Blogging Bayport Alameda

June 28, 2007

Target Free ATC: Mission Accomplished

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Landing, Business, Development — Lauren Do @ 6:28 am

Residents of the Willows rejoice!  Big Bad Target has gone away, never to haunt the hallowed asphalt of Alameda Towne Centre again.  But are they gone for good?  According to SDR and to borrow a phrase from Whitney Houston, “hell to the no.”   Turns out they were also the culprits behind the poll asking Alamedans what they thought about Target and whether they wanted a Target in Alameda.   The resounding answer that they heard from their survey gave Target a big thumbs up, and if you think about the demographics behind a typical phone poll, well the results are surprising given what we have been beaten over the head with.

So, what does this mean for the big bullseye, well after listening to about 3 hours of Planning Board discussion and watching the presentation for Alameda Landing, it’s pretty clear that Catellus is probably going to be rewooing or has already wooed Target to fill one of the “large format” slots for Alameda Landing.  Reflecting back, it seems that Harsch was pretty meh about Target coming in, according to this article the head of the company was very neutral about Target in general:

But while the head of the company that owns the Towne Centre would love to see the Target added, he said he wouldn’t sweat it too much if it doesn’t work out.

“This is a long-term development for us,” said Jordan Schnitzer, president of the Portland-based Harsch Investment Properties, which has owned the South Shore shopping center since the late 1970s. “We want it to be done right. Target would be a wonderful addition here … but there are other options.”

Let’s hope that the “other options” include something a little more creative than yet another grocery store or discount clothing retailer.  My last visit to ATC included a pop-in to the Old Navy and a walk through the main mall-y area.  I have to say that the changes are a complete 180 to what was there, but the lack of tenants to fill the “boutique” shops is distressing.  Maybe the businesses are waiting until more of the anchor stores are complete before coming in like Bed Bath and Beyond (one of my particular favorites, and was recognized as a “Blue” company by the now defunct BuyBlue.org). 

But back to Alameda Landing, for one, they have a new shiny website, but this one, while much more user friendly, is still as uninformative as the old one.  I was hoping to find the power point slides they presented at the Planning Board meeting, because heck if I could make out anything on that tiny screen.   Add to that the terrible sound quality — can ANYONE fix the microphone for the public speakers, half of the time they are so loud it distorts anything anyone has to say.   I got the “yesterday and today” theme that runs through the project, but I guess I would like the benefit of seeing the pretty pictures as well to make a final judgment. 

One of the things that I like is the constant efforts to reuse materials and be more environmentally friendly.  According to the presentation they are going to be reusing timber and steel reclaimed from the old buildings and incorporating it into the facades of the buildings.  I like the idea of the water towers which recapture a historic feel but also (I believe) will be capturing rainwater to reuse.   I also like the idea of  graphic elements on the building to relieve the montony that tends to be a part of the “large format” buildings. 

But more importantly, which of these “large format” buildings do you think will be the future home of Target?

landingstores.jpg

I assume they would want the biggest building that is available, but I can’t really tell by the little boxes which is the biggest.

16 Comments »

  1. the link for alameda landing doesn’t work …

    Comment by david — June 28, 2007 @ 7:08 am

  2. Try now, it should pop up in a new window.

    Comment by Lauren Do — June 28, 2007 @ 7:30 am

  3. It appears that the right turn onto Tinker is a very short distance from the exit of the tunnel. If there’s a traffic light or stop sign, could this back up traffic into the tube?

    Comment by dave — June 28, 2007 @ 7:37 am

  4. Looks like the site is down! :-(

    Unable to connect

    Firefox can’t establish a connection to the server at http://www.alamedalanding.com.

    * The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.

    * If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer’s network connection.

    * If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

    Comment by david — June 28, 2007 @ 8:01 am

  5. I believe the retailers they are looking for at Alameda Landing are in the 50,000 to 75,000 sq foot category, so Target could face the same problem there since it is 100,000+ sq foot format.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — June 28, 2007 @ 8:25 am

  6. Target might end up on the Base. They could just rehab an existing building.

    Comment by Ben Kruger — June 28, 2007 @ 11:53 am

  7. I think part of an old hanger on the base would make a great Target.

    Comment by Joel — June 28, 2007 @ 6:13 pm

  8. Cosidering I live on Ottis, a couple blocks from ATC, I am elated to hear that Target is out. I couldn’t imagine more traffic around these parts. I’m actually a fan of target, but it just wouldn’t make sense here. I have no problem shopping around Alameda for all the things I could prob find on one trip to Target. It’s not the be all end all.

    Comment by jclo — June 28, 2007 @ 7:42 pm

  9. If all of those stores on fifth st. face into the shopping center does that mean the residential gets the back of a bunch of buildings. Also if the new homes are to be spared a view of the rear of the shopping center it would probably mean that fifth st. won’t be much of a lane leading to the water. I understand that the economy forced changes in the Alameda Landing plan, but I sure liked the original first plan far better than this one.
    As for a Target either the store would have to be smaller which we have already been told will not happen, or the max. building size is going to get bumped up which kinda changes the make up of this shopping center. John P.

    Comment by John Piziali — June 28, 2007 @ 9:26 pm

  10. I’m glad that Target pulled out, too. The size that was proposed was too big for the location. Can this be seen as example of our appointed and elected officials being responsive to the concerns of the citizens? Not according to the Journal article, which says that Harsch was swayed by the Planning Board’s concerns about the size of the store, not by the concerns of residents. When I read that it seemed funny, because it seemed to say that there is no connection between the concerns of residents and the concerns of the Planning Board (I don’t think that is true).

    Comment by Mike Rich — June 30, 2007 @ 8:11 am

  11. This could have been just a more solid way of saying, “enough with the talks, it’s not going to work”. “Mixed feelings umong the residents” however, would have just opened the door for more debate. It makes sense that Harsh would want to keep the momentum going rather then stall progress by waiting on a the Target issue to go nowhere, slowly. Ideally, the planning board will take more into consideration our toughts as residents, for the next potential tenant of the safeay site. Are there any solid ideas out there yet?

    Comment by jclo — June 30, 2007 @ 8:37 am

  12. Mike This planning board definetly listens to the citizens. I also think that our council does the same. We have some very bright and experienced people on the planning board, the same holds true for the council. So I would agree with you on that point.
    They will always be criticized for some of thier positions, it is a tough job. Overall I would say they all do far more for thier city than most of us. John P.

    Comment by John Piziali — June 30, 2007 @ 10:57 am

  13. I see Target as a big mistake for Alameda Landing. We have Old Navy, TJ Maxx, Bed Bath and Beyond at Alameda Towne Centre….we don’t need two discount shopping centers in Alameda. Put some quality stores in there. What quality business is going to lease next to a Target? What nice restaurant is going to go in next to a Target? Who will buy the new housing next to a Target? What office will relocated there workers next to a discount shopping center which is what this would become. The area is not that big to absorb all the effects Target would have on it, and even thought I am not in Marketing, I know this much. Who will go to a white table cloth restaurant after shopping at Target? Catellus, would probably loose more if they went in this direction in the long run.

    Personally it seems they keep revising the plans after the ones they got the new plans approved at last year which seemed much better than what I see on their site now. I am sorry, I support Alameda Landing 100%, but I would do a 180′ turn on the whole project it this became the plan. How many discount shopping centers do we need in Alameda…put some nice stores like Bay Street in Emeryville.

    Comment by Joel — June 30, 2007 @ 4:37 pm

  14. Joel you pose some valid points. I I can’t say i’ve been a nice restaurant or high end shops in the same complex as a Target, nor do I plan on. However, the numbers don’t lie. Future retail in Alameda is also about covering the current numbers on leakage for the island as a whole. And with an estimated 27 mill going to off island big box discount stores. Of course they are going to try and take back that market. As i’ve mentioned before I don’t mind Target, but I would be very willing to shop at other smaller stores if it meant more variety shopping/no target in Alameda. Are Alamedans willing to pump some of the 27 mill into smaller more high end specialty shops in town?

    Comment by jclo — June 30, 2007 @ 7:08 pm

  15. From Alameda City Budget:

    Sales Taxes
    Alameda’s per capita sales tax revenue is approximately S73, the largest share of which (S21.22)
    comes from the transportation sector (car sales, used car sales, service stations, etc.). It should
    be noted that this is an increase of S1 per capita since last spring. In Alameda, approximately 31
    percent of the Effective Buying Income (income less tax and non-tax payments) of our residents
    is spent in Alameda as compared to 64 percent countywide
    . However, due to general economic
    improvement, the sales tax revenues included in this budget are projected to increase by almost
    three percent over last year.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — June 30, 2007 @ 7:57 pm

  16. For those with Kids, The Children’s Place is opening up end of August, around the corner from soccer post.

    Comment by jclo — July 5, 2007 @ 8:25 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.