HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2007, 12:59 AM
krudmonk's Avatar
krudmonk krudmonk is offline
Of Heart's Delight
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 1,658
SSV has a picture of the proposed remodel:
http://blog.soccersiliconvalley.com/...nta_clara.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2007, 3:26 AM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,874
^Instead of spending millions upgrading SCU and then spending millions more building another stadium in SJ. Why doesnt the MLS simply build a great soccer stadium at SCU. With SCU's soccer history and the location right next to caltrain you would think that SCU is the perfect location.
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2007, 5:30 PM
krudmonk's Avatar
krudmonk krudmonk is offline
Of Heart's Delight
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 1,658
- They won't be spending millions. I think those proposed stands will be more of the Erector Set variety, similar to Columbus Crew Stadium. I'm also not certain that SCU needs huge stadium upgrades. Additionally, I'm sure the Earthquakes also want more control of their home facility. Sharing with a college campus worked negatively for the LA Galaxy earlier this year when scheduling conflicts forced them to limit capacity for the SuperLiga final because it was held on a certain night. That's bogus.

- The target site for the permanent stadium will be literally across the street (and tracks) but in San Jose city limits. Caltrain accessibility still applies and there's allegedly an entire complex drafted up (hotels, shops, etc.) for the currently vacant/wasted FMC lot next to the airport. Wolff is a developer, not just a regular guy with money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2007, 10:06 PM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
- They won't be spending millions. I think those proposed stands will be more of the Erector Set variety, similar to Columbus Crew Stadium. I'm also not certain that SCU needs huge stadium upgrades. Additionally, I'm sure the Earthquakes also want more control of their home facility. Sharing with a college campus worked negatively for the LA Galaxy earlier this year when scheduling conflicts forced them to limit capacity for the SuperLiga final because it was held on a certain night. That's bogus.

- The target site for the permanent stadium will be literally across the street (and tracks) but in San Jose city limits. Caltrain accessibility still applies and there's allegedly an entire complex drafted up (hotels, shops, etc.) for the currently vacant/wasted FMC lot next to the airport. Wolff is a developer, not just a regular guy with money.
Santa Clara U. has been raising money to upgrade their soccer stadium for a few years now. This will help pump millions into the fund to finish the job. See the link below ""They have made it significantly worth our while financially," said Coonan. "It is a great relationship and it does so many things for us in terms of visibility and enhances our profile."".

SCU has been in the top 20 for men’s and women’s soccer school for years, I think they deserve the upgrades. They were hoping for funds by being a location for women’s soccer in the Olympics if SF won. Now the MLS will be chipping in.

I just think that it will be odd to have two soccer fields so close together when one would work (its not like this is baseball, there are plenty of days to schedule events). And I will admit being an SCU alum I'm a bit biased.

http://media.www.thesantaclara.com/m...-3060393.shtml

Also, the Galaxy share the Home Depot Center with the Chivas so the comparison isnt exactly apples to apples!
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2007, 6:13 AM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,874
North San Jose rezonings set table for 998 apartments, homes

Friday, October 26, 2007
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal - by Sharon Simonson

San Jose has approved another massive land-use change for nearly 50 acres near Highway 237 as part of the rapidly unfolding redevelopment of the city's most-important industrial cluster along the North First Street spine.

Sought by semiconductor equipment-maker Novellus Systems Inc., which owns the bulk of the underlying property, two rezonings will bring 998 high-density apartments and homes to two sites occupied by older industrial buildings.

At the same time, the city has agreed to increase by three times the development capacity of the 27-acre industrial parcel where Novellus' world headquarters is located, pushing it to more than 1.2 million square feet from 419,000 square feet now.

Approval came over the objections of residents in the area, who do not believe the city has adequately planned for the locations of new parks, schools and other community amenities in its efforts to remake 5,000 North San Jose acres. However, as part of its offerings to the city to obtain the changes, Novellus agreed to dedicate five acres for a community park across from its headquarters and an acre next to one of the housing developments for a neighborhood park. The company also agreed to spend $3 million for park improvements and $1.5 million for park maintenance.

The Novellus changes are but the latest that the city has ratified along the North First Street corridor in recent months. Together, the modifications promise to transform the area's aesthetic, now characterized by low-lying, often older office and research and development buildings. Recent housing approvals, including the Novellus changes, shows nearly 5,000 new apartments and condos are slated for construction, all of them high-density and mid-rise or higher. Others are in the entitlement pipeline.

For instance, further south along North First, in proximity to a light-rail stop, Mill Valley-based developer Thompson/Dorfman is seeking to build 1,600 single-family and multi-family attached homes, 40,000 square feet of shops and restaurants, and eight acres of public and private parks at 3469 N. First. The site is immediately adjacent to the enormous North Park Apartment Village, which has 2,700 units and is owned by Southern California's Irvine Co. Irvine is also preparing to build 1,800 units on a former Sony Electronics Inc. site, also nearby.

The area has little residential now.

A smattering of new industrial development also has been approved, though development pressure from the industrial side has only begun to materialize in the last several months. Right now, developers Legacy Partners, Tishman Speyer and Boston Properties all have pending requests before the city for new office development in North San Jose totaling nearly 2 million square feet. Novellus has secured its industrial development rights for 20 years, and does not appear to have any immediate plans for expansion.

The tracts adjacent to 237 and North First have proven a locus of activity. Besides the Novellus rezonings, Cupertino developer Hunter-Storm has begun scrapping dirt on 39 acres fronting Highway 237 and immediately north of the Novellus headquarters. That site is to be home to a 160-room hotel, 250,000 square-feet of new retail, including a Target store, and some 890,000 square feet of offices.

Chicago-based real estate investment trust Equity Residential, in a joint venture, is the slated developer for the housing approved as part of the Novellus application. Equity, one of the largest apartment owners and operators in the country with 165,000 units, is expected to pursue the projects in the next two years. Investment in the development is expected to exceed $400 million. The company owns over 6,900 apartments in the Bay Area, a company spokesman says. It has 1,866 units in the South Bay.

Novellus declined comment.

However, land-use consultant Erik Schoennauer of The Shoennauer Co. in San Jose, who represented the semiconductor equipment maker, says the changes were key to the company's future: "Novellus has been very clear that this whole package makes them more competitive as a company in retaining and recruiting employees," he says.

Surveys of Novellus workers show that significant percentages are interested in using the community park during lunch and after work, Schoennaur says. The nearby housing "also would allow people to walk to work," he adds.

Novellus occupies 750,000 square feet on North First Street. It has 1,200 employees in North San Jose and 3,300 worldwide, the city says.

Novellus' development agreement with the city does not prohibit it from selling the land to which the new industrial entitlements attach, Schoennauer adds.

The company did not disclose details of the land-use changes as material events during a conference call with analysts Oct. 23 to discuss its third-quarter financial results, nor do public records reflect the sale of the two new housing sites.

However, there is little doubt that the city approvals increased the value of Novellus' land holdings substantially. Industrial property, for instance, is worth approximately $40 a square foot while land designated for high-density housing is worth $80 a square foot to $100 a square foot.

SHARON SIMONSON covers real estate for the Business Journal. Reach her at (408) 299-1853.
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2007, 4:19 PM
krudmonk's Avatar
krudmonk krudmonk is offline
Of Heart's Delight
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 1,658
Near 237? What a waste. There's nothing up there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2007, 4:48 PM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
Near 237? What a waste. There's nothing up there.
That's the point!

Right now it's just sprawled office and parking, a little density along the light rail corridor will do wonders. And that is the point of the North First Street plan.
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2007, 5:49 PM
krudmonk's Avatar
krudmonk krudmonk is offline
Of Heart's Delight
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 1,658
When I saw "homes," I immediately thought "single-family detached." I see now that they'll be townhomes with a lot of more dense developments on top of that. That last thing we need are more McMansions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2007, 6:37 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 651
Quote:
For instance, further south along North First, in proximity to a light-rail stop, Mill Valley-based developer Thompson/Dorfman is seeking to build 1,600 single-family and multi-family attached homes, 40,000 square feet of shops and restaurants, and eight acres of public and private parks at 3469 N. First.
This sounds very similar to the Rivermark development nearby in Santa Clara.

Quote:
Besides the Novellus rezonings, Cupertino developer Hunter-Storm has begun scrapping dirt on 39 acres fronting Highway 237 and immediately north of the Novellus headquarters. That site is to be home to a 160-room hotel, 250,000 square-feet of new retail, including a Target store, and some 890,000 square feet of offices.
This sounds like a promising development. Target stores seem to be the Trader Joes/ Whole Foods of Big Box retail. One of those chains people get excited about opening in their area, although I know there are also many who would strongly disagree. I wonder if this project will be similar to the one being planned for the Mid Market area of San Francisco. Vertical mall with a large ground floor anchor, a la Time Warner Center. That would be cool, but only if it was appealing to the pedestrain as well. Will look foward to finding some sort of rendering.
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2007, 9:13 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
A story on another possible development along Redwood City's waterfront from the Chronicle. Between this and the desire to redevelop Pete's Harbor, there is a lot of pressure to build on these former wetlands. Eric at the Transbay Blog chimes in as well. I tend to agree with Eric's point of view on this.

Quote:
Plans by Cargill to build homes on salt-flat acreage alarms some
Jonathan Curiel, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, November 1, 2007




The owner of one of the largest undeveloped swaths of bay shoreline says it is considering building houses on the land - a controversial idea opposed by environmentalists who say the property should be restored to its natural state and protected.

Cargill Inc. uses the 1,433-acre site on the edge of San Francisco Bay in Redwood City to produce commercial salt, but John Bruno, a spokesman for a joint venture between Cargill and a real estate development firm, told The Chronicle that the corporation is studying the possibility of building housing there.

The land is just southeast of Bair Island, a marshy, 2,600-acre restoration project that is part of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. On that former salt pond, where Redwood City voters in 1982 forbade development, harbor seals have found a place to sunbathe and rare species like the salt harvest mouse thrive.

Although Cargill has not actually produced any plans for the nearby 1,433-acre site, environmentalists say they would fight to prevent Cargill from getting permits to build residences there. Instead, they say the land should be used to further the state's goal of restoring the thousands of acres of bay wetlands destroyed over the past 200 years.

The idea of building housing on the land is supported by at least one local official, a key member of the Redwood City Planning Commission who says the city has an immense need for housing and amenities like playing fields and trails. And the executive director of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which has jurisdiction over land within 100 feet of the bay's shoreline, said Cargill could pursue a development plan if it first restored at least half of the site to a natural setting.

Cargill is phasing out its salt production on the land and wants to convert it into some type of mixed development, including some housing. For the past year, Redwood City Industrial Saltworks - a joint venture between Cargill and a real estate development firm called DMB Associates - has solicited comments from Redwood City residents on what they want Cargill to do with the property.

More than 6,000 people have responded through mailings and comments during the company's forums, "and the vast majority of what we've heard is that people are looking for a mixture of uses, and that runs the gamut from housing to parks to bay trails," said Bruno, general manager of Redwood City Industrial Saltworks.

Bruno wouldn't specify the type of housing Cargill envisions nor what percentage of land the housing would occupy, but any development is opposed by groups such as Save the Bay. That group recently started a campaign to protect the last remaining undeveloped properties that ring the bay.

"It's not the place to put housing," said the group's executive director, David Lewis. "If Cargill thinks this can be approved, they're living in the past."

Cargill's Redwood City property is zoned "tidal plain," meaning the corporation would have to get an exemption from the Redwood City Planning Commission to pursue any development.

Before it does, Cargill would have to restore at least 50 percent of the area to natural habitat under state laws governing bay salt ponds, said Will Travis, head of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.

"Our position is that when you take a salt pond and use it for something other than salt making, a substantial portion of it should be restored to the bay or wetlands. The issue of what the (rest of the) property can be used for is the call of local government," Travis said.

And Lewis said the company would face additional development hurdles under the federal Clean Water Act, which he said prohibits former waterways from being filled with development if there are alternatives to put the development in another area. And, Lewis said, state water quality regulations would also severely limit what Cargill could build on the site, which has been used for salt production since 1901.

Development in that area has been controversial since the first home at Redwood Shores was built in 1969. Dozens of office developments were built up to the bay shoreline - land that environmentalists said should have been restored to its natural state. That battle in part led to the campaign to protect Bair Island, which once also was eyed for development. In 2004, Redwood City voters rejected a proposed high-rise development near the bay, Marina Shores Village, which the City Council had approved.

Cargill won't formally submit a development application to Redwood City until sometime next year, Bruno said. Last month, the Minnesota corporation hired three firms - including one called Biohabitats that specializes in ecological restoration - to help develop the property. In the next few months, Cargill will hold more community meetings.

Construction probably wouldn't begin for at least several years.

The vice chairwoman of Redwood City's Planning Commission, Nancy Radcliffe, said she would favorably consider any housing plan by Cargill because Redwood City is in desperate need of residences for people who work in the Peninsula city. Such housing would reduce the number of commuters on Bay Area roads, thereby reducing car emissions and helping the environment, Radcliffe said.

"Housing would ... lessen the amount of commuters, and then you look at the affects of global warming, so it's not just a one-issue thing," Radcliffe said. "At the moment, Redwood City has a huge housing imbalance. So that's an issue that's in front of us. The less people have to commute, the better it is for the environment and for family life."

Bruno said that those who oppose any housing on the site are "by far a very small minority opinion."

But Save the Bay's Lewis and Ralph Nobles, a former Redwood City planning commissioner who heads the group Friends of Redwood City, said there is a growing sentiment that preserving environmentally sensitive land is more important than building condominiums or apartment complexes.

Cargill, Nobles said, "can't develop (its saltworks) land unless they convince the people of Redwood City that it should be housing rather than bay lands. I don't think the people of Redwood City want to put housing on a bay front that's below sea level at a time when sea levels are rising."

About 40,000 acres of wetlands rim the San Francisco Bay. Save the Bay wants Cargill to sell the property to the state or federal government so it can add the land to the national wildlife refuge. In 2002, Cargill sold 16,500 acres of commercial salt ponds to state and federal governments for $243 million in cash and tax credits.

Even if housing is ultimately put on the property, Bruno said, it probably would be accompanied by open habitat spaces, a recreation area and other places that will reflect the area's natural setting.

Redwood City Councilman Jeff Ira said he would like a youth sports facility on the land that would "be able to host Little League and soccer tournaments and those types of things. The No. 1 complaint I hear on a regular basis is that we just don't have enough playing fields. That wouldn't require zoning changes since that's one of the few things allowed."

"There's no question we need housing," Ira said. "But do we want to build housing for housing's sake? Never. You have to do something that is a good use of the land. I think everyone wants to build open space, but how much - that's a tough question."
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2007, 3:34 AM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
Bad project

Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
A story on another possible development along Redwood City's waterfront from the Chronicle. Between this and the desire to redevelop Pete's Harbor, there is a lot of pressure to build on these former wetlands. Eric at the Transbay Blog chimes in as well. I tend to agree with Eric's point of view on this.
I am not very hopeful. We will keep making the same mistakes over and over until there are more fundamental changes in how planning is done

Redwood city has no reason not to approve this project if they they don't get stuck by environmentalists.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2007, 4:22 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
^^^ Yep. I'm afraid you are correct. Although there is hope. Measure Q, which would have allowed the Marina Shores (Pete's Harbor) project to go through, was soundly defeated in 2004. As long as they can get this before voters, there is a chance to kill it too.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2007, 12:25 AM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 651
From:http://www.abetteroakland.com/

Quote:
Oak to Ninth lawsuit dropped!
V Smoothe | oakland, Oak to 9th | Friday, 09 November 2007
The Oakland City Council approved the 3100 unit Oak to Ninth development in July of last year. A month later, a coalition made up of the Oakland Heritage Alliance, the League of Women Voters, the Sierra Club, and several other groups submitted 25,000 signatures to bring the project to a vote before the entire city. On September 7th, 2006, Oakland City Attorney John Russo directed the City Clerk to invalidate their petition because the group had failed to comply with state laws governing referendums. The future of referendum has been tied up in court for the last year. Russo announced today that the referendum committee has agreed to drop their suit over his decision to invalidate the petition.

This means that the development will never come before the voters. But the project isn’t in the clear just yet. Two lawsuits dealing with the Environmental Impact Report are still pending.
Now I guess we will have to see if this project can work past those two remaining lawsuits and the current conditions in the market. For those who are unfamiliar with this massive project, here is the website http://www.oakto9th.com/
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization

Last edited by San Frangelino; Nov 16, 2007 at 10:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2007, 10:56 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 651
Union City T.O.D.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CityKid View Post
11.14.2007


Union City BART station to become a signature landmark

Top BART, Union City and AC Transit officials broke ground on Tuesday, November 13, on a massive construction project that will transform the Union City BART Station into a spectacular, world-class, solar-powered, multi-modal transit hub where passengers will be able live, work, shop, eat and connect to everything from busses, to BART to Capitol Corridor trains. ACE, Dumbarton Rail and high-speed rail trains may also connect there.

Today's groundbreaking on this signature station marks the beginning of the Union City Intermodal Station project, which costs nearly $100 million. The City of Union City, BART and AC Transit are the lead agencies in this development.

FIRST-OF-ITS-KIND SOLAR POWERED STATION
The station portion of the transit village will be the first in the Bay Area and possibly the nation to run on solar-generated electricity. There will be solar cells on the 700 foot long, 25 foot wide canopy of the $3.5 million, 16-bay bus facility. "Those solar cells will actually generate more electricity than the station will use," Director Thomas Blalock who represents the station said. "The solar panels will produce approximately $23,335 per year in power, which is roughly what BART currently spends on electricity for that station."

Because those solar panels will generate more electricity than the station will consume, BART will redirect the excess electricity into the power grid, as it is not economically feasible to store that electricity. At night, when the solar cells cannot generate electricity, the station will pull its power from the power grid.

AN AMENITY-FILLED TRANSIT VILLAGE
This ambitious plan develops the 80 acres of industrial space surrounding the Union City BART Station into a village with all the modern amenities and conveniences for a people who want to live, work, raise a family and play without having to depend heavily on their car. Within ½ mile of the BART station there will be:

• Up to 1,800 new residential units
• Up to 100,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail space
• Up to 1 million square feet of office space

Already, more than two hundred housing units are open and another 438 units are under construction. Crews will construct the office space gradually over the next several years. The Regional Rail Plan calls for the full village to be completed around 2015.
From: http://www.unioncity.org/commdev/redev_intermodal.htm






__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2007, 12:19 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
I needed this to help see the reason for the project:


Source: http://www.unioncity.org/Intermodal/...slide2_550.gif
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2007, 1:04 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
This may sound like a silly question, but what is this proposed Dumbarton Rail that I see on the map above? Is this yet another proposed route from BART and Caltrain, or is this the result of the proposed Altamont route for CAHSR?
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2007, 3:24 AM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
This may sound like a silly question, but what is this proposed Dumbarton Rail that I see on the map above? Is this yet another proposed route from BART and Caltrain, or is this the result of the proposed Altamont route for CAHSR?
Here is a link that talks about it: http://www.bayrailalliance.org/dumbarton_rail
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2007, 6:01 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by San Frangelino View Post
Here is a link that talks about it: http://www.bayrailalliance.org/dumbarton_rail
Thats an interesting site, and I'll be interested in hearing how this turns out. Thanks for providing that link
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2007, 4:29 AM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 651
From: http://www.bizjournals.com/eastbay/s...=et62&ana=e_du


Quote:
Friday, November 23, 2007
Stanford plans high-end hotel
East Bay Business Times

A $465-a-night hotel on Sand Hill Road is being built by Stanford University to cater primarily to visiting venture capitalists and investors, according to reports.

Rosewood Sand Hill, a 21-acre complex at Sand Hill Road and Highway 280, is expected to cost about $200 million and open in 2009.

Dallas-based Rosewood Hotels & Resorts will run the facility for 20 years on Stanford-owned land, and Menlo Park will get about 10 percent of the proceeds.

Rosewood also manages the Carlyle in Manhattan and other high-end spots. Details of the deal between Rosewood and Stanford were not disclosed.
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2007, 4:57 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 651
Website for the Mandela Grand Project in Oakland:

http://www.mandelagrand.com/
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:23 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.