Town Square

Post a New Topic

Developers officially submit Parkline proposal to rebuild SRI campus

Original post made on Nov 18, 2021

It's official: There's now a proposal under review at City Hall to rebuild the 63-acre SRI campus hidden in the heart of Menlo Park.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, November 18, 2021, 10:21 AM

Comments (11)

Posted by Let's Not Sign Up for Gridlock
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Nov 18, 2021 at 1:42 pm

Let's Not Sign Up for Gridlock is a registered user.

Menlo Park's Planning Commission should keep in mind our *serious traffic problem* which Springline is about to worsen. Wow, killing 198 heritage trees, too! Not very Menlo Park and not very 2021! If people want to work in a city, they move to SF.


Posted by magster
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Nov 18, 2021 at 2:04 pm

magster is a registered user.

This is an imaginative and forward looking project that checks a lot of the boxes of things Menlo Park says it cares about. My understanding is that SRI will not be adding increased traffic since they already have the staffing. In fact there will be shuttles from the CalTrain station which should encourage more use of public transportation. There will be increased traffic during construction. So far as the additional 400 housing units are concerned, yes these will generate new traffic, but these would be part of the increase in traffic that is bound to happen somewhere in the City as we move toward adding required housing units. I hope the City Council and Planning Department move forward with approvals to let this move ahead without undue delay.


Posted by Let's Not Sign Up for Gridlock
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Nov 18, 2021 at 2:13 pm

Let's Not Sign Up for Gridlock is a registered user.

Magster, thank you for underscoring all the ways this proposal will increase traffic. This land is right in the middle of an already traffic-congested area, where **thousands of our children** do their school commutes every morning and afternoon. They don't need an empty field across from their school, they need a safe commute.


Posted by Bike Menlo Park
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Nov 18, 2021 at 2:42 pm

Bike Menlo Park is a registered user.

3,200 parking spots? From what I can tell, many of those parking spots on the SRI campus are currently vacant. Concerned that the future development will continue to promote car use instead of encouraging transit options (including nearby Caltrain).


Posted by Belle Haven Resident
a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Nov 18, 2021 at 2:57 pm

Belle Haven Resident is a registered user.

Housing, especially low income housing, not in Belle Haven is good. We have borne the entire burden for too long.


Posted by new guy
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Nov 20, 2021 at 9:47 am

new guy is a registered user.

Glad to see even the YIMBYS consider building housing as a "burden".


Posted by Ronen
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Nov 22, 2021 at 10:24 am

Ronen is a registered user.

We need much more housing next to transit and the SRI site qualifies. Let’s do this!

We should also take the opportunity to bring some retail (cafes, small convenience store) into the site - this will greatly increase walkability for the neighborhoods east of Middlefield.

Finally, creating a direct bike path (not some meandering roundabout), from Middlefield, through the campus and the Caltrain underpass at Burgess, will better connect two parts of the city and will make biking safe, especially for kids.

This is a great opportunity to make our community more walkable and bikeable and build transit centric housing. Let’s not miss this chance!


Posted by ReginaR
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Nov 22, 2021 at 12:25 pm

ReginaR is a registered user.

Where are they going to put all of the new students these housing projects are going to be bringing in? M-A is already bursting. The same people who think this “checks a lot of boxes” may not be thinking about the impact on our students.


Posted by Frozen
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Nov 22, 2021 at 12:42 pm

Frozen is a registered user.

The SRI site is not "close to transit" unless you mean the commuter rail line that serves very limited needs. People who live at SRI will still need a vehicle to go shopping, to take the kids to school (only M-A is within walking distance) and other activities.

Let's not buy into the fiction that all the residents will be young, single people who work in the SF financial district (Caltrain riders!) or retired people who only leave their homes between 10 am and 2 pm. In reality, most of the people willing to squeeze themselves into undersized housing units will be families who want access to our schools.

The Linfield Oaks neighborhood has suffered two recent incidents in which a section of the water main ruptured, leaving people without water for extended periods of time. Traffic, as many have noted, is already gridlocked during commute hours. Recreational space is already at a premium, with very little public green space being offered by this development. There is no retail, unless you count the juice bar.

Those who dismiss the concerns about infrastructure and capacity as NIMBYism are simply gaslighting the rest of us. How many more people can we cram in to this area before it becomes unlivable?


Posted by Kevin
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Nov 22, 2021 at 4:57 pm

Kevin is a registered user.

@Frozen, @Let's Not Sign Up for Gridlock,

We all claim to want to reduce inequality and homelessness, but find plenty of excuses when our sacred cows might be affected - just human nature, but no way to fix the real problems. We may need to squeeze in a little more than the suburban American Dream.

Start about 3:40 in video.

Web Link


Posted by Frozen
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Nov 23, 2021 at 12:31 pm

Frozen is a registered user.

The NY Times piece has been discussed ad nauseum. I won't repeat those arguments, only to point out that all the virtue signaling in the world will not eliminate the very real constraints that we face in a city that is already 99% built out.

The quality of life continues to decline in this area. The problems we faced ten years ago haven't evaporated despite everyone's most ardent progressive and open-minded intentions. Ultimately, Menlo Park will become a much less desirable place to live.

People who prefer a densely-populated urban environment already have plenty of choices. Our lots and homes are actually pretty modest compared to similar communities throughout the rest of the country.

I guarantee you that the Presidio Bay Ventures VCs aren't planning to make the kinds of sacrifices they are demanding from the rest of us.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Curry and reubens: Local Kitchens opens "digital food halls" on the Peninsula
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 3,407 views

Grand pronouncements vs nuts and bolts
By Sherry Listgarten | 4 comments | 2,549 views

Dog Greets and Treats
By Laura Stec | 7 comments | 1,807 views