The Alameda Sun ran an article about the redevelopment efforts around the old Clamp Swing building. What makes this project exciting is the reuse of an existing building that could have been left to rot in all its historic glory, but now will be functional and fabulous:
…A very different future now lies in store for the formerly neglected building, as East Bay artist Janet Koike redevelops the space into what she hopes will be a new artistic center for the Island community.
Her plans are ambitious: the 16,000-square-foot space will include seven work/live units for resident artists, an art-book store, a sizeable gallery space, and central to the vision, a large, vaulted-ceiling performance space upstairs designed to host music, theatrical events and community forums.
…In 2003, she purchased the old Clamp Swing building for $1.3 million, and with funds from a family inheritance, she’s spent several million more renovating the brick-and-timber structure.
Michael Schiess, a local artist and owner of the Lucky Ju Ju Pinball Gallery is excited by what he says will be a major new venue for artists and audiences on the Island.
“I’ve always felt like the Frank Bette Center and the Ju Ju were little oases in a cultural desert,” he said. He’s looking forward to Koike’s art center as “a lighthouse, a beacon for artists.”
Sounds too good to be true doesn’t it? A project that you think everyone in Alameda will get behind, but alas, we know that is not to be, because not only has Don Roberts ragged on it again and again on his show, the article reports:
After Koike’s work/live design was approved by the Alameda Planning Board, Alameda residents Edward Murphy and Pat Bail, the latter a two-time candidate for city council, lodged separate appeals with the Planning and Building Department.
Murphy, 73, argued that although the work/live units may comply with a city council work/live ordinance, the ordinance itself was a violation of Measure A, the 1973 city charter amendment precluding multiple-dwelling units on the Island.
…
After Edward Murphy’s appeal of the Clamp Swing project was denied by city council, his son Matthew went on to sue the city, arguing the council’s ordinance conflicted with the 1973 voter mandate to halt construction of multiple-dwelling units.
…
Following an Alameda County Superior Court judge’s ruling in favor of the city, Murphy has appealed his case to the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco.
Joseph Wood, the lawyer representing the plaintiff Matthew Murphy, expects a ruling in the case sometime in the next six to nine months.
I’m not quite sure what detractors of a project such as this would rather the building be turned in to. Here is the opportunity to create a community space that will add much value to the city without tearing down a “historic” building. An investment like this in Alameda should be welcomed with open arms and not hindered through legal battles. I don’t know about you all, but I look forward to checking out the space and hopefully seeing some exciting things coming out of this latest addition to Alameda’s art scene. With the closing of the Alameda Art Center on Webster, we certainly need it. Here are a few articles detailing the history of the project.
Lauren,
Over a year ago after the suit was pending Tony Daysog got all excited that the work /live ordinance violates Measure A and rather than wait for the court, the City had the subject pass through each of the boards and commissions. I made it to EDC and Planning meetings and was nearly the only speaker. I think at Planning an architect with the Preservation Society spoke and said his son lives in a converted warehouse in Oakland. The findings of these boards was supposed to come back to council but never has.
I live/worked for ten years in a waterfront warehouse and whenever I pass through an industrial neighborhood I always imagine the buildings as conversions. There are couple good ones on Ford Street just over the P. St. bridge across from the new Jerry Brown condos being built at waters edge. I’m passionate about the use and lifestyle.
I went to a anti-cineplex meeting where Pat Bail had brought Dr. Alice Chalip( Chalen?)as Grand Dame and senior advisor from the original Measure A era. The good doctor made a dismissive reference to “that work/live stuff”.
Not she, or Roberts, or Bail or any of them have a clue about the use, and they don’t want to know, but they know that it’s “not right” for Alameda.
I’d like to discuss details of the existing ordinance, but the electrician has arrived…
Comment by Mark — November 28, 2006 @ 9:20 am
The work/live ordinance has specific requirements on percentage of square footage which is work or live. The living portion is kept to a bare minimum. In Oak;land I had a 260 sq foot loft with a bed, kitchenette, a wood stove and a chair. And I had 1000 feet of shop space. Those are about the purportions of our ordinance, but I should verify. That’s a tiny living space. My shop was my living room in many respects. Also a social gathering area, which made it bearable. Our ordinance called for partial partition walls between work and living spaces, which makes no sense, because of dirt and noise. I don’t know the supposed logic of that one. I hope they changed that part. My initial impression of the ordinance is that it didn’t really encourage the use. Occupants also are required to have a business license related to their “work”.
My beef with this last part is that I could be a painter who works a day job and due to the cost of rents, need to live in my painting studio, but if my painting does not constitute a business, I would not qualify to occupy a work/live unit. I suppose in such a circumstance one could just pay the $60 a year for the business license to be a painter.
Comment by Mark — November 28, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
I don’t think it’s an accident that the restrictions on work/live projects are so burdensome. Former councilmember Barbara Kerr’s dramatic public reversal on the work/live ordinance was telling. Originally she voted for the ordinance, but once Ms. Koike’s project came forward, she joined the chorus of opposition. She beat around the bush in her pronouncements, of course, but the sense of her words was quite clear to me: “When I voted for this thing, I thought the restrictions placed on work/live projects were so incredibly onerous that nothing would ever get built. If I had known that a project would ever have gotten this far, I never would have voted for the ordinance!”
I suspect that some people, Ms. Kerr included, supported the work/live ordinance as a way to negate an argument for a modification to Measure A without actually seeing any projects get built. Anyone who talked about modifying Measure A to allow re-use of historic buildings could be pointed at the work/live ordinance and told, “Oh, no, look, we can do that just fine under Measure A, no problem here!” Of course, if no projects whatsoever got built, it was just proof that there is no demand for work/live units in Alameda . . . two birds with one stone!
At any rate, I hope that Ms. Koike’s project will be a resounding success, thereby allaying people’s fears about this use. If people see that the world does not come to an end after Clamp-Swing opens, and that all of the Don Roberts crowd’s dire predictions about traffic do not come true, maybe they will be willing to reconsider the strictness of the current ordinance.
Of course, if I am wrong and the Clamp-Swing project proves to be a total disaster, I’ll eat my words about the work/live ordinance and admit to Ms. Kerr that she was right. We shall see.
Comment by Michael Krueger — November 29, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
Michael You won’t have to eat your words, because we all know very well that Ms.Koike’s project will come out just great.
It is an adaptive reuse of an old building that was not going to be of much use to anyone.
It will create less traffic because people will live and work at the same location.
It will create a venue for artist’s to show thier work at a comfortable place.
It will energize a niehborhood that was in decline.
So what’s not to love about this project. Of course the Robert’s crowd will never admit to liking anything about Alameda and how wonderful it is becoming. But that is thier problem not ours. John P.
Comment by John Piziali — November 29, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
What I find is typical of Roberts is that he promoting events at the old Camp Swing building…isn’t that hypocritical, although he has a right to change his mind, but he should say so. And if he agrees, he should come out and say so in public…as everyone seems to come out in support of this project, the Library, Theatre which he didn’t seem to support on his blog…not a new site.
Comment by Joel — June 27, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
news site
Comment by Joel — June 27, 2007 @ 8:20 pm