The success of transit oriented development (TOD) is not generally heralded, but when it doesn’t work, it is hoisted up and used as a constant example of why TOD doesn’t work. Take for example the Fruitvale Transit Village, it had been used as an example of smart growth gone dumb with empty storefronts and mixed use not being used. But it wasn’t that the idea was bad, but that the execution and mix wasn’t the right fit for the neighborhood at first. But according to a recent article in the Tri Valley Herald, the Fruitvale Transit Village is coming to fruition, highlights:
Launched in 2004 after decades of planning and designed to encourage a multicultural neighborhood to flourish, the Fruitvale Transit Village is now a bustling residential and commercial enclave surrounding the Fruitvale BART station.
While the retail business had trouble gaining a foothold initially, that seems to be changing.
More than 90 percent of the retail space in the plaza off East 12th Street has been filled and all of the space available for community groups and nonprofits is leased, officials said…
The first phase of residential construction, 47 apartments that opened in 2004, filled right away, said Unity Council Chief Executive Officer Gilda Gonzalez. Retail space struggled, however.
“We built out the space for the commercial boom that was going on during the dot-com era,” Gonzalez said. “In hindsight, we should have built more residential.”
…
Phase II is divided into three parts calling for 450 additional units. The next phase calls for 92 units to be completed in 2010. The whole project is designed for working-class incomes and Unity Council can fund $125,000 in down payment assistance.
…
The imbalance between residential and commercial was also a result of the center’s location. The two parking facilities that serve BART are situated so that people can easily enter and leave BART without setting foot in the shopping plaza.
“We decided to get in commuters’ ways. So we started a farmers’ market. We have celebrations, music and other things that bring folks into the pedestrian mall,” Gonzalez said.
…
In December, the grand opening is planned for an additional marketplace, The Public Market, located in the 100-year old Masonic Temple on East 12th Street. Just across the road from the village, the market will offer artisan goods such as handmade ice cream, textiles, jewelry and a florist. A Latino cultural arts center is planned for the second floor. The market, part of Unity Council’s neighborhood development program, was funded by grants from the Ford Foundation…
Fruitvale is a wonderful example of the pitfalls and success of mixed used development. That it’s not simply a matter of leasing up empty storefronts and calling it a day, that the mix of retail needs to be right for the community in which it is trying to serve. Which hopefully is something that Catellus will keep in mind for their partial mixed used development at Alameda Landing. When they begin to lease out the buildings in 2009 or 2010 or whenever the retail portion is slated to be complete now, they should hold another workshop with Alameda residents to see what it is that would be the appropriate mix for Alameda Landing and not simply retailers that will eat up the most square footage in the least amount of time. By then, Alameda Towne Centre should be pretty much complete with the majority, if not all the storefronts, leased. The retail should be complementary and not direct competition. The idea is to keep as many residents shopping on the Island as much as possible.
Re. Above
“The idea is to keep as many residents shopping on the Island as much as possible”.
Plus, just think of all the wealthy folks on the other side of the tube coming to Alameda to spend their mulla. Instead of the tubes plugged eggressing then ingressing with our folks, they’ll be plugged ingressing then eggressing with them folks. Same plugged tubes but with money coming in instead of going out.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 3, 2007 @ 8:55 am
From a public transit point of view, Fruitvale Station would be more desirable point for BART commuters if Oakland and Alameda could work together on improving access down Fruitvale Ave, especially for bicyclists.
Comment by Mike McMahon — December 3, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
From a west Alameda transit point of view, Oakland West is by far the most desirable point for BART commuters heading west. If a tube were placed under the estuary, say connecting Main street in Alameda to Middle Harbor Rd. in Oakland, with appropriate on ramps to 880 and street connections, I believe the traffic relief in the rest Alameda would be remarkable.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 3, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Yes, it is important to continue to develop shopping centers and mixed-use neighborhoods in Alameda to befit it’s populace.
As far as I can see, with the addition of Couture dress shops, expensive culinary supply stores, fancy whole foods grocery outlets, and plans for even more cookie-cutter Mcmansion housing developments, things are going along just dandy for the ultimate goal of assuring the future gentrification of Alameda.
Here’s to our success.
Comment by edvard — December 4, 2007 @ 10:26 am
Re: #3, I am doubtful that the Port of Oakland would be very supportive, but assuming they were, the tube would have to be 80-100 feet below the water surface level in order to allow the big ships to clear it (and I’d assume the Port would want to maintain the ability to dredge for larger ships, since that’s the direction Port operations are expected to continue to move (same # of ships, just bigger).
given that, the ramps on each end would have to be a minumum of about 1300′ long (at 80 feet) and would come up in the middle of the Point, perhaps they could connect into Main street at Atlantic?
I’m not sure how increasing the roadway capacity on the West End is going to provide “traffic relief in the rest of Alameda” by encouraging everyone heading North and to SF to drive through the city. What would be remarkable, is that the new tubes would bring the opposite of traffic relief to the rest of the island.
Unless you were talking about congestion at the tubes and bridges which would probably get better, allowing drivers to speed ahead to the congestion on the freeway where they could while away the same 5 minutes they used to while away at the bridge/tube.
I agree that better connections to West Oakland or 12th Street BART are important, I’m not sure the trade-offs for new tubes are worth it.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — December 4, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
There is no way to get another tube west of the existing one. Port of Oakland already moved the turning basin west partly because of too many close calls with the existing Webster tube, and I am quite sure they will not be able to give up more of their terminal space for the sake of giving Alamedans a better commute option.It would be better to focus on transit using existing right-of-ways and then ferries to improve West End access.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — December 4, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
er I meant *rights-of-way*
Comment by Kevis Brownson — December 4, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
# 5
My comment was in counterpoint to Mike McMahon’s # 2. He suggested that Fruitvale was the more desirable point for Bart Commuters from Alameda. I suggest your comment, that a west-end point of Island egress would cause east-end commuters to traverse to the west-end and there-by increase island traffic, appears equally valid if the commute point is the east-end for west-end commuters.
I would suggest that Fruitvale, Webster, and a west end egress point make the most sense. Don’t think a gondola would work, though.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 5, 2007 @ 9:04 am
Another reinforcement of the importance and relativity of West Oakland Bart.
“From St. George Spirits
Free Shuttle Service from West Oakland BART, Spiked Hot Chocolate, Every Weekend in December!
We will be offering free shuttle service between West Oakland BART and the distillery on the hour every weekend in December to help make shopping easy and fun (with a tasting!). Service will operate during normal tasting room hours.”
Comment by Jack Richard — December 5, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
That article in the Oakland Tribune is flawed. I am an insider and I can tell you a few things.
First of all, nine stores have failed in the complex. They mentioned 5 but I can name nine stores that closed down.
Secondly, they are indeed filling up the spaces to make it appear to be full – their own cleaning company taking up a spot, the security is taking a spot, and a children river play center.
The design of the building is flawed. The two garages are located away from the plaza. If you walk out of you car, you have no incentive to go into the plaza.
No matter how they paint it, the place is dismal. Businesses are failing. Some have deeper pockets than others. Some are getting breaks so they can stay.
Comment by Null — December 5, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
I still think the best chance for a connection between Alameda and Oakland to ever take place again would be at Grand Street. It would relieve the traffic in the tubes and cut down on cross town traffic. It has the best chance of a freeway connection and because the Coast guard base is considered part of Alameda maybe some day we will have a chance to control that Island also.
If we are dreaming that would be mine. John P.
Comment by john piziali — December 5, 2007 @ 4:04 pm