The Emeryvillization of Alameda
I have been thinking a lot about the most recent “solution” being proposed for Alameda Point: no housing, commercial and industrial uses only. Most recently that sentiment has been expressed by Richard Bangert in last week’s My Word in the Alameda Journal. While I think it is good to talk and discuss all options for Alameda Point, I think that insisting that Alameda Point be only one type of development is highly shortsighted. Richard B. believes that the opportunity for Alameda Point comes not as a “residential suburb,” but rather as something that would appear more like, I don’t know, Hacidena Business Park in Pleasanton perhaps? But I don’t think anyone has advocated for Alameda Point to be strictly residential, not even the Alameda Point Community Partners (made up of several home builders) had planned for an exclusively house-only development.
What gets lost in the conversations and discussions about Alameda Point is that I think everyone wants there to be some light industrial, commercial, retail, etc… What I think most people want is something that is truly mixed use. A vibrant community that is active for the most part, not abandoned during the day when people are off to their jobs, nor abandoned on the evenings and weekends when people are not at their jobs. The reason that there is so much focus on the housing portion is not because that is the only thing being proposed, but it seems to be the biggest issue of contention.
Richard B. then wrote to Alameda Daily News as a follow up to say that:
…SunCal recently announced that building only single-family homes at Alameda Point would not be profitable and that they needed to modify their plans…
Which was not what they said, what they said was:
…after six months of rigorous site investigation and feasibility analysis, many meetings with community stakeholders and two initial community meetings, SunCal has concluded that the PDC cannot be feasibly implemented without fundamental revisions. Specifically, SunCal’s analysis indicates that the PDC was developed based on assumptions of costs for flood, seismic and other geotech mitigation requirements that were significantly underestimated. These changes in the estimated site preparation costs have led SunCal to conclude that single-family residential development is not appropriate in a substantial portion of the PDC footprint where single-family development had been indicated… [emphasis added]
Not the entire site, but a portion of the site identified in the PDC as suitable for single family housing. The nuance does make a difference.
And then there was an interesting statement by Richard B. wondering:
…Why don’t we hire national urban planning professionals as well to tell us how to maximize city revenue at Alameda Point?…
And I wonder, what the hell is Peter Calthorpe? Chopped liver?
Would all commercial and no residential be in the spirit of the “City of Homes and Beaches” or would it be more indicative of a city like Emeryville or Fremont, better known for its swaths of commercial and industrial parks isolated from its residences — and in the case of Emeryville historically seriously lacked adequate residential balance to the amount of commercial space it had built. While folks are trying to capitalize on on the successes of cities like Emeryville (only 8.3% vacancy rate for commercial space) the reasons given for Emeryville’s ability to capture businesses is, according to this GlobeSt.com article:
…its emergence as a center for the development of alternative fuels along with the neighboring city of Berkeley. In addition to the Department of Energy-funded Joint Bio Energy Institute’s 65,000-sf lease at Emerystation East and Amyris Biotechnologies’ expansion to 70,000 sf there, BP (formerly British Petroleum) has announced a $500-million initiative to start an alternative fuels research group at the University of California/Berkeley in the spring…
But just because you build it, does not mean that they will come. Alameda has the highest rate of vacancy compared to others around it (Emeryville, Oakland, Berekely), 18.4%. This doesn’t even include all of the land that is currently zoned for commercial, but not yet built (such as Alameda Landing, portions of Harbor Bay, etc…). So while some commercial is a definite necessity for Alameda Point, arguing for a commercial only Alameda Point is as puzzling as anyone arguing for a residential only Alameda Point, which I don’t believe anyone has.
The master developer concept is not working. Perhaps it is time to rethink development at Alameda Point. Remember, Emeryville too has many large scale residential developments mixed in with the retail and commercial.
There is some very interesting re-use taking place at the Point. Rather than waiting for a white knight to come in and rescue Alameda, perhaps it is time to invite in some entrepreneurs to come up with plans for a portion of the Point.
Comment by AlamedaNaytiff — February 15, 2008 @ 7:28 am
#1 which portion? There are interesting tenants in some buildings, but none purport to be deep pockets which would transform even a chunk of the place.
I think it’s risky to piecemeal the place, especially while there is the $110 million price tag and with a checker board of conflicting and problematic lands with toxics here, Tidal Trust Lands there, bad soil, etc.. I think that warrants a master plan and therefore master planner, and SunCal and their associates seem to be the most realistic group so far. Remember the Dubai guys? Speculating is fun.
Perhaps we could house some of Richards bio-fuels R&D in existing buildings?
Comment by Mark I — February 15, 2008 @ 8:07 am
Gimme a break:
“the reasons given for Emeryville’s ability to capture businesses is, according to this GlobeSt.com article:
…its emergence as a center for the development of alternative fuels along with the neighboring city of Berkeley. In addition to the Department of Energy-funded Joint Bio Energy Institute’s 65,000-sf lease at Emerystation East and Amyris Biotechnologies’ expansion to 70,000 sf there, BP (formerly British Petroleum) has announced a $500-million initiative to start an alternative fuels research group at the University of California/Berkeley in the spring…”
It is so obvious that the reason for Emeryville’s retail and business success is ‘location, location, location” Any blind person can see that!
It is positioned as a Mecca for regional shoppers. People come from as far as Davis to shop at IKEA and others.
At the hub of #80, #880, #580, #24, at the foot of the Bay Bridge, the immense acreage dedicated to personal vehicle parking, the lack of a need to depend on neighboring cities of Berkeley and Oakland – THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASONABLE COMPARISON FOR SIMILARITY, for what Alameda can do based on what Emeryville does for retail capture.
Comment by David Kirwin — February 15, 2008 @ 8:42 am
I have to agree with Mark I, you cannot peicemeal Alameda Point, you need a master developer to do all the flood, seismic and other geotech mitigation requirements and pay the $110 million price tag, as well as thake charge of the infrastructure.
DK is correct about Emeryville’s location, but he missed the whole point of the post which was mixed use?
And the comment about Emeryville having some many large scale residential developments, they are all condos…what about measure a?
Comment by Joel — February 15, 2008 @ 9:03 am
Again- why is this so difficult to comprehend? Suncal isn’t going to build nothing but SFH’s because as I’ve mentioned- they’re smart people and they would be taking an enormous risk building SFH’s in this market. I feel that a mix of residential, retail, and commercial is ideal, but let’s not kid ourselves: Utopian, planned developments ALWAYS cost a crapload of money to build and the homes within demand high price tags. Nobody these days is going to shell out that kind of dough, and in my mind, Suncal would probably be wise to build whatever they’re going to build as s-l-o-w-l-y as possible.
Comment by edvard — February 15, 2008 @ 10:19 am
edvard, I’m not sure if I understand your post, but I think you are saying that all Suncal builds is SFH, and they would be crazy to do so in the current market.
Suncal doesn’t build units. They build the infrastructure and then sell the land to home/office/r&d/retail builders, and they are not designing for this market, they are designing for a market that is 5-20 years out.
Since Richard B also posted on Dave Howard’s (oops, I mean Don Robert’s) website, we can assume that the unspoken qualification in his call for a national expert is the person also has to be born and lived his entire life in Alameda.
Comment by notadave — February 15, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
thanks for clearing that up notadave. If the timeframe is 5-20 years out, then that’s much better than starting anytime within the next at least 5 years. By the way, the Alameda Time star has an interesting piece about another development going on right across the estuary.Kind of interesting. I think this would definitely apply to any sort of near-future development in Alameda. Here’s the piece:
“Developers and construction workers who say they have been hard-hit by the housing crisis have formed an alliance to oppose Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums’ proposed housing policy.”
“Kathy Kuhner, owner of Dogtown Development, said Wednesday that small builders have had to put their projects on hold, because the economy and the foreclosure crisis means no one is selling, no one is buying and financing for new home construction has all but dried up.”
“In an odd twist of fate, Kuhner said she is negotiating to sell the 34th and Hollis property to an affordable-housing developer, for ‘pennies on the dollar.’ ‘Affordable housing is the only game in town,’ she said. ‘It’s the only thing that’s being built.’”
“Nicholas Dean, a surveyor, said most of his work involves condominium construction, and even that has been hit hard. ‘Nobody’s selling, nobody’s buying,’ he said.”
Comment by edvard — February 15, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Perhaps it would be best to only develop a portion of the Point at a time. Some of the land is more desirable than others. Go for the lower hanging fruit now and save the badlands for later. There have been over ten years of meetings, reports, plans, maps, etc. and very little to show for it. Maybe it is time to search for Plan B.
Comment by AlamedaNaytiff — February 15, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
AlamedaNaytiff
Have you been there in awhile, the infrastructure is falling apart…it will not last 10 more years a piece at a time. In 10 more years if you don’t do improvements it may be to late to save what portions you do like. The low hanging fruit…old hangers which are falling apart, old white housing and places with great views…I worked for a construction company it is more feasible to start over than rebuild something which will cost twice to rebuild and not pay for itself in the long run. None of those buildings which are used for what they were built for are worth what they can provide today as something new more energy efficient and planned. Why would you rent an old drafty hanger for the going market rate when you can get something much better for less somewhere else per sq foot…and save money….hangers were built for a purpose and don’t have a lot of realistic options otherwise, (exception Bladium) without a lot of money invested in them. The housing remaining at the base is falling apart and full on mold on the outside…guess what is inside the walls… The streets are falling apart…go there during a rain storm. Guess why no one wants to develop the base and SunCal will probably pull out?
Comment by Joel — February 15, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
#9
Which begs the question if the whole concept is doomed. Perhaps the land is, at the present time, truly worthless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCluyRJnldo
Comment by AlamedaNaytiff — February 15, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
Dog Town is ’small time’ redevelopment done right, and it appears Kathy has done well with it. It looks like a slow gentrification of that neighborhood tucked between Grand st in Oakland and the back of Home Depot in Oakland.
#8 The PDC only represents a small portion of the Point, and it is broken into phases - where have you been?
Joel - there are a lot of buissnesses out there that would like to grow and invest in upgradeing the structures. When will the city provide them the reason and ability to to so ; you know like long term leases so it is worth their investment. I have lost count of how many feature films I worked on out there, those hangers were sought after with passion.
Comment by David Kirwin — February 15, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
Per acre, what is Alameda Point currently worth?
Comment by AlamedaNaytiff — February 15, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
12 Depends which acres. Some are buildable, some are in flood plains, some are heavily toxic, some have views; In short, some are very valuable others may be a liability. For others still you have to ask the Terns.
Comment by birdbrain — February 16, 2008 @ 9:12 am
What would be wrong with SunCal preparing a plan that does not include residential development? There are going to be trade-offs one way or the other. Why not find out what the trade-offs actually are.
The ultimate mixed-use plan would include condos and apartments, but what if amending Measure A fails …. Then what?
Comment by Smitty — February 16, 2008 @ 10:48 am
I just heard that Mayor Newsom is planning on relocating 1000 low income residents of Hunter’s Point over to Alameda Point. Is this old news, am I late? Has anyone else heard this?
Comment by robert — February 16, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
At Pete Stark’s town meeting today he was asked about the Navy not agreeing to a clean transfer and the price going up to $110 million. I had gone there to ask these questions and ironically stepped out to pick up my son, but I got a recap.
I understand Stark said we could (should?) sue the Navy over the dirty transfer and that an act of congress could see the land transferred to us as before.
Apparently Stark didn’t offer to introduce such legislation and if it were likely to succeed I think he might, because the line he talks is extreme pragmatism, which for example is why he won’t entertain supporting impeachment.
Frank Matarrese was present and when asked about the system of ear marks Stark made references to Frank about earmarks that have benefited Alameda.
I have to assume there is a whole lot more to know about this, but it seems worth asking more questions along these lines of persons like Frank, in order get the full picture, unless somebody reading who knows precise details wants to lay it out right here.
After so many years of very little progress and so close to the end of the Bush era, it’s hard not to hope we might catch a break.
Comment by Mark I — February 16, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
The environment and social justice are two lenses through which I try to view the world. In doing so, I try to take a really long view, like 50 or 100 years when trying to envision how to plan for the future.
In that context and believing global warming is going to kick our asses real bad and soon, and that cars are a plague on the modern world like the pox blankets on the Native Americans, I think long and hard and often about how the Point could be transformed successfully for such a time line.
My understanding is that SunCal and Calthorpe’s higher density plan which would provide for a whole community, the one where a school, relative market affordability, and other essential amenities are provided for, and which pencils out as paying for itself, calls for 8,000 residential units.
I’m inclined to back more units in order to make the whole community scenario fly, but I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around that number of units and how that plan would be implemented.
Comment by Mark I — February 16, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
I know what I DON’T want. I don’t want more shopping centers like Nob Hill on the East End. Full of nail salons, subways, phone stores, no thanks!
Comment by robert — February 17, 2008 @ 9:16 am
What I have seen many times over in Mexico seems to work very well. A marina with a boardwalk. On the boardwalk are shops, services, and restaurants. Above that is condos. As you get farther from the marina, the number of condos increases and the number of stores decreases, replacing them with offices and light industrial. When you get to the outer parts of the development, there are golf courses, larger houses, small lakes, parks, playgrounds, dog parks, beaches, etc. And its all within walking distance or a very short drive. Thats my vision for the point.
Comment by robert — February 17, 2008 @ 9:24 am
# 23 About
“I am not sure where I stand, Lauren.”
What would make one think, once the Point was build to your specifications, that you wouldn’t turn on it like you did on Bayport and conveniently decide that it’s not where you stand?
Comment by anachrofella — February 17, 2008 @ 9:48 am
# 17
I can well understand why trivial items like numbers of units at the Point keep your mind unwrapped while you solve all the warming, cars, pox blankets and injustice problems first. But keep up the good work, we’re all counting on you. In the meantime we’ll try to legislate that all units at the point be built on stilts.
Comment by anachrofella — February 17, 2008 @ 10:03 am
#20
Grow up. You’re twisting my words around to fit whatever agenda it is that you are promoting. Which just seems to be attacking people personally. Isn’t this a place to voice your ideas? I never said that was how it had to be done. And how did I turn on Bayport? I stated that I was interested in it initially, not for or against it. There are lots of places in Alameda that don’t suit my personal style, and there are lots that do. It doesn’t mean that I am against the construction of those places. Find me someone that wants the point developed completely with tract homes.
Comment by robert — February 17, 2008 @ 10:18 am
#22 Robert. Beautiful sentiments. It’s really that simple, growing up. Lordy, I swear I’m ready, but when ones inner child is a feral ADHD case or some other aberrant manifestation it can take the resolve of an Annie Sullivan, or exile.
I like this being “a place to share ideas” too, as opposed to debate being the first line of interaction. But people who are antagonistic to Lauren’s point of view will come here specifically to dump.
Relevant to the original thread, Richard Bangert alluded to getting out from under the $110 million price tag but didn’t seem to offer any clues as to how that might be accomplished either. I wonder how anxious the Navy would be to auction the land if we continue to not be able to close a deal according to their schedule. Do we have leverage to renegotiate?
Comment by Mark I — February 17, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
The Hacienda business park works because of the proximity to I 508 and I 680. The location is viable to both the Bay Area and the central valley, allowing for easy commuting. With that said, I personally lived IN an apartment complex in the Hacienda business park. There are still to this day alot of empty lots, as they’re finding it hard to find business that want in, despite its “perfect location”. It’s a good idea, but not everyone want a business park to commute to.
Comment by Stefan — February 17, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
Mark,
It is the housing that is costing the city. Under the base closure rules in place when NAS was shuttered, there is no cost to a city to develop it as a commercial area. But if housing is added, then a negotiate price is possible. Thus, 1800 houses = $108 million, plus $75,000 per housing unit above that.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — February 18, 2008 @ 8:04 am
JKW,
I never knew that but it does explain why mot base conversions across the country have ben commercial.
The question though, is WHY? Your numbers (108MM + 75M/unit) imply a cost of 243MM to buld those houses, or approx $8100 per existing household. That is mightily steep. Whose idea was it to take the project from commercial, which would cost the city nothing and theoreticalyy bein generating tax revenue immediately, to one that costs a bloody forune and likely never pays for itself?
Comment by dave — February 18, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
JKW,
I never knew that but it does explain why most base conversions across the country have ben commercial.
The question though, is WHY? Your numbers (108MM + 75M/unit) imply a cost of 243MM to buld those houses, or approx $8100 per existing household. That is mightily steep. Whose idea was it to take the project from commercial, which would cost the city nothing and (theoretically) begin generating tax revenue immediately, to one that costs a bloody fortune and likely never pays for itself? And why?
Comment by dave — February 18, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
25/26
I’m not sure but the closure rules may have been more friendly to commercial development because congress was trying to mitigate base closure job loss.
Your point about residential lack of return on money spent is a good one.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 18, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
The base could be developed as mostly commercial with the existing housing stock refurbished. The City could zone the land and issue bonds for infrastructure development. The bonds could be paid back as the developed parcels are sold. This would also avoid the divisive issue of Measure A.
I am unconvinced that we need a master developer or that we need to build new housing at the base.
The mostly commercial scenario would also help with transit and traffic as the commute would be a counterflow and transit would reflect a commute pattern.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 18, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
29 is a good idea.
Comment by dave — February 18, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
29 is a good idea. All along I’ve felt that Alameda should play the Point cards close to the vest. Master developers are dropping like flies and we’re going to live with what’s there for a long time. Let’s incrementally develop what we have and wake up from the dream of utopia by the estuary.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 18, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
Dave….sorry if I wasn’t clear.
It’s $108MM for the first 1800 households. $75M for each additional about 1800 households.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — February 18, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
Dang…I mean $75M for each additional ABOVE 1800 households.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — February 18, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
To #29 - 31, do you feel that regional housing needs are not a concern? I get the traffic angle, but I’d be interested in where the congestion-free area is that all housing should be built in.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — February 18, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
#34
The North Waterfront is closer to BART and existing shopping centers and would be a better candidate for housing than the Point.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 19, 2008 @ 5:39 am
#34 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS (based on fictional projections) ARE NOT ALAMEDA’S CONCERN.
Besides the fact that there is plenty of housing available on the market, the ABAG - Perata “Just Keep Building” concept is terribly flawed - especially when we have to spend our future tax dollars to keep them happy today. Traffic wise Alameda is a terrible choice for increased housing.
You are the TC guy - Don’t you feel it most wise to plant new housing at existing ‘transit hubs?’
Comment by David Kirwin — February 19, 2008 @ 6:10 am
ANT, the Northern Waterfront is barely closer to BART (1/2 mile).
And depending on the design, the shopping angle could true or not. Under the PDC it certainly is, and that’s one of the problems I see.
So the question is, how does one deal with the issue. Bury your head in the sand and say there’s no problem (the ever popular Brigadoon model)? Opt out and make it everyone else’s problem? I don’t know the answer, but I’d be curious as to how you would go about deciding housing numbers based on your apparent acceptance of a growing housing need.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — February 19, 2008 @ 6:50 am
#37
How would have Alameda met its housing need if the Base had remained open?
The North Waterfront is situated near three BART stations, including one with parking. It borders existing residential neighborhoods and there has been interest by developers in building residential housing in this area.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — February 19, 2008 @ 7:33 am
The thing is, Alameda has no housing need of its own. The so-called need are requirements laid on us by outside entities.
RHNA Next Steps
In April 2007, HCD determined that, at a minimum, the Bay Area must plan for 214,500 units during the 2007-2014 period.ABAG must use the adopted methodology to allocate this regional need to each city and county in the Bay Area in July 2007. Once these numbers are released, the public and local jurisdictions will have several opportunities to provide comments. Once these comments have been taken into consideration, final allocations will be issued by ABAG in 2008. After this point, local jurisdictions will have one year to incorporate these housing targets into the Housing Elements of their General Plans.
In the good old days, Alameda disentangled itself from ABAG. Now it’s state law.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 19, 2008 @ 9:00 am
Jack, you’re absolutely right. Of course the same could be said of every single town, city, village, farm in the world so I’m not sure what it means.
The housing need isn’t some bureaucratic creation, it’s population driven. It reminds me of a comedian I saw 20 years ago. “guns don’t kill people….it’s those nasty little bullets.”
ABAG’s creation and need for regional planning agencies came about because every city was opting out, and the results were, in turn, negative for everybody.
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — February 19, 2008 @ 9:10 am
So the citizens of Alameda must pay thousands per household so that an arbitrary number cooked up by an unelected body can be met?
The huge infrastructure cost of new development is an oft-cited reason to oppose sprawl, and yet you seem to be recommending the same thing for Alameda: over-priced development for its own sake.
And this King’s Ransom we must pay goes toward housing people on contaminated land with uncertain traffic infrastructure?
Comment by dave — February 19, 2008 @ 9:38 am
Dave, If you’re going to make snarky remarks, please back them up with something.
ABAG’s board is made up of elected officials including Marie Gilmore, an elected councilperson from Alameda. ”
The “huge infrastructure costs” cited for sprawl are ongoing operations, maintenance and services, not development. Comparing the two are apples and oranges. (I’ll save you the trouble and respond to your “No, they’re not” by saying “Yes, they are.”
One reason sprawl happens is because of the short term cost savings to developers based on the low development costs involved in greenfield growth.
Lastly, the development will be paying for the infrastructure costs. The “thousands per household” number is meaningless, as the cost will never be borne by any of the households in Alameda.
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — February 19, 2008 @ 10:00 am
I saw Gilmore’s name on the ballot for City Council, but I don’t recall having the chance to vote for ABAG.
Comment by dave — February 19, 2008 @ 10:31 am
And again I ask, whose idea was it to go from low-cost commercial to high cost housing conversion?
And why?
Comment by dave — February 19, 2008 @ 10:34 am
As I recall ABAG determines its housing needs for each city partly by how many people are employed in each city. So if you compare say Alameda to Piedmont you will see that because Piedmont employs so few people ABAG does not require the city to supply much housing. Which would lead me to believe that if we develop the Point with a lot of jobs ABAG will want us to supply even more housing.
One thing that you guy’s are leaving out is that the city only has to identify possible site’s to supply more housing on. It is up to the free market to actually build or not build housing. If developers don’t feel that they can turn a profit on housing then ABAG can’t do much about it.
Comment by john piziali — February 19, 2008 @ 10:45 am
#38 I like your thinking; when I watched the July 17 City Council meeting item, “Public Hearing to consider Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report and approval of Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment”, I walked away with the impression that residents are beyond eager for redevelopment there. -Quite a number of residents showed up to urge the council on. I was especially struck by Nick Cabral’s comments. He practically pleaded with the council to “…Get me a new neighborhood so my granddaughter can have a residential neighborhood. Please.”
See his full remarks at 1:37:44
http://alameda.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=156
Comment by Susan — February 19, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Unfortunately, I doubt very much that anyone’s granddaughter will have a home at Alameda Point — I suspect that most everything there will be knocked flat by the next big quake, most likely one on the Hayward Fault. And whatever’s left standing will be under water eventually. There is an odd disconnect with the discussion of Alameda Point — much of it is very knowledgeable, but when it comes to the ugly facts of life here in a major earthquake zone, there’s nary a mention. ABAG especially — they promote in-fill development, to close-in transit centers, and at the same time predict that after a quake in the East Bay, 1700 roads will be closed. They have those terrific interactives maps on their site that illustrate earthquake damage — doesn’t their board, elected or otherwise, ever look at those things? As for “pleases”: could we please remember that most of the country is NOT in a major earthquake zone, and that planning here — Smart Growth fads and “studies” aside — has to look at the level of risk?! Alameda is a low-lying island in an earthquake zone. Maybe we have a new buzzword here — we’ll call it “mudfield development”.
Comment by Darcy Morrison — February 19, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
As for traffic concerns: I’ve been wondering, half-seriously, if AC Transit would agree to run the O bus route in reverse, so it picks up beginning on Webster, and then approaches 880 via the Park St. bridge, that is, once the Tube becomes impassable. I thought Richard Bangert’s analysis was excellent, especially his reference to development in Oakland — let’s hope the current real estate debacle prevents any major Estuary projects, or we’ll all be stuck, literally. Traffic is already backed up from the 880 onramp thru the Tube. As for greater transit use: Alameda already HAS high transit ridership — minor increases won’t make much difference.
Comment by Darcy Morrison — February 19, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
#47 “Unfortunately, I doubt very much that anyone’s granddaughter will have a home at Alameda Point ”
My comment in #46 was in reference to the Northern Waterfront, not the Point.
Comment by Susan — February 19, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
JKW #42 - “The “huge infrastructure costs” cited for sprawl are ongoing operations, maintenance and services, not development.”
Are you trying to imply that development in Alameda will be without these infrastructure costs?
How come all the development I have seem in Alameda has been supported by the tax payers? Free-market development should not be robbing us of our future tax increments. City budget is already strained because of supporting development. The hole is deep enough - stop digging. Stop creating more re-development debt.
Comment by David Kirwin — February 19, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
# 40
“…regional planning agencies came about because every city was opting out, and the results were, in turn, negative for everybody.”
Now wait a minute, John, why were cities opting out? Was it because they understood that ABAG was wielding the gun firing those nasty little housing mandate bullets (using your comedic metaphor) and opted out because the citizens of those cities wanted their elected leaders to opt out for their own parochial local interests. It’s was called “local control” at one time. Now, since the there is no opt-out for cities and the unelected (to ABAG) experts have replaced “local control” and know what’s best for everybody, everything has just turned so positive.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 19, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
JKW #42 “Lastly, the development will be paying for the infrastructure costs. The “thousands per household” number is meaningless, as the cost will never be borne by any of the households in Alameda.”
Who are you trying to kid? If you are saying $75,000 /household above 1800 units? (Remember the Point was to be cleaned and transferred for $1. before developers raised the dwelling count to 1800)
As I recall 1 of 4 homes must be for low - very low income buyers, so it is likely that 3 of the 4 will have to absorb these added costs. Adding $100k to a price tag is not very enticing to buyers of “market rate” homes.
AND JKW - We The City are picking up much of the infrastructure costs at Alameda Landing - Don’t you remember how we argued over the figures? The Alameda Journal cited a cap of $27 Million, but in reality the total cap is over twice that - $56 Million I believe, and that figure does not include the fact that we had to GIVE them all the land AT NO COST! (They estimated the value of the land to be $60 Million.) I count that to be over $110 Million and this cost to the city may rise when traffic mitigation plans are settled.
How can you state that “the cost will never be borne by any of the households in Alameda.”? We all pay for redevelopment.
Comment by David Kirwin — February 19, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
#45
“As I recall ABAG determines its housing needs for each city partly by how many people are employed in each city. So if you compare say Alameda to Piedmont you will see that because Piedmont employs so few people ABAG does not require the city to supply much housing. Which would lead me to believe that if we develop the Point with a lot of jobs ABAG will want us to supply even more housing.”
Is everyone in Piedmont on welfare? They are working somewhere — maybe some even in Alameda. So, if a community is wealthy enough and doesn’t need a jobs tax base, they can opt-out of providing housing, while more modest communities that need a jobs tax base must provide the housing? Are residents of Piedmont lining up to buy homes in Alameda so that they can be closer to work?
The problem is that some things sound good in theory, but when applied in practice, those smart enough find loopholes that help them to get what they really want.
The question is, regardless of what larger governmental entities(or developers) want, what does Alameda want and how do we get it?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 19, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
Jack,
the “Opting Out” I mentioned was not opting out of ABAG’s allocations (something that can still happen, so there’s still local control). It was city’s choosing to opt themselves out of the region (as if we don’t also live in the region). I’m suggesting the opposite of what you’ve written, regional planning stepped in when local planning began to adversely affect the region (including those cities that were causing the problem).
I believe I understand your position, which is really there should be no controls. Free Market all the way. (right?). That’s not what we have, and in fact I would say that a process like the State RHNA numbers is attempting to mimic the free markets affect without just tossing out all the local controls that are blocking the free market.
Local control doesn’t happen in a vacuum. I strongly support it but one has to be weary of tunnel vision, lest we end up causing more problems than we’ve solved.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — February 19, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
The 2007-14 ABAG numbers are based 40% on the possibility of building new housing, 20% on job creation, 20% on existing jobs, 10% on housing growth near existing Transit and 10% on employment growth near existing transit.
In the end, Alameda’s share of both Alameda County’s housing allotment and the regions housing allotment is smaller than our population share in each area (county and region).
Comment by johnknoxwhite — February 19, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
And just why does anyone believe ABAG has a working crystal ball?
Do their “experts” have the same wealth of knowledge and research as our CIA had with their information and certainty of WMDs in Iraq? Or are they less sure? With the current housing, economy and budget problems, perhaps it is wishful thinking that CA is still attractive to anyone other than immigrants without options.
Comment by David Kirwin — February 19, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
John,
Your # 54. “…regional planning stepped in when local planning began to adversely affect the region (including those cities that were causing the problem).”
And then the state stepped in, then the Feds and finally the globe with all its warming shtick.
In this nation of ideas (the market), free speech (local control) will not survive when “regional planning” (government censorship) has the authority (power) to step in and attempt to mimic (camouflage) free speech (markets) without blocking the freedom of the (market/speech).
“I strongly support it but one has to be weary of tunnel vision, lest we end up causing more problems than we’ve solved.”
I do not believe the freedom of the market nor the freedom of speech can be mimicked by the government. Nor do I suppose we must also be weary of free speech or the market because we might end up causing problems.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 20, 2008 @ 9:31 am
Jack,
“Nor do I suppose we must also be weary of free speech or the market because we might end up causing problems”
So you’re seriously saying that all ideas are good ones with no negative affects that one should try and anticipate?
I think you are misinterpreting what I said, which was that we need to be mindful of our decisions, because what may seem like a great idea, can have lots of ancillary negative affects down the road.
I never said we should be weary of free speech. I said we should be “weary of tunnel vision.” Not even remotely the same thing.
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — February 20, 2008 @ 10:43 am
58
John, too much free speech or good food, indeed, makes me weary and as my eyes close from the weariness, tunnel vision sets in. So at least in my case they are remotely connected.
Other than from a medical standpoint, having “tunnel vision” means different things in different circumstances. Correct me please if I misinterpret your words. You used “tunnel vision” in # 54 in describing the concept of “local control” when that control conflicts with the greater regional good. I think it follows that being weary of doing something which benefits my city would not make one sleepy.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 20, 2008 @ 11:09 am
first off, thank you, it took your multiple mocks for me to see my typo. I am indeed weary, but clearly meant wary.
I in no way said that all local control is tunnel vision. I said we need to be wary (ok, I said weary, but I meant wary) that our decisions are not made with tunnel vision. I meant to suggest that it is possible that some local control measures do have regional impacts, and that we should be aware of those. Tunnel Vision, implies the opposite, blindly making decisions without awareness. I didn’t say decisions should never be made if there’s a negative regional impact.
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — February 20, 2008 @ 11:56 am
Sorry, I thought the typo was intentional. The trouble with being wary of doing things, just like the poor butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazonian jungle causing hurricanes in New Orleans, neither the butterfly nor we who tunnel our vision have the power to foresee the reaction our chain once begun will cause.
Who would have suspected that Obama would cause a tatsumi of hope on one hand and a weariness of vacuity on the other just because of one easily forgotten speech at a losing convention a few years back?
We’re much smarter than butterflies but we’re still not smart enough to foresee much beyond next week. But we do keep a lot of planners scurrying around looking and warning of all the dark linings.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 20, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
Re: Obama in #61, we are known as the “infatuation nation” for a good reason!
Comment by Phil S — February 20, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
JKW is infatuated with redevelopment, but even he has been unable to defend the waste of tax dollars.
Comment by David Kirwin — February 20, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Re: Infatuation in # 62, also I’mfatinunation for good reason!
Comment by Jack Richard — February 20, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
I’ve seen nothing here that requires us to build new housing at Alameda Point. Personally, I would like to see a VA hospital there and the remaining base housing refurbished with veterans given priority. Our returning vets will need help and we owe it to them to help out the best that we can. Perhaps Alameda Hospital and Alameda College could work with the VA to help get the vets the medical and educational help they need. If we do need to add housing, the North Waterfront seems like a good location. As for me, I see a lot more people backed up in the tube each morning heading out of town to work than I see heading into town. If there is a jobs/housing imbalance in Alameda, it is that we do not have enough jobs here.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 20, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
Re ABAG: the Berkeley Daily Planet ran a good series on ABAG’s most recent policy for housing quotas, which now puts more of the demand for new housing on the close-in cities. See http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/pdfs/12-05-06.pdf. It’s really not clear what the consequences are for failure to comply w/ the ABAG quotas, that is, to incorporate them into the city’s housing element. Berkeley may be the only city subject to ABAG that actually tries to meet the quotas, that is, to literally create the housing. This new system only makes the imbalance worse, and lets many communities off the hook. If housing is a shared, regional obligation, then the ultimate costs should be shared by the whole region, by whatever means.
Comment by Darcy Morrison — February 20, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
Re #66, compliance or not–
As I recall, the Guyton lawsuit was based on Alameda not having a conforming housing element. So the consequence of not having a compliant housing element would be potential lawsuits against the city.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — February 20, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
Kevis, I believe that the Collins Lawsuit is also based on that.
Darcy, you seem to be arguing both sides of the fence, on one hand, housing shouldn’t be built in Alameda, but on the other hand we should build our regional share (which using your shared equal and alike math is more than ABAG’s number).
ABAG’s current numbers place a much greater burden on Oakland, because of it’s transit infrastructure and commercial center. The logic being, encourage growth in places that can accommodate it without having to increase hyper-commuting and traffic.
Comment by johnknoxwhite — February 21, 2008 @ 6:59 am
I try at a minimum to keep abreast of the basic information which is available in the papers and have gone to and watched a lot of meetings.
So, I’m bothered to have missed such a basic piece of the puzzle as the correlation between new residential at the Point and the Navy’s price tag. Not that I think there is anything inherently logical about it. Glad to have that straightened out.
Relative to the thread about Collin’s property and ANT’s posts about housing at North Waterfront, the housing there will be built out relatively soon. K&B’s Marina Cove, which I always note as lesser quality to Bayport, kicked off that development. A second big chunk has been approved for the bottom of Grand. The Beltline is in flux and so far Peter Wang’s Del Monte doesn’t include new SFH, but it’s taken so long that work/live was designed withdrawn during the Clamp Swing suit and now put back on the table by Wang.
Contrasted to the Collins tract which has little residential directly adjacent, I can see how rezoning Weyerhauser and Pennzoil is deemed “appropriate” according to the Housing Element, because Marina Cove faces solid residential
on Buena Vista.
The Northern Waterfront is best served by the Tubes unless people decide driving to Park St serves them better.
Anybody have a fix on the total units projected for that area including if the Beltline had been bought by the home builder before the law suit?
Comment by Mark I — February 21, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
Re #68: Yes, I understand that ABAG is now putting greater demands on Oakland, Berkeley, etc for housing. My point about regional participation: I’m saying that Bay Area communities which have less responsibility to construct housing (per ABAG)should contribute in other ways, thru taxation perhaps. I know this may sound like a joke, but it isn’t — it’s a reasonable suggestion. If housing problems are literally regional then the solution should be too — it’s useful to look at the politics of that, and what the response would be — I don’t think anyone would take it seriously. Yet, suppose you owned property w/ several people, and they all decided that you should get the roof fixed — because “we” have a problem. ABAG then formalizes the arrangement, really — and I’m saying, objectively, is there any alternative to that? I suppose not, but then is it a shared problem or not?
Otherwise, re Alameda generally — much of it is less than 10 feet above sea level, and much of that is fill. I like the 1888 map of the Island, the birdseye view, also, to identify the original land formation here — and a lot of “identifying” is needed. Given the reality of global warming, and of major earthquakes, I’m not sure why all the details matter.
Comment by Darcy Morrison — February 21, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Darcy,
Proposing a tax isn’t much help without an idea for using the money to create equity. Would we subsidize each others infrastructure, or how would money help? Factors like proximity to transit and open space seem more practical for generating trying to target housing.
Comment by Mark I — February 22, 2008 @ 8:28 am
Thanks for raising this — at least it’s entertaining the thought. It seems to me that the inner urban core which is targeted for infill development would tend to have older infrastructure — Berkeley supposedly has a billion dollar infrastructure deficit — plus it’s always said that housing is a net loss for a tax base whereas commercial is a net gain. And it’s a current reality that the wealthiest communities do not participate in housing construction, except on their own terms, as w/ half-acre lots. So I’m saying, identify the costs of infill development to the affected cities and compensate them — and I’m also saying, create an *incentive* for cities to build denser housing. What we have now is the “somebody better take care of this” school of public thought. Again, it’s a shared problem so let’s share the costs. And to be truthful, when there’s no laws controlling development such as growth limits, then I think the real estate market becomes the most powerful determinant of housing growth by far, well beyond public policy. It will be interesting to see how that evolves.
Comment by Darcy Morrison — February 23, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
sorry, one clarification: How housing growth evolves — now that the real estate market has crashed.
Comment by Darcy Morrison — February 23, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
If on a regional scale we have built beyound what our infastructure can support - we should slow or stop growth here.
Comment by David Kirwin — February 23, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
David K,
Sorry, but I believe you have 2 children, and if everyone else has 2 or 3 children and life spans increase how realistic are you?…go take the rich farm lands and build there so your kids can pay more or go hungry. Maybe you should have thought about this earlier and only had 1 kid.
Comment by Joel — February 23, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
#75
Oh good G-d, are we going to start attacking someone’s children in order to make a political point? I’m no fan of David Kirwin, but could we please leave his children out of this?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 23, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
ANT
I am not attacking his kids, but his idea we should have no growth…or keep it very slow…my point is unless you live in China there is no control and if you want controls as such you should set an example, and not tell everyone else to stay away because we don’t have infrastructure to support them.
Take out the farm land and we won’t have either infrastructure or food to support them. My belief is grow in urban areas and build the infrastructure.
Comment by Joel — February 23, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Joel -
You think we have no control? What do you think this is all about? What do you call infrastructure planning? What are our laws for, if not to establish controls? I am not trying to control who has how many kids – its about how much and where major development should be planned. But this is only distantly related to MA.
Are you one of the global warming fear technicians who want us to stop driving cars or places including the Point will be back under water in 20 years? (I say better to change to non-fossil fuels for autos than to take away the freedom they provide.)
On the other hand, you may be one of the pro-development crowds that want to remove democracy and the right of Alamedans to determine what we want for our city. As a developer you seem to want to sacrifice our quality of life so you can make a profit shoe-horning in as many dwellings on the island until you either run out of swf to knock down for the next round of high-rises, or until the earthquake knocks them down for you. Remember the “experts” say “when” not “if” for the earthquake too.
As for providing homes for my kids - that is not my responsibility. Would I force them to stay in Alameda? Bobby wants to fly helicopters for the Coast Guard - should I tell him “No Way - you might expand your horizons and want to live your life or raise your family elsewhere, and besides you may not be able to afford to live in Alameda on USCG pay.”? Oh wait, Alameda is full of proud USCG men and women, many of whom own homes in Alameda. I guess you don’t have to be rich to live in Alameda, at least not as rich as would be required to live here if it was higher density. Are higher density cities cheaper to live in? Guess not, since most people going to ‘cheaper pastures’ are going to lower density areas not higher density areas. Just give up on that build-for the-children argument. If we focus on educating our children they will be able to fend for them selves, and make their own choices.
My main point is we are regionally well beyond the agrarian stage of development. Our urban centers which are maxed out as far as infrastructure capability should not be attracting major new growth.
We, and our urban planners should be much wiser than 100 years ago, and should be planning wiser developments from scratch. Look at what we can do now - Collect energy from wind, solar, geothermal, etc. We can both de-salinate water, and recycle urban water for re-consumption. We can build so efficiently that almost no energy is needed for human comfort. We better understand human relationship needs in terms of architectural space requirements. In short we can do way better as planners than as ‘development shoe-horners’, especially if that ‘horning’ is against the will of the public.
Instead of using our knowledge to build in any of all the open space this country provides, you choose to argue for increasing beyond the limits of what we built when our planning was not far reaching enough to reach our current present.
Now we know better - why not use it?!!
Comment by David Kirwin — February 23, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
I have a simple question. Why do we have to develop it at all? We don’t really, do we? Just clean it up, make it into a park. If at a later date, we actually need housing or commercial space, then develop it when the economy is better for it. Are we bringing in developers just to defray the cost of clean up? Does it have to be cleaned up? Do we need the tax revenue that bad? I understand that our schools are hurting, but how much more money is the full development of the point going to bring and into who’s pocket is it going?
Comment by robert — February 24, 2008 @ 1:59 pm