Tighten your Belt Line

The Alameda Journal reported last week on a few pieces of community feedback that resulted from the consultant document regarding a Master Blue Print for the Belt Line property, highlights:

…On Aug. 21, the City Council is expected to consider allocating up to $98,000 for the services of MIG, a Berkeley-based consulting agency, to help draft a master plan blueprint for the Belt Line parcel. The master plan is expected to be completed by Nov. 1.

According to a half-inch thick document MIG submitted to the city, the goal of the master plan is to craft a “careful balance among uses such as family recreation, sports and transportation while celebrating the natural asset of the property.”

…

[Jean] Sweeney says she’s advocating the site be developed primarily as passive open space and not a busy sports and recreation facility.

“We really did want a passive (park), something like the Sierra Foothills experience, rather than soccer fields, tennis courts, baseball fields, things like that,” Sweeney said.

Reached by phone, MIG project manager Nancy Kaiser downplayed any preconceived notions of what the land could look like, saying the uses will be discovered through a public process.

Indeed, if MIG is chosen, it will be charged with developing a process for receiving public input, which will include creating a task force of seven to nine Alamedans to help develop the park plan.

“The process involves the community in identifying the best ways to utilize the property for a park and open space amenity in Alameda,” Kaiser said.

Last fall, the council allocated $966,027 to purchase the property if and when it becomes available; and agreed to set up the citizens task force to oversee the transformation of the Belt Line…

As mentioned by Joe Woodard and other park advocates:

“This is a park-poor part of town,” he said. “People we talk with in the area would like to see more in the way of an active park. Sports could certainly be there, waterfront walks, open air concerts, lots of things potentially in that park. In this area of town, it’s one of the last shots at open space.”

Although the parcel of land Joe W. is talking about is not the Belt Line property, I think the message carries over to the Belt Line property too.  Although Jean S. and the other people making up her “we” statement envisioned a passive park in the vein of the “Sierra Foothills experience” while I’m sure would be lovely, I’m not certain how useful it would be to a large cross section of Alamedans in a “park poor” part of town when they are clamoring for soccer fields, baseball fields,  playground equipment, and picnic/bbq areas.    And if there is a really good master plan, I don’t see why certain swaths couldn’t be set aside for more passive uses as envisioned by Jean S.   

The point is, and this sort of addresses Kevis’s question/statement, past work and ideas shouldn’t be tossed aside, but sometimes after time has elasped, it behooves us to revisit what the community wants.   For example, the Alameda Landing project was intended to be much more office space heavy than it is going to actually turn out to have.   Even during the community meetings, the amount of office space was a lot more than they eventually ended up.   Almost all the small working groups that “redesigned” the space with maps and little shapes representing buildings, etc… significantly reduced the amount of office space in their projects.    Would that have been the same 10 years ago, I don’t know.   While Jean S.’s opinion on what should happen to the Belt Line carries a lot of weight, probably more than the average citizen, but as with any project, we should re-examine the initial ideas and plans, but also allow for some input from today to really capture the needs of present Alamedans.