|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Renderings for the proposed Willow Park development in Menlo Park have been revealed. They depict four high-rise buildings that are aimed to create more affordable housing but will likely do little to stem controversy over the project. The development proposed by N17 Developers would be built on the site of the former Sunset magazine headquarters at 80 Willow Road.
Willow Park is designed to be a 6.7-acre community that includes housing, commercial and office spaces, a Montessori school, hotel rooms and recreation areas, according to a press release distributed on Friday.
The design has been in the works since November 2023 with its tallest condominium and hotel building reaching 431 feet in height.
Out of 665 housing units, 133 would be reserved for affordable housing for low-income residents. That would increase Menlo Park’s “affordable housing by more than 24%,” according to the release. The affordable housing will be offered to those who make 80% less than the area median income.
N17 plans to utilize the “builder’s remedy,” which holds that California cities that have not adopted an approved housing element forfeit their authority to deny housing developments that meet certain criteria meant to serve low-income residents.
Although Menlo Park had its housing element approved by the state on March 21, N17’s application was filed in 2023 and is still valid. It “will undergo the city’s standard housing development review process,” said Mayor Cecilia Taylor in a statement to The Almanac. This process which will include hearings brought before the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Community members have previously petitioned against the multi-use complex and have expressed their disapproval to city officials.
Taylor explained that the city of Menlo Park has taken community input into consideration as the city council “has adopted standards and development requirements that the council and community deem appropriate for sites and neighborhoods within the city.”
“The current Willow Park proposal is not only inconsistent with these approved and vetted standards, but it is very out of scale with those standards,” said Taylor.
Rendering of Willow Park from Palo Alto bird-eye view. Courtesy Solomon Cordwell Buenz. 
Renderings showing the ground-level open space and pavilion of Willow Park. Courtesy Solomon Cordwell Buenz. 
Renderings showing the ground-level open space and pavilion of Willow Park. Courtesy Solomon Cordwell Buenz. 
Rendering of Willow Park development. Courtesy Solomon Cordwell Buenz.
Willow Park would feature a 130-room hotel, 324,000 square feet of office space and acres of open space for recreational use and amenities such as a fitness center, swimming pools, bakery, restaurants and ice cream shop.
Designers of Willow Park have embraced “the natural beauty” of the San Francisquito Creek that runs along the southern and eastern border of the property. The open space allows “residents and visitors to enjoy the lush green environment,” according to the project communication director Tracy Craig.
“As a local resident, I have a vested interest in helping the community grow in a way that matches the needs of today’s Californians,” said N17 founder Oisín Heneghan in a statement. “While the magazine offices were an appropriate land use when it was constructed in 1951 and the population of California was one-fifth of what it is now, today people need and deserve housing in prime locations, not vacant office buildings or long commutes. California’s housing crisis requires all of us to embrace change.”
The site was chosen by developers for its large size, accessibility to major routes and walkability to Menlo Park and downtown Palo Alto. Developers say the complex is designed to “deprioritize the need for cars” as it’s located near major employers, grocery stores, hospitals and is a 10-minute bicycle ride from Stanford University.
“Projects like Willow Park are a direct response to California’s dire need for housing,” said Corey Smith, the executive director of the Housing Action Coalition in the press release. “Frankly, we cannot push this off any longer. We need housing in Silicon Valley that incorporates the principles of sustainable urbanism. It’s time to start building structures that are designed for the public’s current needs while accounting for the needs of generations that will come after us.”
Solomon Cordwell Buenz, an international architecture firm, has been chosen by N17 to design Willow Park. To learn more about the proposed development, visit willowpark.life.
‘The end of an era’: After 36 years in Palo Alto, Il Fornaio prepares to closeJanuary 13, 2026 2:05 pm
San Mateo County taps community affairs director as interim head of Parks DepartmentJanuary 12, 2026 4:54 pm
“Walkable” is subterfuge for we’re going to pretend that no one living there will have cars. The fact is they will and they will use them. This project will create an even bigger traffic nightmare than already exists on Willow and Middlefield. The traffic impacts will radiate out from there. This project is a disaster in the making.
Totally agree with @Menlo Voter!
I couldn’t not think of a worse project for this space. It’s so offensive. For the shameless individuals to take advantage of loopholes, and propose such an outrageous project is shameful.
I love this development. It will be a standing testament to all of the Menlo voters who sided with the YIMBYs on Measure V, when we failed to curb the city council’s power to destroy neighborhoods. There won’t be an existing home within a mile of this development that won’t loose a large chunk of value once construction starts. Good. More of these high density monsters will rise up over Menlo Park and the current homeowners only have themselves to blame.
Anyone who approves of this offensive proposal must have financial interests. I can only imagine what Bill Lane would think of this poorly located project. Fairly certain there is plenty of space in Russia for this. Putins homie investor, can take it there.
Keep robotically pulling that blue lever; it’s working great.
Please no, this sounds terrible!
Such a gigantic development would be so out of place in this spot. Traffic would be a nightmare.
Since our council just narrowed Middlefield Road at this very intersection, I certainly hope that they do a traffic impact study before approving such a huge number of residences, plus a hotel. What would that be? At least another 1000 cars per day, coming and going? And, why put retail here when our downtown area is literally dying with empty store fronts? Also wondering how much empty office space we already have in our town. This development wants to add more? More housing is fine (and needed), but not 600+ units with 600+ cars at this intersection. The rest of it could be removed from the plan as far as I’m concerned.
A thousand cars a day is probably a low estimate. Your council is actively hostile to cars, and wants to force everyone to public transit and bicycles. They’re made this quite clear in their decisions over the past few years. Why do you think they narrowed Middlefield in the first place. Hey, but you keep electing the same progressives. I hope you don’t own a home today. Your value will dimish quickly once they break ground. No one will want to buy into this mess.
The question is what can the city do to force changes to the Builder’s Remedy proposal? I’ve not seen any response that indicates anyone knows. Or is it that there ARE no allowable remedies to the Builder’s Remedy proposal ??
They can do nothing. This is what happens when you combine the progressive state politicians we keep sending to Sacramento with the powerful YIMBY housing advocates in San Francisco, and then you add in a negligent city council who wouldn’t listen to their own homeowners. The Builder’s Remedy was a progressive poison pill statue that completely removed city councils from decisions on building when they didn’t align themselves with the YIMBYs via an approved housing plan. This is state law and there is literally nothing Menlo Park can do but watch it get built.
We should christen the development Nash Towers, in honor of the mayor who couldn’t be bothered to get a housing plan together to prevent this.
Can we drop the facade and stop pretending that this office + hotel project will have a positive effect on the housing imbalance? It adds thousands of jobs and only 133 “affordable” housing units. Let’s also pull the plug on the myth that this is a walkable, transit-oriented location. The closest Caltrain stations are over a mile away. The only nearby major employer is Meta, at the other end of Willow. And “grocery stores” is a single corner market. You kind of wonder if anyone involved with the project has even visited the site.
None of the articles about this project have noted that it’s smack in the middle of a residential area, at the intersection of two single-lane streets that are already gridlocked during rush hour. Or mentioned infrastructure. I assume the occupants of these buildings are going to expect to have running water, a functioning sewage system, electricity, and other amenities. Maybe even fire department equipment designed for buildings taller than three stories?
It’s like trying to mate an elephant and a flea. A little surreal that the project has gotten to this stage, and I sure hope our council members can do more than fret about the inappropriate scale, given that this happened on their watch.
This 50 to 8 story Ocean Beach tower “truncation” in SF is a likely precedent for Willow Park.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-sunset-tower-19470878.php
Paltry demand for 15 stories of office space amidst 25-45% commercial vacancy rate for MP & RWC will dry up office construction financing.