So you’ll need to get your bearings using this map because it’s not precisely that intuitive, or at least I didn’t find it that way. It really should be rotated clockwise about 90 degrees, but you work with what’s out there. So the top of the graphic is Mariner’s Square loop and the right side is Tinker/Stargell and the bottom is 5th street, so that should give you a pretty good idea of what is what. Click on the graphic itself to enlargen. The red arrows designate the north-south running main driveway that this Alameda Journal article is discussing:
Catellus Development and the city’s Planning Board are at odds about how many sidewalks should be built within the sizable retail component of the Alameda Landing development.
At issue is whether sidewalks should be built along both sides of the main driveway within the retail portion of the planned 77-acre development. Catellus officials believe one sidewalk is sufficient.
In a 4-1 vote Tuesday night, Planning Board members insisted on the additional sidewalk. But Catellus and city staff say its problems — including the loss of 121 parking spaces — outweigh the sidewalk’s benefits. Board member Patrick Lynch dissented.
Unable to reach a consensus with the Planning Board, the developer says it will appeal the decision to the City Council.
“The Planning Board has their view and we have our view of how it should be, and it got to the point where we had to agree to disagree,” said Aidan Barry, the vice president of development for Catellus…
Personally, I am rather pleased with the insistence of the majority of the Planning Board members to have sidewalks running on both sides of the main driveway. I understand from the staff report that one of the concerns Catellus had with the inclusion of sidewalks on both sides was that the loss of the parking spaces would hurt their chances of retailing the center properly. One other concern City staff and the developers raised to making the main driveway more “street like” with the two sidewalks is that they were afraid that it would encourage cut-through traffic and speeding.
I have to say when I saw this rendering it had a very uncomfortable “Pacific Commons” feel. Now Pacific Commons works well for Fremont, but wouldn’t necessarily translate well to Alameda. Making the center driveway feel more street-like with the double sidewalks, more landscaping would be a much better fit. Besides, shouldn’t pedestrian safety trump everything else? After all, retailers insisting on x number of parking spaces per square foot or however it is calculated wouldn’t last very long if the area around their stores are perceived as dangerous for pedestrians. Since Catellus has only talked about potential clients and have yet to offer up a list of retailers that they are actively soliciting perhaps the tenants who are insisting on the increased parking space are not necessarily retailers that Alamedans are particularly thrilled about.
Anyway, the sidewalk issue is now out of the hands of the Planning Board and will be appealled to the City Council. Let’s hope they see the wisdom in having more sidewalks and not less.
For more discomforting maps, check out Stop, Drop and Roll today…this is a shocker.
Patrick Lynch is upto no good … what were the reasons for his dissent?
Comment by Roberto — September 28, 2007 @ 7:49 am
Looks like they want to replicate the same hostile pedestrian environment of South Shore. Catellus is going to nickel and dime the project to death. All the City will end up with are pretty artist renderings.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — September 28, 2007 @ 8:07 am
Where’s the bicycle parking? They need even more space when they have the kid trailers which are good for shopping bags, but they eat up sidewalk space. What happened to the bicycle advocates?
Roberto – how can Lynch’s view be a surprise to you? Have you watched the PB at all?
Comment by Dave Kirwin — September 28, 2007 @ 8:15 am
As close as I live to Southshore the lack of walkable sidewalks makes it such a pain to walk through the maze of asphault there rather than drive. But don’t worry, I do it anyway.
IF Catellus is so hell bent on having more parking for their prospective tenants, the least they could do is provide a prelim list of those tenants. It may be that we don’t even want those retailers here.
Large parking lots, lack of sidewalks . . . sounds like a big box mall. We need more on paper and we need it out in the open.
Comment by Mark D — September 28, 2007 @ 8:20 am
On giving us the retailers many of us say we want: you can’t please all the people all the time, and make money. Over the several years that the retail issue has been discussed the Journal repeatedly encouraged folks to write letters about our preferences, for South Shore, Park street and the island in general. It is a very long and diverse list, much of which isn’t necessarily economically viable.
That said, on the first go round over Catellus deviating from it’s original R&D heavy plan, Alamedans were vociferously opposed to large retail like Home Depot. It took two more rounds of public “workshops” and open house design presentations to get us where we are, which I will admit looks too much like where we began.
Comment by Mark I — September 28, 2007 @ 8:35 am
That still doesn’t prevent them from giving us a list of what they have in mind. Obvisouly the final roster in’t possible but a conrete direction, as well as th people they are in negotiations with. Whether or not those specific retailers please everyone in Alameda is besides the point. especially when making design descisions based on certain retailers needs.
Comment by Mark D — September 28, 2007 @ 9:13 am
Certainly Bridgeside serves as a cautionary tale. While I am in love with Nob Hill Foods, the overall center is not what was promised. The Economic Development Plan called for “support of retail that capitalizes on waterfront location” along with “improvements to the public shoreline and trail”, and the tenanting strategy was supposed to target local, upscale businesses. The developer’s original presentation also included a sit-down restaurant area and plaza by the bridge.
In a 2003 Oakland tribune article, plans for the center were thus described:
“…Wiele plans to build storefronts on both the parking lot and waterfront sides of the plaza. He’ll also plant trees to create a park-like atmosphere.
“The project is really about creating a public space,” he said. ..”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20030901/ai_n14558598/pg_1
We did at least get the improvement to the shoreline and trail, although only Nob Hill’s outdoor coffee patio really takes advantage of it.
Comment by Susan — September 28, 2007 @ 9:37 am
I have to agree on having sidewalks on both sides of the street as Lauren said, “Making the center driveway feel more street-like with the double sidewalks, more landscaping would be a much better fit…and safety” Don’t just voice your concerns here, send them to the counsel as it looks like it is going back to them next.
alamedacitycouncil@gmail.com
Comment by Joel — September 28, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Come on. Common sense needs to play some role in this discussion. There must be a design that satisfies both sides. Planners plan and Developers develop, our leaders should provide direction and guidance to the benefit of the Community as a whole.
Comment by Clark — September 28, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
Hopefully the shops will attract a lot of foot traffic. The College of Alameda (5000 students) is directly to the south of the project and there are also office buildings in the area. The project appears to have its butt end facing Stargell and the College with little or no landscaping.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — September 29, 2007 @ 6:25 am
Artist rendering of project to be shown to Council.
http://www.homespunkids.com/images/11091209lg.gif
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — September 29, 2007 @ 8:30 am
Foot traffic depends on the types of stores. Are any of those large format stores planned as grocery stores? I just don’t see what else could go in such large stores if not Big box or grocery stores?
Comment by Jclo — September 29, 2007 @ 8:45 am
In a recent article called ‘Lifestyle center’ definition debated, city planners in Grand Rapids argued that a lifestyle center should be a pedestrian-friendly village in which buildings are arranged to create “intimate gathering places” that encourage community acitivity. The development they were presented with looked more like a mall with big box anchors. This is clearly the debate our planning board was having with Catellus last week, and this is an important debate we can’t afford to lose if we want a lifestyle center at Alameda Landing like were were promised. This is a waterfront development NOT a retail power center.
Accordingly,I think the tenant list that Catellus has put together for Alameda Landing should be out in the open so we can decide if we want those retailers at Alameda Landing.
Karen B.
Comment by Karen B — September 29, 2007 @ 8:48 am
A friend from Oakland came over and we walked to Towne Centre to get his kid some underwear at Mervyn’s (According to Dennis Green’s last column that would make me an Old Timer since I shop there. Huh? But I digress).
My pal hadn’t seen the recent changes. I commented my on quandary about what combination of retail might reach a critical mass for economic success. His immediate response was that it needs some apartments over retail to make it really hum and be viable 24-7 with restaurants, cafes etc.
My buddy’s comment was made as with regard to the setting of the mall alone, out of greater context of access, traffic, etc., so David Kirwin you need not whine about traffic in response.
Comment by Mark I — September 29, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Well since that isn’t at all likely to happen a stellar, well balanced tenant list will do.
Cough it up Catellus!
Comment by Mark D — September 29, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
It’s not a choice for Towne Centre, but if the Landing keeps being a moving target (no pun intended), then I’m going to push mixed use, including non-Measure A compliant design.
Comment by Mark I — September 29, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
I would be open to something like that at Landing. But it would seem that anything non-Measure A compliant would puch back developement for about uhmmm, 5-6 years.
Comment by Mark D — September 29, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
Push*
Comment by Mark D — September 29, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Never stare at a developer’s artist rendering. The drawings have subliminal powers that disable critical thought in government officials.
http://tinylink.com/?KLZJgCTMfi
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — September 29, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
As I recall, the approved master plan for the Landing requires there not be a new food store as part of that development. There will be a new west side food store at the Point according to plans. Doesn’t anyone read the paperwork going to CC before jumping on board with all the plans?
As for tenanting, neither the planning board, nor City Council has the right to determine or approve tenants. Public input and suggestions can be made by the public the owners, but I am doubtful that they would have any impact unless they were powerful statements with a lot of support.
Mark Irons – You are a home builder & you’ve been anti- MA; why would I be surprised at your comments? If I were a developer or construction contractor, I too may be against MA as it infringes on builder profit and instead helps the community that created the law.
Comment by David Kirwin — September 30, 2007 @ 9:39 am
Mark D.,
What I’m getting at is that the Measure A issue needs to be pushed, because we are losing opportunities to have the best options for viable development, or at least for considering all possible options.
Folks can object to any development at all because of things like traffic, but if you accept that the Landing will be developed, it seems to me that we need ( for lack of a better term) to think outside the proverbial box. Measure A has us boxed in. We should be able to try to figure out if non-compliant options will have a less negative impact on things like traffic or enhance economic viability.
I finally got over to Stop, Drop and Roll to check out the disturbing map situation there and my mind is totally blown. If 880 is widened from 5th Ave overpass south, things will get messy. That section certainly needs to be resurfaced. My concern is that the widening is setting the stage for Ninth Avenue Terminal.
If anybody else hasn’t read the latest a SDR, then hurry, hurry.
Comment by Mark I — September 30, 2007 @ 10:09 am
Mark I
I get what you are saying, and in part I agree. But come on,this is Alameda. Alameda landing has been in the planning stages for how many years now? And thats with measure A compliant designs.
and DK, Who would you say does have a right in deciding the type of prospective tenants for Almeda retail, if not Alameda?
*notice i said (type of).
I really do think you’ve missed the point all together.
Comment by Mard D — September 30, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Mark D. – I don’t think I missed the point. It’s a matter of politics and laws. Who has the right to tell a building owner who they can or can’t lease to? We have zoning ordinances, so we wouldn’t have a burlesque theater. Action Alameda was pushing for a restriction on big box retail and tried to educate PB, CC and public on the pitfalls of Big Box. A study on big box was proposed by Doug deHaan, it was approved and funded. I would like to know what happened to that study. CC can ban big box retail, and I believe the mayor made such a statement at a CC meeting just a few months ago. I’d like to see her follow through with action.
Frank Matarrese wanted to set some sort of tenant approval controls with the approval of the Landing plan, but I believe we had to settle for a goal of being informed, but not having input. You might want to check out the exact terms of the motion he made.
Believe me, I too would love to see the goals Catellus has for tenanting the Landing. I believe We-the-People should have some authority in the retail tenant choice, it just doesn’t work that way.
Please make it so – you certainly have my support. I’m sure polls have been done as to what Alamedans want. I’ll sign a petition. Go for it.
Comment by David Kirwin — September 30, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
BTW, Catullus may have requested that any info on proposed tenanting provided to CC remain confidential.
Comment by David Kirwin — September 30, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
Alameda isn’t the first town with this concern. And in many of cities such measuers have been taken to insure that the community gets exactly the (type) of business it needs. Some of these cities even share the same historic/smalltown/ charm Alameda has. For example, San Marino,Santa Barbara, South Pasadena, Heck even Pasadena all have crazy sanctions in place. Yes, these are notoriously difficult cities to build/develop in but consequently these towns retain much of that charm and small town feel.
But then again, this might be to much of a change for Alameda.
Comment by Mark D — September 30, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
the real issue that seems to have slipped by all of us is that these office buildings form a wall along the estuary… bad enought that this project will have more McMansions segregated off in another area…but the wall could at least be alleviated by turning the office buildings BACK to having the view corriders that would be possible if they were sited with with their length facing each other not the Esturary. That is the real problem with this picture….h
Comment by helen Sause — October 3, 2007 @ 8:00 am
I really don’t care what kind of stores end up here– the whole concept is wrong with all the stores facing inward toward the parking and putting their backs toward the street and estuary. Despite the Bridgeside Center’s failures, the effort by the city to prevail upon the developer to make the development water-oriented resulted in a better project than it would have been otherwise. Alameda Landing should not give over so much land to parking in the first place– build a parking garage in between the stores and line them up on the street with diagonal street parking in front of the sidewalk. Also, stores should be on both sides of the street similar to our other business districts.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — October 3, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
[...] on two of Lauren Do’s posts in the last week (here and here) discussed the prospective tenants that might end up at Alameda Landing. The assumption [...]
Pingback by Paul’s Boutique « Stop, Drop and Roll — October 5, 2007 @ 4:04 am
I try not to do this, but since I can’t paste the table into the comments section, I’m pasting a link to a post on SD&R that covers what the tenant mix at Alameda Landing will be (as is spelled out in the DDA)
Comment by johnknoxwhite — October 5, 2007 @ 8:18 am
Several years ago I saw a presentation of walk-friendly shopping area development that featured shops and big stores with their main entrances right off the sidewalks, and parking inside of the hollow square (which would not need to be square, but could conform to the shape of the parcel). One could either arrive via transit and stroll the street, going into various shops, or drive in from various access points, to a garage structure (multi-tiered) and enter the shops from the parking structure on whatever floor was appropriate (rear entries), if multi-storied, or take an elevator or escalator down to street level for entering one-story shops from the back. The ugly parking was inside; the shop fronts looked out toward the public. It was all landscaped beautifully, and the parking structure had attractive walkways, glass, and plantings.
I thought it was innovative, pedestrian friendly, and much more creative than the big store with a sea of parking lot to walk through to get to it type of design so prevelant in suburban shopping areas.
I can’t remember who put on the presentation, but the concept was for San Jose somewhere.
Comment by Kate Quick — October 5, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Kate, Santana Row maybe?
I heard that part of the reason Long’s pulled out on the garage plan is that corporate likes the scenario where you whip up to the store in your car, hop out, shop, and drive away again. Ground level and fast. It’s what people want!
In the scenario you describe, people could get confused and drive away without shopping because they can’t figure out where to park.
Comment by Mark I — October 5, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Look up Paseo Nuevo in Santa Barbara, The stores open up to the streets as well as the paseos that run through the center, The parking structure is enclosed and within the center. Small stores, Large dept stores, restaurants, Theatre etc . . . And it opens up perfectly to the small town feel of Santa Barbara.That’s a “Life Style” center.
Comment by Mark D — October 5, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Well can figure out how to turn Alameda into a Northern California tourist destination for the rich and famous like Santa Barbara is for the Southern California then Paseo Nuevo is worth exploring.
http://www.casadelmar.com/santa-barbara-virtual-tour.asp?tour=7
Comment by Mike McMahon — October 5, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Me thinks (even if we wanted to) it would take a heck of a lot more than a Paseo Nuevo shopping Center to pull the rich and famous into Alameda unless, of course, we named the place Paseoe Nuevoe.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 5, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
The point was to demonstrtate how a “life style” center looks like when it
A)faces the street
B)opens up to said street and
C)doesn’t loook out onto a sea of asphault.
demographics aside.
Comment by Mark D — October 5, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
Palm Springs is another good example of the parking being behind the main street. Tons of shoppers partly because of the charm…Bay street in Emeryville, Santana Row all of the parking in in back. It is probably to late to change the plans at Alameda Landing except for keeping the sidewalks, unless you want to postpone it for 5 more years, but something to think about. I think this is something people actually would like and probably we will see more of in the future.
Comment by Joel — October 5, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
This article from Monday’s Salon.com deals with parking and the issues surrounding it. It does a good job of summarizing the issues of parking and the problems that are being discussed here. It’s not too long, and it’s a good read.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — October 6, 2007 @ 8:03 am
I’m sort of indifferent towards the shopping center. I’ve been in Alameda since 2001 and even in that short amount of time, it seems that the general feel of the town has changed pretty quickly.
Simply put- all the shopping centers seem to have gone for the whole upscale look Versus the strictly functional appearance they had just a few years ago. I actually miss the old Long’s and Safeway when they actually looked more pedestrian. That and shopping at either Safeway or Trader Joe’s now is a royal nightmare from hell just about 24 hours a day.
The fact that Alameda is turning into yet another Marin, Walnut Creek, or Palo Alto serves as a benefit to those who want all that beautiful landscaping, bicycle parking, and eventually electric outlets for their plug-in hybrids. If it gets built, it will be upscale and fancy, hence continuing the current bland pseudo-rich transformation of the town.
Comment by edvard — October 6, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Edvard,
It’s hard not to share some of your cynicism and disdain about the collective mentality of all this development and it’s actual physical manifestations.
I actually liked the weird old Alameda where the Starland music building was painted entirely silver and our main streets were sleepy, but change is inevitable. But Park Street is now alive at nine at night and that is for the best.
I head out my front door down Oak from the lagoon and the parking garage under construction looks gargantuan and completely out of place, which I believe it is. It’s clear to me where that line should have been drawn, but on other stuff, not so much.
Comment by Mark I — October 6, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
As change is inevitable, it only makes sense to cater to the status quo, which happens to have increasingly higher incomes.
I would guess that the “indifference” in residents as to development in town is part of what leads to having a “royal nightmare from hell just about 24 hours a day” in our developments. Witout people questioning designs/plans such as on this blog we are blindly trusting CC and developers to do as they please.
And as for “beautiful landscaping, bicycle parking, and eventually electric outlets for their plug-in hybrids” . . .I can’t even understand what anyone could possibly have against any of these things.Seriously.
Comment by Mark D — October 6, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
I’d add that we need to continue to provide quite a bit of critical thinking and question things on this blog. And, when anyone is ready, question things in real life.
In real life, the CC requests staff reports and direction on issues. The CC is, as we saw at the last meeting on the ferry issue, mildly interested in representing the citizens of Alameda. But remember, CC are volunteers with other priorities like jobs and families. It takes time to investigate staff reports, ask questions, discover the info that staff is not providing, and apply critical thinking. It’s much easier to blindly trust staff reports and move to the next topic.
Now consider city staff, who determine how this town is run, who will pay what, what developers get to be in the front of the line, etc. Consider the compensation packages, many of them are well over six figures, that they must protect. And do a few queries to find out where they pay taxes, which school districts impact them directly, which issues impact their property values. Is it Alameda? Or is it Marin, Walnut Creek and Palo Alto – the three towns that #38 mentions?
As Alameda becomes more than a small town, we need to consider our system of governance and whether it supports the numerous and complex issues that we face. Can a volunteer CC provide true representation for tax paying citizens? Does the CC represent you or do they represent city staff?
Comment by Mike P. — October 7, 2007 @ 9:30 am