FOR SHAHN CHRISTIAN ANDERSEN · SKYEFORGE

The right proving ground
for robotics enabled housing.

A residential development opportunity that demonstrates execution, quality, and market relevance for Skyeforge’s platform, in a live environment.

View Strategy
01 Identify Site
02 Validate Fit
03 Acquire
04 Build Demonstration
05 Expand Market Credibility
OUR OBJECTIVE

Not just land.
A real environment to prove the model.

Secure a residential development opportunity that can serve as a real-world proving ground for Skyeforge’s construction robotics platform, one where coordinated, multi-robot deployment can be demonstrated end to end, in a live project, under real market conditions.

Coordinated deployment

Demonstrate multiple construction robotics solutions working together across a real residential build.

Cost, quality, execution

Support a credible narrative around execution quality and cost pressure relief for general contractors.

A real case study

Produce a referenceable project that future builders, developers, and partners can evaluate on its own merits.

Market trust

Strengthen confidence among builders, developers, investors, and real estate stakeholders watching the category.

Profitable investment

Deliver a project that generates target ROI for Skyeforge, and the project investors, not just a technology demonstration.

DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY SUPPORT

How we help shape the path to that opportunity.

Our role is the real estate layer behind the project: surfacing the right sites, aiding with researching development feasibility, and aligning the acquisition path so Skyeforge can focus on what the platform is designed to do.

Parcel and site plan review

01. Target the right geography

Focus on sites within 25 miles of Palo Alto, with practical Peninsula and San Francisco access.

02. Filter for buildable potential

Prioritize parcels where multifamily, mixed-use, or housing-element-aligned redevelopment may be feasible under current local frameworks.

03. Evaluate land economics early

Review parcel size, density potential, access, entitlement friction, and development suitability before either side invests significant time.

04. Support project visibility

Shape a development path that supports both operational proof on the ground and credibility within the broader builder and developer community.

PROJECT IMPACT

Value that extends beyond the build itself.

OPERATIONAL PROOF

A platform validated in the field.

  • Validate robotics-enabled construction in a live residential project.
  • Support a cost efficiency, execution, and quality narrative grounded in real work.
  • Produce a replicable case study for future development opportunities.
MARKET VISIBILITY

A project the industry can see.

  • Introduce the project story through an active commercial real estate and builder community.
  • Strengthen awareness of Skyeforge across relevant industry relationships.
  • Position the build as both a development milestone and a brand-building milestone.
01

Site acquisition

Identify and secure the right parcel

02

Project validation

Confirm feasibility, entitlements, capital

03

Built demonstration

Robotics-enabled construction in market

04

Industry visibility

Live proof for partners and investors

05

Future opportunities

Repeatable pipeline beyond stage one

REAL ESTATE SUPPORT

A focused team behind the real estate side of the project.

We work as the strategic real estate layer: sourcing, opportunity review, and structuring, so the project itself can stay centered on what Skyeforge is building.

Robotics-enabled construction site
Tim Chong

Tim Chong

Realtor

Sourcing, local market access, data analysis, Silicon Valley network access, opportunity positioning.

Jenny Athena Wong

Jenny Athena Wong

Realtor, CPA

Underwriting, financial analysis, wealth building, investment and management lens.

Paul Prouty

Paul Prouty

Real Estate Broker, Executive Real Estate Services

Commercial strategy, high-stakes negotiations, broad commercial asset class expertise, transaction structure, property management perspective.

Ring-Wide Feasibility Screen

Margin Map, 19 Zoning-Verified Sites Within ~20 mi of Palo Alto

A Comparable Market Analysis for Townhome Sales, and Hypothetical Build ROI for each site, every card below links to that site's full CMA.

Bubble color and number reflect the toggled metric. Click a bubble for the full margin breakdown, land price through final margin.

19
Sites Screened
19 / 19
Pencil Positive
$85
Median Margin / Land SF
14 zips, 10 cities
Coverage
+0.61
Corr: Land $/sf ↔ Margin
+0.23
Corr: Distance ↔ Margin %
Methodology: Read This First
  • Margin = Est. Sale Value of Buildable Units − (Land Price + Build Cost + Selling Costs). Ranked by $ / land-sf.
  • Build cost: flat $450 / buildable sf, every site. ⚠ Hypothetical, not a real quote, re-underwrite with a GC estimate before pursuing any site.
  • Selling costs: a flat 7% of GDV on every site, bundled into Total Cost as a single line (brokerage commission, title/escrow fees, and transfer tax combined, not itemized individually). Folded into every margin figure below.
  • Land universe: merged from 10 GIS-verified/Confirmed sites, 11 South Bay/Peninsula Candidates (screened from 461), and 16 East Bay CoStar-sourced sites (7 cities) for 35 sites total. Hillside, rural, single-family-only, and estate zoning hard-excluded. A live, city-by-city zoning-ordinance audit then removed 5 sites as non-starters whose current zoning genuinely does not permit this density/use today, leaving 30; 800 Laurel Ave was subsequently removed from consideration, and 915 Airport Blvd was pulled pending a product-type decision (see Archive), leaving 28 sites. A 29th site, 2080 Almaden Rd (San Jose), was subsequently added from the Active Shortlist, outside this original 35-site merge; its zoning and unit count were researched and confirmed separately (see its own card), 29 sites survived. A 16 Sep 2026 round then archived 4 sites after real CoStar/zoning diligence disqualified them — 4146 El Camino Real (Palo Alto, went under contract), 23 S Idaho (San Mateo, bad/mismatched source data), 1810 El Camino Real (Burlingame, apartment-scale land-competition risk), 2820 S El Camino Real (San Mateo, clears the price test but real margin is negative) — and added 3 new CoStar-sourced sites with real Property Summary documentation on file (200 Southside Dr and 1966 Almaden Rd, San Jose; 2809 S El Camino Real, Redwood City), leaving 28. A same-day follow-up pass then archived the 9 sites whose real margin (land, build, and 7% GDV selling costs included) comes back negative at asking price, they do not pencil as for-sale townhome builds: 1239 Grove Way, 26114 Garden Ave, 1289 Russell Way, 22836 Watkins St, 29272 Mission Blvd, 29495 Dixon St, 1294 Bockman Rd, 3275 Capitol, and 3800 Adams Ave. See Archive tab for the full reasoning on each disqualified site. 19 sites survive below.
  • Confidence: Medium 18 of 19 (no filed/approved project, but either the zoning ordinance was researched live and clearly supports the modeled unit count, or, for 200 Southside Dr, a real proposed site plan is on file) · Low 1 of 19 (2809 S El Camino Real, whose unit count is modeled by analogy to a comparable site rather than its own confirmed zoning). The one previously High-confidence, entitled/approved site in this dataset, 23 S Idaho, was archived this round after real data problems surfaced — see Archive.
  • Product size: chosen from real sold comps, bucketed into size bands (≥3 comps/band), scored on median price − $450/sf × median sqft. Winning band = highest-margin real product actually selling, not a theoretical max. Comps cited on every card.
  • Map pins: ZIP-centroid + small offset, not parcel-level. Full street address on every card.
  • Screening tool only, not an appraisal, full pro forma, or financial/legal/investment advice. Every card below links to that site's full Comparable Market Analysis for Townhome Sales, and Hypothetical Build ROI, with the same disclaimer restated there.
Key Finding. Does Cheaper Land Win?

Yes, still true, though distance is no longer a clean negative. Higher land cost per sf correlates more strongly with higher margin per land sf, holding at a similar level after today's 9-site negative-margin archive. Distance from Palo Alto flipped from a slight negative to a mild positive now that the 9 negative-margin sites, several of them further out in the East Bay, are archived: it's still a weak relationship, not a real distance-decay signal, but worth naming honestly rather than repeating the old "essentially uncorrelated" line.

+0.61
Corr: Land $/sf ↔ Margin/land-sf (was +0.60 pre-9-site-archive, +0.29 pre-4-site-archive, +0.77 pre-audit)
+0.23
Corr: Distance from PA ↔ Margin % (was −0.05 pre-9-site-archive, −0.17 pre-4-site-archive, −0.54 pre-audit)

Core-Peninsula land (San Mateo, Belmont, Burlingame, Redwood City, Palo Alto) still tends to out-margin the ring; cheap East Bay parcels (Hayward-heavy) mostly ran negative at the $450/sf build cost assumption. The 9 sites that penciled negative once the 7% GDV selling-cost assumption was included have been archived (see Archive tab); all 19 sites remaining below now clear a positive margin.

All 19 Sites: Ranked by Margin

What this is, and is not: This tool provides a Comparable Market Analysis for Townhome Sales, and a Hypothetical Build ROI screen across all 19 sites above. It is not a full pro forma, not a licensed appraisal, and not financial, legal, or investment advice. Build costs use a flat, hypothetical $450/SF planning assumption, not a contractor bid, total cost also bundles a flat 7% of GDV for selling costs (brokerage, title/escrow, transfer tax), and unit counts/zoning capacity require independent City/County confirmation before any capital commitment. Open a site's full CMA for the sold-comp evidence and scenario detail behind its numbers, and consult a licensed architect, general contractor, attorney, and CPA before proceeding on any site shown here.
Shortlist tool

Favorites

Drag a card by its handle, or use the arrows, to put these in a preferred order.

Save a list to keep it, or share the code so someone else sees the same order.

Set aside

Archive

Ten properties from the original 13-site screening that were narrowed out ahead of the active shortlist, plus any candidate archived since. Nothing here is deleted, any entry can be restored to Candidates.

Ring Margin Map · screened out

Archived Ring Sites

Sites pulled from the Margin Map screen after diligence against real CoStar/PDF/zoning data, or after the real margin math itself, surfaced a disqualifying issue. Each card below keeps its full margin build and the specific reason it was set aside.