Construction is nearly finished for the seven-story apartment complex at 1752 Shattuck Avenue in North Berkeley, Alameda County. Leasing has started for the 68-unit development near Downtown Berkeley and the UC Berkeley campus. San Francisco-based Panoramic Interests is the project developer.
1752 Shattuck Avenue overlooking Francisco Street, rendering by SDT Architects
1752 Shattuck Avenue pedestrian view, rendering by SDT Architects
The 79-foot-tall structure contains around 47,300 square feet, with 1,200 square feet of ground-floor retail space, residential bicycle parking, and a roof deck. Of the 68 units, seven will be designated as affordable to very low-income households. Apartment sizes will vary with studios, two-bedrooms, three-bedrooms, and four-bedrooms.
Stackhouse De la Peña Trachtenberg Architects is responsible for the design. The exterior is clad in parklex wood panels and stucco, while the ground floor features cast-in-place concrete.
1752 Shattuck Avenue seen from Virginia Street, image by author
1752 Shattuck Avenue new design, rendering by SDT Architects
The roughly quarter-acre property is located along the retail-rich Shattuck Avenue between Francisco Street and Delaware Street. The site is just four blocks away from 1974 Shattuck Avenue, where SDT Architects and NX Ventures worked on the city’s second-tallest potential development. Downtown Berkeley BART is six blocks away.
1752 Shattuck Avenue floor plates, illustrations by Trachtenberg Architects
Panoramic started construction in 2024, shortly after landing a $30 million construction loan from BHI, the U.S. division of Israel-based Bank Hapoalim, arranged by JLL Capital Markets. Leasing is expected to launch next month.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
I’m interested in apply for the low income housing that will be available for 1752 Shattuck, how and where do I apply….. information will be greatly appreciated
The cost to rent is going to be still to high and offering affordable housing with just enough units to say they offer affordable housing is a joke. Buildings all over Berkeley area for families and low income are a joke. Where can children play limited spaces children need space to play and make noise. SAD
This is a truly bizarre take. What kind of magical thinking does one possess to make someone complain about everything and anything that is new? How else do you think housing is ever going to be more affordable if no one builds anything? Berkeley is only 12% kids, way below the national average. Has it occurred to you that the reason is almost entirely due to housing prices? Berkeley is mostly single-family homes. Many empty nesters in town stay in their homes much-better suited for families precisely *because* there aren’t enough nice apartments to buy or rent. What if…Berkeley finally gets a clue and builds as many as physically possible?
Besides all that, kids in the modern world spend almost all of their waking hours at school, camp, and aftercare programs. It’s not a big deal for kids to live in apartments. If you’re sporting a native Mexican handle you ought to look into how kids in Mexico DF live (hint, mostly in apartments/townhouse complexes)
Perhaps someone with more architectural knowledge than me can explain why apartment buildings in the rest of the country all seem to have balconies for every unit, even in snowy climates, but most of the new buildings in the Bay Area, with far better weather, do not. Is this purely a cost of construction issue?
In June 2015 a balcony at a Berkeley apartment building near the library collapsed, with 6 killed, 7 injured. Investigation determined incorrect construction such that water ponded; dry rot resulted. Berkeley now has a requirement for inspections of exterior balconies in multi-family dwellings every six years. Not constructing a balcony saves construction costs; avoids mandatory inspections; lessens liability.
A junk building. Berkeley should be able to insist on better-designed buildings than this. As built, it is also noticeably worse than the renderings.
Why no balconies? I think it is entirely a question of cost. This building is clearly cheaply built.