Mural%20Rendering.gif
Bridge Housing will officially break ground on Mural at 40th Street and Telegraph Avenue over in Oakland on October 25, the second phase of MacArthur Station, the master-planned development on BART’s MacArthur Station parking lot.
Mural will consist of 90 apartments for households with incomes ranging from 30 to 50 percent of the area’s median income. And if BART, which still owns the land, happens to be on strike on the 25th, Mural’s groundbreaking will be rescheduled.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Willow

    Good location for housing but I’m disappointed that there are no market rate units…

  2. Posted by chriso

    @Willow – there are market rate units in later phases of the overall project.

  3. Posted by curmudgeon

    Yes on what chriso said. The project broke ground a couple of years back (to build a parking garage to replace the surface parking lot). The original intent was to break ground on both market and assisted housing simultaneously afterwards, but obviously financing dried up until very recently, and only Bridge was able to come up with the funds for construction. New market rate projects are just getting going in the East Bay, so hopefully there will be an announcement soon….

  4. Posted by Frank C.

    I think there is potential for many, many market rate units on the other side of the street, there are a lot of underutilized commercial properties. I’d like to see thousands of units, although this particular project got downsized due to anti-growth opposition.

  5. Posted by Invented

    Always glad to see other side of the bay developments; with 1400 homes proposed in Alameda, 1000 in Oakland (Brooklyn), 500 (?) in Oak Knoll –there’s a fair amount of interesting activity around the Bay. More coverage please.

  6. Posted by Willow

    Thanks for the updated info Chriso. Transit here is very good and I agree that this building should be a couple stories higher.

  7. Posted by anon

    Criminal level of underbuilding for housing next to a multi-billion dollar piece of transit infrastructure.

  8. Posted by GoodByeBadTimes

    Building higher at this location would have only provided the residents of upper floors with a view of the freeway – and subjected even more people to the toxic levels of pollution it produces. Completely get the importance of proximity to transit but the other quality of life impacts need to be addressed when locating any type of housing.

  9. Posted by anon

    ^Pollution? lol, ok. The amount of pollution absorbed in a potential 8th story is not going to be noticeably different than from a 4th story. If we start talking about 10+ stories, it’s going to fall and fall as you go higher (most dangerous pollutants fall, rather than rise).
    As far as other “quality of life” issues like views of a freeway (lol) – I’d prefer to go ahead and allow building higher and allow the potential tenants decide whether they have to hold out for that better view.
    Absolutely no downsides for building higher at this location.

  10. Posted by GoodByeBadTimes

    Sorry, anon, there is nothing funny about small children living in this proximity to highly elevated levels of airborne pollutants.

  11. Posted by anon

    ^Feel free to provide some evidence that living on a potential 6th floor of this building would be more dangerous pollution-wise than living on the 4th.
    Nice scare tactics though – “think of the children!”
    lol lol

  12. Posted by GoodByeBadTimes

    The point is that any housing on this site subjects all residents to elevated levels of airborne pollutants: http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report04_highwayhealth/report.pdf

  13. Posted by Fishchum

    “there is nothing funny about small children living in this proximity to highly elevated levels of airborne pollutants.”
    - Not even if the pollutants are being produced by a tiny car full of clowns?

  14. Posted by Matt of Uptown

    I can’t believe air pollution is being cited as a reason to not build TOD -I love you Bay Area!

  15. Posted by Frank C.

    It wasn’t opposed by locals due pollution, it was fear of density. I followed this story years ago..you could find it on the web. Certainly agree that TOD should be very dense.
    There may indeed be more exposure to pollutants on higher floors – I think it’s logical. For example, if there was no connection between pollutants, dispersion and altitude, smog would be at our ankles, not in the sky. Particulates would fall to the ground instead of staying in the atmosphere. Etc.

  16. Posted by anon

    ^Most particulates do fall to the ground, hence the soot that covers everything next to a freeway within days. Smog is only visible because you’re looking at a VAST expanse of sky, and specific particulates congregate at certain altitudes (all much higher than where humans live though – even in tall skyscrapers).

  17. Posted by Rillion

    Lived a few blocks from 80 in SOMA and the amount of soot that accumulated was shocking. I really noticed I had less troubles with my sinuses and what I had considered “allergies” when I moved away to a more residential neighborhood that only had Geary Blvd near it and not a real freeway.
    That said, the more we can locate housing on top of BART stations, the less pollution from vehicles will get generated.

  18. Posted by Frank C.

    anon, particulates also ascend into the atmosphere. “Most?” Depends on the source. You should know better than to make such blanket statements.
    Vehicular exhaust also produces pollution that rises high into the atmosphere, e.g. SO2, perhaps you’ve heard of this phenomenon. Therefore there are obviously higher risks being 10 feet above an exhaust pipe compared to being at the same height as an exhaust pipe.
    You must be fun at parties. You must argue with hosts about the placement of snack dishes and the orientation of chairs and tables.

  19. Posted by anon

    @Frank C – my point was that “higher pollution” is not a valid excuse for not building a 5th or 6th story. Ascending into the atmosphere is very different from higher pollution levels at 65′ rather than 45′.

  20. Posted by condoshopper

    Even for rising pollutants, how is it more dangerous to be on a higher floor, when don’t the pollutants have to pass by (and expose the occupants) the lower floors before they reach the higher floors.

  21. Posted by Lyn Hikida

    BRIDGE will not hold the groundbreaking on 10/25 as a result of the uncertainty about BART service earlier in the week.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *