Blogging Bayport Alameda

September 22, 2017

Dorm development

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:02 am

Here’s an exciting development proposal on Monday’s Planning Board agenda. It’s a co-work/co-housing development slated next to the Posey Tube entrance.  From the staff report:

The applicants propose to construct four 15,000 square foot, three story buildings.  The 5,000 square foot ground floor of each building would be designed for manufacturing, “maker” and/or studio spaces.  The 5,000 square foot second and third floors of each building would accommodate a shared living use with private sleeping and bathroom quarters for each resident, and a single shared common kitchen, dining area, and living area for the residents.

Given the City Council’s identification of “affordable housing” as one of the Council’s highest priorities, it is important to note that co-living design is a more affordable residential model than a traditional rental unit.  According to the applicant, a typical co-living resident pays 20% less rent than they would if they were living in a comparable studio apartment with private kitchen and eating facilities in their unit.

This particular proposal also includes roof gardens on each building and shared community gardens and greenhouses outside each building.

The applicants are interested in developing a “Net Zero” energy building design for all the residential portions of the structures and utilizing solar panels on all buildings.

As currently drawn, the residential units would not be accessible, unless elevators were added to each building.

While the development would meet the new shared living ordinance, the problem is the zoning for the site which would not allow the shared living to be located on the site.  Because the residential units wouldn’t have kitchens, they do not fall under the work/live designation either.  If the Planning Board moves forward with rezoning the site to accommodate the shared living then this would required an environmental impact document.






Here’s information about the company behind the proposal: OpenDoor.  Here’s the one caveat from the staff report which might portend an end to the project before it’s even started:

Based upon the Planning Board’s initial reaction to the proposal (Exhibit 1 and 2), the applicants will make the decision as to whether they will invest the significant time and resources necessary to pursue necessary entitlements for the project.

Given how long it takes for this City to get through any development proposal, it might not make financial sense for the company if there are the same old same old roadblocks.



  1. Oh boy, four Ghost Ships close to the water.

    Comment by jack — September 22, 2017 @ 8:39 am

    • Right, because brand new construction would be just as dangerous as a warehouse that was being illegally occupied and was not permitted for events. The fact that Lauren has kept this blog going for so many years considering the consistently idiotic comments that appear here on a daily basis is truly a wonder to behold.

      Comment by trow125 — September 22, 2017 @ 9:09 am

      • Naah. Lauren just has nothing better to do than write this blog. Bayport is pretty boring.

        Comment by vigi — September 22, 2017 @ 9:23 am

      • Is that a review of a comment or the blog subject?

        Comment by jack — September 22, 2017 @ 10:19 am

  2. This is a terrific proposal, thank you for highlighting it here Lauren. I like the fact that it will offer a very different residential living option in Alameda, that it offers creative maker and gallery space, that it will be more affordable by design (vs. than by subsidy), that it will employ significant green building principles (showcased by their stated public interest in a Net Zero building), that it will redevelop an underutilized parcel that is within an easy walk to groceries and restaurants, and while the project sponsor doesn’t have a long track record (they have completed 3 projects with one more in Portland that is about to open), they have a very interesting business approach.

    Comment by dya — September 22, 2017 @ 9:48 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at