Certifiably organic

Just Plain Dave states:

The rest of Alameda developed organically for over a century, with development centered around transit (Park St and the various stations). Things were built according to demand and utility.

To which NIMBY echos with:

I’ve been trying to explain the concept or organic growth to anyone who cares to listen—and very few get it. You nailed it—it’s growth based on need, not greed. The analogy I have come up with is “just prune and water,” in other words allow things to develop over time, get rid of what’s bad without losing the good, respect what’s already there and experiment with new things in small steps.

Park Street and the other historic “Stations” in Alameda were developed long before the advent of Measure A.  There is nothing “organic” about growth that has to occur under Measure A.

Both Just Plain Dave and NIMBY talk about the need to develop based on “demand and utility” and “growth based on need, not greed.”  The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported on the anticipated population growth in the Bay Area and the potential for there not to be sufficient housing for that growth, some excerpts:

The Bay Area’s population will rise by about 2 million people over the next 30 years…

Planners and demographers said Thursday it may be time for the Bay Area to bite the bullet and plan for density, because people will continue coming here to work.

…

That population growth is likely to exacerbate the long-standing housing shortage in the Bay Area, say regional planners inside and outside the [A]ssociation [of Bay Area Governments]. The housing shortage is something that must be addressed regionwide and not just city by city, they say.

…

At a presentation of the 30-year plan in Oakland on Thursday, planners with the association said cities will need to create multifamily housing and boost growth in areas that are hubs of public transportation to accommodate the projected 2035 Bay Area population of 9 million.

The report recommends cities create a variety of housing options, from single-family residences to multifamily residences such as townhouses, and believe that 20,000 to 25,000 units of housing will be created each year.

…

Cities in the Bay Area should plan where new housing can be built and minimize red tape that delays construction, Fassinger said, repeating a refrain commonly heard in the Bay Area for at least two decades.

That’s much easier to say than to do, said Hans Johnson, a research fellow with the Public Policy Institute of California. Surveys conducted by that organization show that city planners rate interest in creating multifamily housing just above creating zones of heavy industrial development. [emphasis added]

I’ve linked to this report before, but ABAG came out with an updated version of this report: A Place to Call Home which lays out the housing situation in the Bay Area.  So, if this article and report do not show both a “need” versus “greed” scenario or a “demand” for housing, I’m not sure what other proof is necessary.  Jump to page 27 of the report and it shows that Alameda has only built 30% of its housing allocation regionally.   Some excerpts from the report which show the results from not having enough housing and therefore reducing affordablity:

The lack of affordable housing options in the Bay Area forces many consumers into paying a higher percentage of their income for housing. This leaves families with less to spend on necessities such as food, childcare, and healthcare, and at local businesses.

…

While some families respond to the shortage of affordable housing choices by paying more than they can afford for housing, others end up in overcrowded homes as a way to lower their housing costs. Four Bay Area counties— Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Alameda— rank within the top 100 counties in the U.S. relative to overcrowded housing.

…

Travel patterns are dictated by the location of people’s homes, jobs, and other activities. In the Bay Area, high housing costs force many people to move to less costly areas and accept longer commutes—sometimes from outside the region. And, of course, high housing costs and traffic congestion limit economic growth.

NIMBY recommended on another post that I

…should read at least the introduction to the General Plan—it gives a pretty good overview of what kind of city the people of Alameda already decided they want, and it outlines the general direction. Unlike much other city documentation, it’s a very thoughtful and well-written document.

Fair enough, I read it and I don’t disagree with what is written there, as I have stated before.  Some things I found:

Alameda has always been a quiet, predominantly residential community, an ideal urban/suburban community created in an era when commutes were by rail or ferry. The City does not have or want tall buildings, freeways, highway commercial strips, or vast tracts of look-alike housing.

I don’t want tall buildings (I think skyscraper, you may think four stories is tall, but “tall” is pretty subjective and since no dimensions are laid out in the General Plan, who is to say who is right?)  I don’t want freeways or highway commercial strips either.  I don’t like vast tracts of look-alike housing, but “look-alike” is also subjective.  I don’t think the homes in Bayport are look alike, but others may.  I think the homes on Bay Farm are a lot more look-alike, but due to age, wear, and decades of homeowners personalizing their property have taken on a more…”organic”…look.

Continuing on:

The City’s rich and diverse residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional architecture is continually gaining recognition as an irreplaceable asset. The Bay Area has no similar communities and none will be built. The General Plan emphasizes restoration and preservation as essential to Alameda’s economic and cultural environment.

I don’t disagree with this either, but with the limitations of Measure A and the challenges to the Work/Live ordinance, how do we restore and preserve older buildings in Alameda to some constructive use if we don’t try to think out of the proverbial box and be more creative?

And:

In a city where almost every street is a residential street, it is not surprising that increased traffic is seen as a major threat to the quality of life. The General Plan commits Alameda to vigorous support of transit improvements, ferry service, reduction of peak-hour use of single-occupant vehicles, and an enjoyable pedestrian environment.

I don’t disagree with this either, but reducing auto usage does not come with ceasing development and progress altogether, it comes with smart planning.   I’m all for transit improvments and a enjoyable pedestrian environment.  Personally, I would prefer walking to driving any day since I have terrible road rage. 

I just want to highlight the fact that the general plan mentions that Alameda is “an ideal urban/suburban community.”  And like other urban communities, hopefully when we do move forward we can plan for a community that is inclusive, diverse, and takes into account the needs of people of every age level and every income level.