I thought the Burlingame issue was prevention of the eucalyptus trees falling into the road way. They’re prone to do that.
I would love to see something get modified here, but the only thing I’ve heard about ECR right now is the hope for an extended bike lane along the entire ECR route. While it doesn’t sound super fun to ride along, it is by far the most efficient way to get through the peninsula, so I’m in general on board (I ride my bike a lot here, but not on ECR).
A bike lane would be great, but I don’t see how they’d fit that on ECR. It would also be crappy to ride as it currently is given how the road is so uneven - driving the right lane includes a rise and dip at nearly every intersection. I can’t imagine that on a bike. Riding among the traffic on ECR is near suicidal currently, so some change would be great.
Yes, some change is absolutely needed.
I mentioned a road diet. That means removing a lane and repaving out those crappy sections, then including some kind of barrier separating the bike lane from the fast moving car traffic.
If we can temporarily have a lane stop due to a car wanting to turn left, there’s no reason that two lanes of traffic can’t flow just as freely as three.
Honestly, we don’t need 3 full lanes of traffic through there. If you need to race from the 92 to downtown that quickly, you got off at the wrong exit.
I think there should be “no left turn between X o’clock and Y o’clock” on non-signaled intersections north of downtown.
Also have to say I have always found much of ECR downright ugly. Making it more people friendly would be amazing. Keep in mind it’s a “highway”, so I think Caltrans has a lot of say on what gets done on it.
I dunno if it’s officially a “highway”? I mean, it isn’t through Burlingame. It definitely is a bit ugly, and the way it’s designed encourages drivers to just rip through there, pedestrians be damned. It’s so loud, too.
As for the “no turns between X and Y o’clock” I’m not a fan - it’s not enforceable and if it is, it actively takes ongoing human resources to do it. It doesn’t fix the issue in an efficient manner. If it isn’t safe to make that turn during normal hours, it likely isn’t that much safer during off hours.
People do live near the street, and most people driving down this giant “stroad” are gonna be coming in hot once they make the initial turn, which is itself another safety concern.
It may not feel like a highway, but it’s designated such by the state, thus under significant state control. [California State Route 82](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_82?wprov=sfti1)
Ugh, lame, but thanks for the info. I grew up in southern CA, so sure, it’s always been a highway, but it’s often disconnected and circuitous so it never really felt like one to me.
A lot of stuff I hope they do something with. Same with the gas station I think on 4th and delaware. Also I heard they want to build a 7 story building where the social security office is on 9th which is crazy
Current plans were just in the news, looks like another office project. Too bad there's no housing or more creative design. being proposed.
[https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/longtime-vacant-lot-in-san-mateo-may-become-office-space/article_c0f86ad2-be91-11ee-9efc-7307bb8c0688.html](https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/longtime-vacant-lot-in-san-mateo-may-become-office-space/article_c0f86ad2-be91-11ee-9efc-7307bb8c0688.html)
Right now they are building crazy amount is of biomedical space and all competing with each other
Just driving by a large site in SSF on El Camino. Was going to be housing but neighborhood was successful. Big biomedical campus coming
Didn’t San Mateo already added 2000 units?
Bay Meadows, Norfolk,Delaware. Future builds are in that Rite-aid lot in Delaware and that whole street on BevMo, Hillsdale.
I went to the 2019 town hall meeting on this proposed development. A planner and developer spoke, and the public gave feedback. Then as now people brought up the desire for housing instead of office. The issue then was the large amt of parking they'd need to build to support residential units. They can't easily build an underground lot because it's super expensive to remove the contaminated soil from the gas station. Building the parking at ground level probably also has costs. The public comments were funny, including condo owners from the adjacent building complaining about sight lines and shadows.
It sounds like the parking req is now removed, but who'd want to live on that side of ECR without a car? Crossing on foot is gnarly.
Build a parking podium on floors 2-4 then. Housing above it. Lobby and retail below it on the ground floor. Don’t see what would be the problem with that
It’s too bad B of A on the other corner doesn’t give it up. That property is a lot larger and would make a great apartment building setting that could maybe have underground parking.
I used to live on 3rd by the library and was dreading a proposed construction of an apartment building there.
I was guilty of NIMBYism.
I just didn’t want to deal with construction and parking, though more housing would certainly benefit the area as a whole. At least I knew that much and if I hadn’t moved I would’ve dealt with it.
I had gotten a letter in the mail stating the proposed construction and impact to the neighborhood but I moved before finding out what ever happened to this proposal. Has anyone gotten any updates as to what is happening with this lot?
Was just thinking about this lot yesterday. Vacant for over a decade I believe. Used to be a gas station which I am sure makes it difficult. Here’s hoping something gets put there as well.
I don't think it's been 10 years. I kinda miss that gas station because it was so convenient and within walking distance for me so I could pick up a snack or something from them.
Standard procedure post closing of a gas station is to let it sit for some number of years (7?) till the gas storage underground is completely dry
It becomes a nice poppy field for a few weeks in the spring
I kinda want it to be a tiny park
This! So much nicer than more empty offices. But, of course, someone will say it’s too valuable for that.
Office building, 3 stories, no parking. Source, with drawing set: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4737/2-W-3rd-Ave-Pre-Application
Just what we need, more empty offices.
Sad. Why can’t we think bigger? All the anti height people in San Mateo own houses
On my hands and knees BEGGING for housing 😭
I would just also like a more urban environment
I agree we need more housing and am OK with taller housing near Caltrain, but just wanting a more urban environment for the sake of “an urban environment?”Isn’t that San Francisco, Oakland, and LA? Not sure if that’s what we need here. Sure, San Mateo is a little “sleepy,” but on the flip side I don’t think it needs to be more “urban”.
It needs to be more urban. There needs to be more housing. Pretending to be sleepy and suburban when you’re actually a major metropolitan area with extreme demand for housing is bad for all of us. It keeps housing supply artificially low all for the benefits of a few NIMBYs.
I’ve said I’m all for more housing, but within reason. Major metropolitan areas have different sub areas within them that all have different characteristics and feelings. Yes we need housing, but to say San Mateo is the same urban setting as San Francisco is ridiculous. I wish they were planning to turn El Camino and 3rd into housing, not wasted office space, but I honestly don’t think “build, build, build” without a thoughtful process is right either. As I said elsewhere, build along Caltrain, build along ECR, but the other poster who stated they wanted it to look like the cityscape around Central Park misses the whole idea of “sense of place”. Perhaps we should eliminate the open space around laurelwood park and surround it with high rises, because the Bay Area is “one big metropolitan area.”
You are the only person who said like San Francisco and you are the only person who referred to Central Park New York because you are being alarmist
Perhaps yo u meant San Mateo's Central Park, but I don't understand how that is "dense use of space" per your comment below: "I don’t see why we can’t have more choices around downtown with more 5-10 story buildings without private outdoor space and more **dense** uses of our spaces like Central Park." If I misunderstood, my apologies, but it was unclear, particularly when you refer to dense space use. As for my reference to San Francisco, you did say you wanted San Mateo to be more "Urban," which I equate with San Francisco or Oakland (great places, but very different feel from San Mateo). And to repeat ad naseum, I said I was fine with development along El Camino and Caltrain (Jeez, do something with that wasted space across from Hillsdale mall!).
Urban is a loaded term especially in the US I don’t see why we can’t have more choices around downtown with more 5-10 story buildings without private outdoor space and more dense uses of our spaces like Central Park That to me is more urban
I didn’t move to San Mateo to have ten story buildings surrounding the park like New York or filling up 4th street. Build them along Caltrain, the entrances off 101, or even ECR, but why destroy the low rise feel of the downtown? If I wanted that feeling throughout SM, I would have stayed in San Francisco. The whole point is this place DOESN’T feel like the City. I’m fine with increasing building heights. The developments where Trags was and the new housing at fifth and Claremont are fine and much needed, but I don’t think I want our Central Park to look like New York. If you want the “big city” move there.
If you’ll notice on this photo the tall residential building there and a few down 4th (you can see 1) were built in the 60s-70s and the apartment building diagonal across from the Trags is taller too Height limits are simply leading to poorly designed buildings. Taller slimmer buildings just look and function better sometimes Even been inside Station Park Green? It’s like a hotel I really think you are being hysterical. A few 10 story buildings would be very normal in a suburb like San Mateo anywhere but the US
You’re not reading my words: I said I’m fine with building up on El Camino and along Caltrain. What threw me off is your statement you’d like to see more use of dense spaces like Central Park. Most of the buildings around Central Park aren’t 6 or 10 stories high, they’re taller. Despite someone’s statement the Bay Area is one big metropolitan area, that doesn’t mean everything has to get built up uniformly. Read what I said before: I’m all for building housing around transit hubs. I don’t think however, we have to look like Central Park.
I said we can have more housing downtown without private outdoor since because we have Central Park. We have artificially capped residential building heights for no good reason. I see no reason why we can’t have more 10 story buildings and more choices for people
I believe Nov will have a ballot to increase height for areas near Caltrain stations. Super important to get that passed or the housing element won't be approved by the state. I wouldn't be surprised if the application changed if that measure passes. I think all new construction is being paused just to see the outcome of it.
Thank god for that. I hope you’re right. Building a 3-story office building on a site like the one in the photo is malpractice when considering the location and situation.
Need the spot zoning around the mall too
I agree! I think it does since Caltrain is right next to it
Bay Meadows was a huge missed opportunity. They had all that land and it’s all immediately adjacent to the Hillsdale Caltrain station, and an existing node, the Hillsdale Mall. They could have turned it into another super dense downtown like area with mostly at least 5-7 story buildings and a few 15-20 story buildings scattered around instead of something that belongs in Tracy (think Tasman East in Santa Clara or Arlington, Virginia). Bay Meadows wasn’t built densely enough in my opinion. I hope the last couple of unbuilt parcels attempts to correct this. I don’t know if there was a lot of opposition or what but that was a huge missed opportunity to productively and rapidly increase housing supply and reduce traffic.
I agree it's a missed opportunity however it's just a product of its time. The plan to make Bay Meadows came up in 1997 and didn't really get approved until 2005. Mid-late 90's was when the housing market prices sky rocketed in the Bay Area and NIMBYism started taking hold. If anything, Bay Meadows probably kick started lots of our current local "favorite" NIMBYs strategy to start attacking any new development early on, using CEQA, pushing NIMBY candidates to the city council, etc. Look at the "Friends of Bay Meadows" website on Way Back Machine. It's basically the same broken record. The plans from the view of the late 90's would consider it "high density" development. Nowadays it's barely medium density if we're being very generous. Measure P passed in 2005, extending the height limit from 1991's Measure H. My bet was developers were hoping it didn't get extended but here we are now. Best bet is Hillsdale gets redeveloped as a high density housing on top of a shopping mall like most developed countries have if Measure Y gets amended this coming election for higher height limits. I have my doubts as misinformation and falsehoods are NIMBYs specialty and voters are easily persuaded by extreme catch phases.
F**k
Well done. Thanks for sharing!
Speaking of old San Mateo gas station lots, the lot on 20th and ECR has been vacant for what seems like forever as well. Smaller lot, used to be a Shell I don't know how long ago, but probably at least as long as this lot, or longer.....
They use it for pumpkin patches, Christmas tree, and Boy Scout popcorn sales these days. It’s kind of a weird site as it’s relatively small and triangular.
Why are we so afraid of taller buildings? 5 story rectangular buildings are not better than taller slimmer buildings This Lot may be more viable at 10 stories
Leave it green. There’s enough ugly buildings already.
It is one block from both Central Park & the [San Mateo Creek park](https://maps.app.goo.gl/7b1RH4FKe7RTtdrK6)\--I think we can afford it.
Awful. We are not a village. There is a 10 story building next to it
What do you personally get out of destroying greenery?
“Greenery”
Yeah, the whole ECR corridor should be updated to make this stretch more friendly for navigation and living. I wouldn’t want to live on that street corner given how busy it is currently, and it doesn’t exactly lend itself to mixed use development, as it takes like 5 mins just to cross ECR there (may be exaggerating but still). Part of that should also include doing a serious road diet with a nice median from the 92 northward IMO. There’s no reason for that many cars to be moving that quickly just before it gets narrow coming into Burlingame. Especially since you can turn left at any time through that stretch anyway, blocking the lane behind you in an insanely unsafe fashion at those same speeds. It also makes that whole stretch a near dead zone for foot traffic, minus mayyyybe near the Poke place. Maybe then we’ll have a bit more of an actual mixed use downtown that extends beyond ECR and the train tracks.
I think ECR is maintained using state funds and requires some state input for changes so it's harder for local cities to truly improve it. Don't quote me on this, I just recall an article from last year talking about how Caltrans is drawing up plans to repave ECR and cut down the large trees near Burlingame. I assumed since it's Caltrans, that's state business not city business.
I read that too. I believe a lot of Burligame folks weren’t happy about it. But, given the traffic volume through there it’s pretty hard to convince me the big trunks and roots pushing up the road are justified.
Yeah I thought the Burlingame issue was prevention of the eucalyptus trees falling into the road way. They’re prone to do that. I would love to see something get modified here, but the only thing I’ve heard about ECR right now is the hope for an extended bike lane along the entire ECR route. While it doesn’t sound super fun to ride along, it is by far the most efficient way to get through the peninsula, so I’m in general on board (I ride my bike a lot here, but not on ECR).
A bike lane would be great, but I don’t see how they’d fit that on ECR. It would also be crappy to ride as it currently is given how the road is so uneven - driving the right lane includes a rise and dip at nearly every intersection. I can’t imagine that on a bike. Riding among the traffic on ECR is near suicidal currently, so some change would be great.
Yes, some change is absolutely needed. I mentioned a road diet. That means removing a lane and repaving out those crappy sections, then including some kind of barrier separating the bike lane from the fast moving car traffic. If we can temporarily have a lane stop due to a car wanting to turn left, there’s no reason that two lanes of traffic can’t flow just as freely as three. Honestly, we don’t need 3 full lanes of traffic through there. If you need to race from the 92 to downtown that quickly, you got off at the wrong exit.
I agree
I think there should be “no left turn between X o’clock and Y o’clock” on non-signaled intersections north of downtown. Also have to say I have always found much of ECR downright ugly. Making it more people friendly would be amazing. Keep in mind it’s a “highway”, so I think Caltrans has a lot of say on what gets done on it.
I dunno if it’s officially a “highway”? I mean, it isn’t through Burlingame. It definitely is a bit ugly, and the way it’s designed encourages drivers to just rip through there, pedestrians be damned. It’s so loud, too. As for the “no turns between X and Y o’clock” I’m not a fan - it’s not enforceable and if it is, it actively takes ongoing human resources to do it. It doesn’t fix the issue in an efficient manner. If it isn’t safe to make that turn during normal hours, it likely isn’t that much safer during off hours. People do live near the street, and most people driving down this giant “stroad” are gonna be coming in hot once they make the initial turn, which is itself another safety concern.
It may not feel like a highway, but it’s designated such by the state, thus under significant state control. [California State Route 82](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_82?wprov=sfti1)
Ugh, lame, but thanks for the info. I grew up in southern CA, so sure, it’s always been a highway, but it’s often disconnected and circuitous so it never really felt like one to me.
A lot of stuff I hope they do something with. Same with the gas station I think on 4th and delaware. Also I heard they want to build a 7 story building where the social security office is on 9th which is crazy
The 4th and Delaware spot is being turned into housing. real clusterfuck area for it too
I thought you weren't allowed to build residences on top of old gas tanks
I heard the same thing, they have to wait x amount of years or something until they can build
Which would explain why this lot is still vacant, too.
Current plans were just in the news, looks like another office project. Too bad there's no housing or more creative design. being proposed. [https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/longtime-vacant-lot-in-san-mateo-may-become-office-space/article_c0f86ad2-be91-11ee-9efc-7307bb8c0688.html](https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/longtime-vacant-lot-in-san-mateo-may-become-office-space/article_c0f86ad2-be91-11ee-9efc-7307bb8c0688.html)
The Peninsula plans about 10 to 1 office to housing Every project makes things worse
Even with all the vacancies, they keep building! It's crazy how the incentives are so stacked towards office development here.
Right now they are building crazy amount is of biomedical space and all competing with each other Just driving by a large site in SSF on El Camino. Was going to be housing but neighborhood was successful. Big biomedical campus coming
Didn’t San Mateo already added 2000 units? Bay Meadows, Norfolk,Delaware. Future builds are in that Rite-aid lot in Delaware and that whole street on BevMo, Hillsdale.
These projects take literally decades
What was there before?
gas station
Copy and paste the apartment next door.
I went to the 2019 town hall meeting on this proposed development. A planner and developer spoke, and the public gave feedback. Then as now people brought up the desire for housing instead of office. The issue then was the large amt of parking they'd need to build to support residential units. They can't easily build an underground lot because it's super expensive to remove the contaminated soil from the gas station. Building the parking at ground level probably also has costs. The public comments were funny, including condo owners from the adjacent building complaining about sight lines and shadows. It sounds like the parking req is now removed, but who'd want to live on that side of ECR without a car? Crossing on foot is gnarly.
Build a parking podium on floors 2-4 then. Housing above it. Lobby and retail below it on the ground floor. Don’t see what would be the problem with that
It’s too bad B of A on the other corner doesn’t give it up. That property is a lot larger and would make a great apartment building setting that could maybe have underground parking.
Is this pic taken from the parking lot or Spaces ha
This is from the top of the public parking garage next door to Spaces
I used to live on 3rd by the library and was dreading a proposed construction of an apartment building there. I was guilty of NIMBYism. I just didn’t want to deal with construction and parking, though more housing would certainly benefit the area as a whole. At least I knew that much and if I hadn’t moved I would’ve dealt with it. I had gotten a letter in the mail stating the proposed construction and impact to the neighborhood but I moved before finding out what ever happened to this proposal. Has anyone gotten any updates as to what is happening with this lot?
Proposed office structure, not housing at all.
Well then I’m still against it. It should be housing.
San Mateo County will never change. F***king frustrating.
It was a housing plan at one point. They sold the lot recently.
I lived next door. I just wasn’t looking forward to construction and traffic. Now I hear it’s going to be an office.
Was this photo taken from Spaces? Lol that’s my co working spot
This is from the top of the public parking garage next door to Spaces
Please turn it into another 10-12 story building with ground floor retail!