The development on the corner of El Camino and Castro is a great example of ugly new development. Boxy, too close to the curb and boring facade. I am glad the council is getting involved in the next development phase in MV.

Didn't the City Council review the designs and mock ups of San Antonio shopping center before it was built? Now they aren't happy with it? I don't understand.

Boxy buildings? Who approves these boxy buldings? Hello, is anyone minding the store??? Seriously disappointed with most of what is going on around town. It seems no one can plan beyond the tip of their noses.

They are just figuring this all out now? Sounds like the city has a case of buyer's remorse. Too late now.

We live near the new Moffett/Central Expwy development and, although I don't think it's beautiful, per se, I really appreciate a few things about it: it's not terribly tall, it tapers down to the height of the neighborhood farther down Moffett, and it has a very nice publicly accessible thruway that allows people from Stierlin to see (or walk) straight to downtown. As a result, it seems to mostly have a positive visual impact on the neighborhood (other than the ridiculous 1-parking-space-per-unit allocation, which I am sure is resulting in parked-up streets all around it). I would wish that the city would take a similar approach to other large complexes: break up their monolithic-ness with public space, vary the height and setback, keep it at a max of 4 floors, etc. But also, I wish the city council would assume that every 2-bedroom apartment will need two car spaces. It's unrealistic to think otherwise!

I agree with @Monilith. Without approval from city council, the current (ugly by my opinion) San Antonio shopping center wouldn’t have been built. Is the current city council going to blame the members of city council who are responsible for the design review and approval? I request city council to explain more.

Isn't a bit late to complain about projects already completed? I think much of the developent is too dense, too high and not well planned. We should be able to do better, but developers want to build fast, big and cheap, and the City of Mtn View seems to support that. The entire area bordered by California, Showers, El Camino and San Antonia, is a one giant mess; Promised to be Mtn View's Santana Row, it is more like these buildings dropped out of the sky with no rhyme or reason.

We have friends who were looking for a place to rent and we're hoping to llive in Mountain View, but after looking at several units they said or the new construction in Mountain View, "We don't want to live in a cube, and all those new apartments look like cubes. Ugh" They wound up in a charming 6 unit complex in Los Gatos that is just a few blocks from downtown, is very quiet, has a front porch and a back area with a view of trees and parkland. Same price point as the Mountain View units they looked at. Different strokes for different folks, but I agree with them about the generic and cube like appearance of most of the new construction. Ugh.

And, Chris Clark is right about the apartment building at 801 Alma in Pablo Alto when he said, "I always wonder who Palo Alto has imprisoned there, because it reminds me of a prison," The first time I saw that building I thought it looked like a prison or a fortress of some sort...it still does. It's atrocious.

Look at some of the beautifully designed buildings which have been constructed (are being constructed) in Los Altos. I have little doubt they were expensive to design and build, but the end product sure looks nice. Mountain View should raise its standards. We get only what we require/demand and nothing more, imho.

@Monolith - sure, they reviewed a cardboard model, never imagining that would be faithfully built full size. What a crappy-looking mediocrity. The Palo Alto JCC is another example of a list of conceptual tweaks that did not translate into a pleasing and approachable complex. When you can look at a building and spot all of the elements that the architects pitched, rather than reacting to the whole, you have a forced and flawed design. Check out the thoughtlessly and thoroughly compromised Alma Plaza (after about ten years of the Palo Alto process!).

Folks, going vertical is one way to achieve high density with wider open spaces and setbacks from the sidewalk. Just sayin'.

Let the search for inspiration be carried on -- It is worth it.

801 Alma in Palo Alto (with its lack of windows on one side) may look that way because it's next door to Caltrain, and is designed to reduce sound.

An ideal solution would be for there to be a community review board of residents selected for their professional expertise in design, architecture, and local community aesthetics (we are lucky in MV we probably have many such talented residents), and let such a committee give feedback to developments. Good taste design aesthetics is a tough bar for even professionals to reach, let alone elected officials and city staff.

Somethings are best fielded to experts. Good design benefits us all, bad design has a ripple effect beyond itself as well.

Sounds good. The council is finally realizing they need to think more about the design of projects and stop sprucing one poorly-designed monstrosity after another. Too bad they didn't realize this a few years ago.

> Council members agreed to let the Greystar development proceed
> without upending the architectural design

Oh. Nevermind. Carry on with the monstrosities.

Just, I agree about the parking. I expect my neighborhood near Castro and El Camino will have SF-like street parking as soon as the new apartments there are occupied. I won't be voting to re-elect anyone who voted to approve these new projects without adequate parking.

"An ideal solution would be for there to be a community review board of residents selected for their professional expertise in design, architecture,"

An ideal solution would be to stop the overpopulation and overbuilding.

I agree with whoever said, where and who were the City Council members that approved that San Antonio project. I know at least some of them got re-elected. There was already talk about the canyon effect, poor bicycle and pedestrian access after the first phase, and look what they gave us in phase II. So, we got ourselves a big new blocky shopping/living/office center that encourages driving and dominates the landscape - bring on the traffic! What a gateway to Mtn View.

The Palo Alto JCC is beautiful, you should walk its inner spaces sometime. An architectural gem for that area.

We live in a Mediterranean climate and buildings from that area would be a welcome change here. More curves, arched windows, etc. Other countries have buildings that could serve as models for this area so there's no need to re-invent the plans.

A contrasting viewpoint: the JCC is an atrocious affront to cyclists and pedestrians. I braved that meat-grinder every day cycling commute to Hooli. Twice I was struck by cars blindly exiting the parking lot.

Despite the daunting mass of the building, there's plenty of space for a landscaped border, but the sidewalk is too narrow and the routing is designed to ensure collisions.

clearly the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. The city allows Google to basically take over the city, with all it's growth then builds these ugly buildings all over town. Mountain View has lost its charm.

I'm not an architect but most of these criticisms are based entirely on subjective preferences, such as color, design features, etc. all projects go through a design review of professionals hired by the city. Unfortunately developers have to appease the preferences of petty council members and residents. That's why the designs get screwed up.

I won't be voting for anyone who voted to approve yet another rental property construction project. I don't mind high-rise buildings, but I want the units to be owned by the residents, not rented out for the benefit of some landlord.

When I travel to Singapore, I'm struck by how well ownership works. I meet few renters. Nearly everyone owns a flat in a high-rise community. Many are built as government subsidized projects and serve as the first home for new members of the workforce. And the buildings are spaced so that you generally have a decent view from your unit. And typically those buildings have useful shops and restaurants on the ground floor.

If the city council continues to rubber stamp every ugly building design that comes along then Mountain View will continue to get ugly buildings. Quality design costs money, and if developers have the choice of making $500,000,000 building an ugly building or make $499,900,000 building a tasteful, well-designed building that is an asset to the community, guess which one they will choose?

I used to enjoy seeing the Santa Cruz Mountains on the horizon when moving around our once fair city. The views reminded me of the city founders who saw those same mountains and named our city “Mountain View” Now those views are disappearing behind these tall, looming rectangular structures.

@MountainObstructedView

Oh no! Not our precious mountain views! Surely the views of mountains from your backyard are so precious that solving the housing crisis should take a backseat to you personally having a landscape feature to look at.