Station 1300 will provide countless new office workers and residents within walking distance of downtown Menlo Park. If there are appealing destinations they will support these businesses; if not, these "customers" will go to neighboring communities. So what is the City doing to attract a more appealing mix of businesses? Any progress to report?

I am eager to see this project start and be completed - hopefully in 2019.

I think this looks pretty good. The height seems appropriate. I have the high rises that they have built in Redwood City and are building at Marsh Road and 101.

I don't get why this is so great. Menlo Park doesn't need bulky offices downtown that add no "vibrancy" Menlo Park doesn't need hundreds more commuters to add to existing gridlock. If filled with incubators, as the developer wants, will all those young, poorly paid office workers really patronize Menlo Park businesses? Won't they be fed on site and flee to where they live at the end of the day? Won't they locate their businesses someplace else when their startups reach the stage of paying sales tax revenue?
Wasn't this area supposed to be "residential", not office, with people who patronize local businesses every day of the week and who care about our town? Weren't there supposed to be new shops and restaurants, not vague "community serving" uses that could just be more offices?
I don't get it.

I'm glad the project is finally moving forward, but I'm a bit disheartened to read that only 14 units will be for low income tenants. If anyone needs more housing, it is our services workers, from restaurant staff to home care aides, and for us to expect them to commute in from Salinas or somewhere is not sustainable or helpful to our carbon footprint. From this site many could walk to work. I'm also saddened to hear the heritage trees will be removed, we need more green spaces and stewards for our beautiful trees.

"I don't get it" - the link below has more information to help you understand the details of the project.

TLDR? It includes residential and non-residential (office & stores). There is ample info about the project online.

Link to report: Web Link
(This report is slightly dated, I think they have increased the number of residential units).

Curious if you have spent time walking around Derry Lane in its current state?

Hope your perspective changes. Although, if you truly love ghost towns/buildings - there are many scattered around the US you can visit. They are all equally depressing and abandoned.

Web Link

I couldn't agree more with Brian!

This in no way diminishes our responsibility to re-mediate and monitor the expected increase in traffic and circulation at our city center, but that in no way should stop us from implementing an incredible thorough, well designed, and progressive necessity.

We as a community deserve to make this effort in encouraging a vibrant Live, Work, Play environment in the core of our city . We have the ability to do it correctly, and I am glad we are on our way.

Hear Hear!

@DLM and MB - your hopes are impressive. I don't see Play except a small dog park. I don't see ways to manage the traffic congestion. Was there even a trip cap imposed?

The site is a mess. We don't have to settle for something less than the vision that was promised. This isn't it from what I can read.

The drawings showing the front of the complex appear to display Mexican fan palms. These are not native to our area and give an entirely different look to Menlo Park a city known for its trees. This complex will have high visibility from the train passengers.

Is there another tree that would be more appropriate, such as an oak? Has the City reviewed the landscape plan or have we simply gone Hollywood? Let me guess, artificial grass will go in as well. But it saves water will be the rallying cry. Have you ever seen a robin foraging on artificial grass? Have you ever smelled artificial grass? Walked barefoot on artificial grass, especially on a warm sunny day?

Wouldn't it be nice if this project included a rooftop garden area? This kind of building allows bees and birds to have a plant and small tree habitat above human dwellings and cools and protects the roof. Then the project would be known for more of a green atmosphere.

Wouldn't it be nice if all you folks with ideas how the developer can "improve" their building paid the added cost of those "nice ideas?" Rest assured the developer won't be footing the cost for this stuff, the tenants will be in higher rents.

Menlo Voter: Including a rooftop garden would benefit ALL the community, the idea is to protect our resources and wildlife, not just to look pretty. Same thought process applies to adding animal crossings to Hwy 280, which should have been incorporated into the original design. It is time we think beyond human want, and include other species.

Cayo:

and who do you think pays for that?

Menlo Voter: We will all pay dearly as a species if we don't stop building and paving without regard to every creature, such as what is happening to bees.

Cayo:

perhaps you can answer the question this time. Who pays in cash for these things that you want? You? Me? Or the people that will be occupying these structures? Rest assured, the developers won't be paying.

Menlo Voter: Looks like we aren't on the same page with our ideas, which is fine, I respect your input. We ALL pay for these things. In the big picture, do we really want massive block structures with no integration of nature included? What type of new structures make an impact on life in the long run? If I'm going to pay $5000 a month for an apartment I would like it to include other forms of life. :)

Has City staff ever not recommended a development project.

"Has City staff ever not recommended a development project."


They recommended against the first two totally DSP compliant Stanford proposals and look what they ended up with - Stanford's third proposal with most of the project to be tax exempt. Not very smart.

"They recommended against the first two totally DSP compliant Stanford proposals and look what they ended up with - Stanford's third proposal with most of the project to be tax exempt. Not very smart."

Had Stanford been allowed to build chiefly office per their original proposal we may have ended up with tax exempt academic/research uses in that space, no? I haven't seen a definitive written statement from Stanford precluding academic uses in the current project's office space, both now and in the future, and even if they have provided such assurance I don't know that there's a legal impediment to them doing so. Not very smart to have approved the DSP with such a glaring lacuna in place, and we're all to blame.