BY ADRIANA HERNANDEZ
Daily Post Staff Writer
Redwood City Council tonight (Monday, Sept. 8) will review plans for a 21-story senior housing development at 910 Marshall St.
The 222-apartment project would be the tallest building on the Peninsula, along with South San Francisco’s Genesis North Tower at 21 stories. The tallest building in Redwood City is 900 Jefferson Ave. Box building at 10 stories and the Indigo apartment building at 10 stories.
The only building that would be taller is the proposed 40-story complex at the former Sunset Magazine headquarters at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park.
Taller than what’s allowed
The maximum height the city allows is 12 stories in the downtown area, but developer R&M Properties says the height is worth it because of the amount of housing it will provide.
The proposed building will have extensive services for its residents that will employ several people, according to city Principal Planner Lindy Chan.
The building would have a theater, fitness room, yoga room, dining rooms, a bar and lounge area, swimming pool, salon, library and community rooms, according to Chan.
The first two levels of the building will have 95 parking spaces, with valet service, Chan said in her report.
Independent living
Senior housing is a necessity in Redwood City, according to Chan. The proposal is for people who are 55 and older, and who wish to remain independent. The units allow people to have access to kitchens, but also have supervision if needed, Chan wrote.
The proposed spot for the building is beneficial because it is near the Kaiser Medical Center, grocery stores and restaurants.
Fill the apts that are vacant.
Sickening
How do you get on the waiting list?
What new Hell is this? The developer will say anything to get the city to allow this eyesore… All those apartments, where are people going to park? Looking at what something that size will do to traffic congestion… Yet I can “see” in my mind’s eye all the tax revenue and $5K for the cheapest unit. Some reason I can see this getting a green light all the Way! BOHICA!!! Oh, and please don’t forget the piece of art on the grounds that should cost several hundred thousand dollars… Just like Sunny
Good to see senior housing being proposed in an accessible area!
Stupid . Redwood City is already ruined. All you are doing is adding a ridiculous amount of apartments. All Redwood City is, is apartments and smoke shops and pot clubs on every corner. Try giving us a Walmart so we can have some cheaper shopping so we can afford our astronomical rent
Looks more like an aircraft carrier.
1.earthquakes! Loma Prieta had liquefaction in downtown Redwood City
2. Safety! 21 stories for seniors -any idea how long it would take to evacuate in an emergency
3. Ugly! ruins our city
The urban real-estate industry is the most subsidized industry in the United States (not big oil). Taxpayers build the roads, parking structures, transit systems, utilities, amenities, and just about everything else the urban real-estate industry needs to continue to grow in an unsustainable way. Despite paying for just about everything, taxpayers have no say about what gets built.
None of those examples are subsidies, let alone subsidies directed to the real-estate industry. They apply to a wide range of people. Examples of subsidies are things like Medicare which benefit the elderly. Ethanol subsidies that benefit farmers. So-called “living wage” laws that benefit unions by pricing out cheaper, non-union firms. Electric vehicle owners are subsidized through tax incentives, and companies like Tesla make a fortune on carbon credits.
The so-called real-estate industry are comprised of individuals who pay taxes on incomes earned, on property taxes, sales taxes, etc., and the companies themselves, depending on their structure, pay taxes as well. Real estate companies are also forced to subsidize the poor under “affordable housing” policies via the permitting process by not being allowed to charge market rates for certain number of units.
Taxpayers have too much say on what gets built without subsidizing those “inclusionary zoning” units. If you get to tell your neighbor what they can and cannot build, then you should never complain when someone tells you how to run your life. We can either live in your totalitarian society or my live-and-let-live world.
Oh great. Continue to destroy the skyline. What was once a quaint town has become an overcongested nightmare and the senior living apartments won’t be affordable. It was well over $7,000 for a senior apartment in Belmont. Imagine the cost of this?? How about putting something for families and children?
I’d love to move in when it finally opens.
I read a lot of unfortunate comments above that are against any large-scale development, with words like “sickening” and “stupid”, from people I’m sure have never built or created anything of value in their miserable lives – who are nowhere to be found during a natural disaster cleaning up the debris and rebuilding the towns – and who suffer from entrenched privilege from everything their ancestors sacrificed to provide them the standard of living they enjoy today.
If these socialists had been in charge over a 100 years ago, we would never have the great skyline cities like NY, Chicago, and San Fran. The most we could expect is a more dilapidated version of California Ave with no cars allowed.
You might be living in the past. Nobody looks to New York, Chicago, or San Francisco for a model of what they would like their community to become. In fact the social ills of New York, Chicago, and San Francisco have turned these cities into a breeding ground for the socialism you rightly despise.
The problem with todays real-estate developers is the only thing they are good at building is their bank accounts. This building takes more from the community than it contributes and the difference between the two goes into the developers bank account. Predatory real-estate development blessed by politicians who depend on the real-estate industry for the campaign funds they need to get re-elected.
I am going to ignore your second paragraph because it is complete gibberish not based on any facts, evidence, or simple logic – the idea that a real estate contract does not benefit both sides of a transaction defies basic human understanding in how people arrange their affairs for mutual benefit.
The construction of large skyscrapers did not contribute to the decline of great cities. That’s absurd. Those cities functioned well until Great Society programs of the 1960s decimated families and created reliance on welfare programs rather than work; liberal judges and DAs who let criminals run loose and made it more difficult to arrest, prosecute, and convict criminals; rent control and zoning laws that reduced the supply of housing and artificially raised the prices of the existing stock of housing; and the monopoly public school system – which should be abolished – that brainwashed generations of children into your kind of socialist vision of the world while promoting repugnant social fads like transgenderism and ethnic studies (grievance-mongering, hate on whitey, all “ethnic” groups are victims), which was the goal all along. Now President Trump wants to move the national guard and other federal law enforcement into big cities like Chicago as the mayors try to block it. No surprise, as the last thing these corrupt mayors want is a cleaned up city. They don’t want outsiders coming in and exposing their money laundering, bribes, and other illegality. They thrive when the city is shambles, when crime is rampant, and when honest residents are punished for calling out the corruption in these big cities.
When a developer sells a building, half of what they are selling (the amenities) were built by the taxpayers. The three rules of real-estate are location, location, location. The taxpayers built the location. If you don’t think that is true, try building this 21 story Khrushchyovka (look it up) in the middle of the Nevada desert and see how that “pencils out”.
Great cities die when taxpayers can no longer afford to build amenities for real-estate developers to sell. Especially one very important amenity called law enforcement. When developers have consumed all of the available amenities in any one location, they just move on to greener pastures in another community with more amenities to exploit.
Redwood City has done so well keeping the skyline no higher than the box building. It would be a shame to see such a tall structure be built in the middle of an already congested downtown.
I have to chuckle at all of the outcry across the Peninsula cities regarding these large, affordable developments. They vote so handily for Democrats that no one often opposes them. There were years where I NEVER saw an ad from my rep Eschoo. So they elect people that promise affordable housing. And then they scream when it’s in their backyards. It’s like the MAGA crowd now screaming with the tariffs making life hard. “I voted to hurt someone else, not ME!”