It looks like Alameda Daily News has gotten back some of the old sparkle that it lost rather recently. What am I referring to? None other than a letter to the “editor” by Dorothy Freeman:
…Monday night’s Alameda Planning Board meeting, Item 9-B, “Change in the Format for a Future Public Forum Regarding the Housing Element and Measure A”, was a discussion to approve changes in the format to the upcoming public forum on how to convince Alamedans that Measure A is responsible for all the problems we have. The Staff Report, available at http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/archive/2008/attachments/pb_sub_520.pdf, speaks to the problem of finding persons who are willing to come and be “panelists and moderators” for the different subjects the Planning Board wants discussed. Pro Measure A is not one of those subjects.
During the discussion, Diane Lichtenstein, a representative of HOMES, spoke that the makeup of the panelists and moderators must be restricted to “professionals and experts” only. Alameda citizens should not be considered. Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board member agreed. She does not want any public comments to be included in the format.
…
The second issue is the plan to eliminate any public discussion regarding the ideas to be presented by said “panelists and moderators”. The reasoning here is there will not be enough time to include “discussion” but, in fact, the elimination of public comment is part of the plan to muzzle any pro- Measure A facts. The Staff Report recommends extending the time for the forum presentations from 60 to 90 minutes, cutting into any time that could be used for public comments. The Planning Board did consider opening up the next Planning Board Meeting following the forum to discussion. This is to be discussed further in the January 28th Planning Board Meeting. The problem here is the “professionals” and “moderators” will not be available to discuss the issues they have presented, thus leaving an anti-Measure A Planning Board to put their spin on the answers…
There was more, but I only want to highlight the parts that are not based in reality. First, the portion about not wanting any public comments, which is just false. What Diane L. and Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft were supporting was the STAFF RECOMMENDATION to omit the small group portion — not the public comment portion — in order to make more time. There was still built in to the agenda after both the Land Use and the Transportation segments time for questions. Then there is additiona time at the end for public comments about Measure A. But see, you have to actually read the agenda to get that small portion rather than assume the worst of people you don’t like because they have a different political bent than you do.
See there are these things called “Attachments” that are attached to the staff report. One of these “attachments,” let’s call it Attachment 2 for fun, contains the updated agenda as proposed by city staff. If I can direct everyone to page one (1) of Attachment 2 and the very bottom of the page it says:
10:30 – 12:30 PM Part II A – What are the benefits and limitations of Measure A on the development of housing in Alameda?
( Open discussion among panelists, based on questions below, followed by questions from the audience)
Page three (3) has the same verbage under Part II B. And at the very end of that page at 2:30 PM, it sets aside 1.5 hours for:
Open Forum: Invite members of the audience to express their opinions on Measure A.
So who are you going to believe? Dorothy F. or your lying eyes?
Of course, no noteworthy ADN post would be complete without a nifty title from Don Roberts which is meant to summarize his sentiments in 15 words or less:
Bamboozler and Muzzler Izzy Ashcraft Opposes Public Comment During Measure A Forum
It’s actually “Ezzy Ashcraft.” I guess Don R. forgot to spell check ADN or vice versa. And under “so nice he had to post it twice,” David Kirwin posted this last week but also decided to send a slightly modified version to Don R. which again deliberately gets Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft’s name wrong, as pointed out by Mark I.
The interesting thing about this wrangling over small groups or public comment is that from the beginning, Barbara Kerr, one of the appellant members of the Measure A Forum Ad Hoc Committee railed against the addition of small groups from the start. Saying that they were a way for one strong personality to control the feelings of a small group and thereby tainting the process. So it’s rather odd that now some folks are clinging on to the small group portion as though it is sacrosanct. But this is probably less about allowing the “public” to speak and more about disparging Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft and/or HOMES as an organization.
aw, come on, you’re just peeved because Freeman dissed Bayport.
“Alameda has examples of wonderful Measure A compliant neighborhoods (Marina Village) and examples of terrible Measure A compliant neighborhoods (Bayport). What is the difference between these examples? The problem lies with design and implementation and who is responsible for approving the designs: none other than the Planning Board, City Council, and the developers. There lies the problem.”
Comment by Jack Richard — January 21, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
““Alameda has examples of wonderful Measure A compliant neighborhoods (Marina Village) and examples of terrible Measure A compliant neighborhoods (Bayport). What is the difference between these examples? The problem lies with design and implementation and who is responsible for approving the designs: none other than the Planning Board, City Council, and the developers”
What total BS. When Marina village was built, it was what was popular at the time: condos and squished-together townhouses. When Bayport was built, Mcmansions were popular. The statement above is sort of like saying that Bellbottoms are very wholesome but heaven forbid Air Jordans are the great evil.
Comment by edvard — January 21, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
#2
“What total BS. When Marina village was built, it was what was popular at the time: condos and squished-together townhouses. When Bayport was built, Mcmansions were popular.”
Well, partly, but Marina Village could have looked a lot worse and Bayport could have looked a lot better. The developer obviously wants to maximize profits, but he also needs something that will be appealing and sell easily. There are lots of condominiums that were built recently; you just don’t see them in Alameda. I know of no unsubsidized apartment buildings being constructed nearby. Quite often investors will buy condos and then rent them out. They’ll be sold when the market turns unless the rental cash flow is very attractive.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — January 21, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Frankly, I see Marina Village and Bayport as examples of structural variety represented throughout Alameda. It’s just that they’re on a “Developer” larger scale than most of the 19th and 20th century builders/developers who built groups of structures with architectural similarities.
Even the apartment boxes built to replace demolished vickys in the 50/60/70 decades of the 20th cent have a certain likeness to them and some a simple charm. They’ll probably be on some historical advisory’s commission “structure of significance” in a few years.
I like both Bayport and Marina Village. But then, I remember what was there before.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 21, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
Thank you Jack, very well put.
Comment by john piziali — January 21, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
I was kind of curious about the term “Mcmansion” yesterday so I looked up the term on Wikipedia.
“The Ten-Minute House
The movement of the “atrium concept” home layout from popularity to ubiquity in modern American architecture stems largely from the “Ten Minute House” theory that has been espoused by real estate developers, realtors, and home builders. Economic changes in recent decades have made Americans change jobs more frequently, often necessitating moving. Today, the average American family will change houses every six years.Consequently, houses change owners more frequently and thus must be designed to be marketable and appealing to as many people as possible, with less emphasis placed on the specific needs of the house’s initial buyer. Most realtors agree that a client will like or dislike a house within ten minutes of entering. Combining a home’s foyer with a two-story ‘great-room’ leaves secondary rooms more visible, making it easier for agents to show the house — and hopefully win the client over — in ten minutes or less.”
So it’s interesting that such homes are designed with marketing and modern American professional tendencies and their increasingly transient lifestyles.
more:
“Other characterizations
Implicit in the term “McMansion” is that many people choose to live in them. The trend gives middle and upper-middle class households greater access to desired luxury housing options that were previously only available to much wealthier homeowners. While this may be perceived as a general indicator of the increasing wealth of the middle class (previously the middle class was generally only able to afford much smaller homes with fewer amenities) the reality is that people are taking on increasing per capita debt.”
So in some ways, Mcmansions are sort of like the replacements of the 1970’s Rancher homes that my parents live in. Sort of a shoehorned approach to gaining additional luxuriant status. Many people who moved into Ranchers in the 70’s probably did so for the same reasons as those who move into Mcmansions.
more…
“A substantial amount of a typical McMansion’s square footage goes toward large hallways, aiding the maximum visibility required for the “Ten Minute House” concept. The individual rooms in a McMansion, particularly secondary bedrooms, are often no bigger than in earlier housing.”
So in reality, the square footage that’s actually usable within these are about the same as earlier homes that were smaller. I’ve toured Bayport twice. the “ten minute house” definitely applies.
Anyhow, I fail to see the difference between Bayport and Marina village. The two represent different eras when people had different tastes. I’m sure negative and positive things can be dug up about either style of development.I’m sure people hated rancher homes as much as people seem to dislike Mcmansions. As Jack said, someday people will probably find Bayport charming just like all the mass-produced clapboard sided victorians on Central.
Comment by edvard — January 22, 2008 @ 8:15 am
# 6 edvard, one small point.
“As Jack said, someday people will probably find Bayport charming just like all the mass-produced clapboard sided victorians on Central.”
I didn’t say that. The charm of apartment boxes, of which I was speaking, may lie somewhere down the road. On the other hand, many already find Bayport structures charming.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 22, 2008 @ 9:02 am
#6 “A substantial amount of a typical McMansion’s square footage goes toward large hallways, aiding the maximum visibility required for the “Ten Minute House” concept. The individual rooms in a McMansion, particularly secondary bedrooms, are often no bigger than in earlier housing.”
Not to far off from what appealed to the middle class in the 19th century.
From “Victorian Architecture and Styles” http://www.ragtime.org/arch/Arch_Vict.html
“Smaller victorian cottages may only have had one or two bedrooms, but they imitated the wealthy by having at least a separate dining room if not an extra parlor.”
Many of the Queen Anne cottages in town have quite elaborately detailed formal rooms, with high ceilings and beautiful hardwood floors. The private rooms, however, tend to be tiny and plain and often have softwood floors.
Comment by Susan — January 22, 2008 @ 10:39 am
There was a similar comment made in the same article in regards to how architects and sometimes the public reacted to “larger than life” housing in the past:
“As the social critic H. L. Mencken wrote during the 1920s when examining the architecture of suburban Pittsburgh:
Here was wealth beyond imagination – and here were human habitations so abominable that they would have disgusted a race of alley cats…[Architects] have taken as their model a brick set in end. This they have converted into a thing of dingy clapboards, with a narrow, low-pitched roof. And the whole they have set upon thin, preposterous brick piers. By the hundreds and thousands these abominable houses cover the bare hillsides, like gravestones in some gigantic and decaying cemetery. (Mencken, The Libido for the Ugly, Prejudices: Sixth Series, 1927).”
Personally, I’ve never liked the kinds of over-stuffed looking housing that’s been popular for the past 10+ years. They build the hell out of these kinds of houses within ever-encroaching proximity to my parents. Just plop down a hundred of em’ or so and fill them up with refugees from the Notheast and Florida.In the process, the orignal character of the area is decimated.
Admittedly, the ones at Bayport don’t really bother me. They do have better taste than the fake Southern Antebellum style they build in the Southeast.That and they’re sort of isolated and more like their own micro-community.
But on the other hand, I can’t help but think that while we’re not a communist country and people are free to buy what they want, that the average person doesn’t need such a massive house. Most of the reasons I hear are ” for the kids! for the kids!” But if I look back at how my family was raised, mom and her sisters lived in a 750 Sq foot house. My grandmother even smaller. I grew up in one that was around 900 sq feet. Yet the last time I went home, one of my friends just bought a 6,500 sq foot, three car garage massive house complete with a fireplace above the whirlpool. They have no kids. Ironic.
Comment by edvard — January 22, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
[...] the rhetorical recriminations covered here by Lauren Do, there will still be hours of public comment in the meeting, but there was concern [...]
Pingback by Stop, Drop and Roll » Planning for a public forum. — January 29, 2008 @ 9:43 am
[...] anything sums up the public comment succinctly, it’s the vision of a certain Alamedan, who spent the last four weeks decrying the fact that the Planning Board had removed all public [...]
Pingback by Stop, Drop and Roll » Red Carpet Treatment — February 25, 2008 @ 6:48 am