Dick and Juni

Recently the California Planning and Development Report wrote an analysis of what is going on at Alameda Point.  Written by Morris Newman (because everyone is going to want to know what his creds are) this is what I could find out about him:

Morris Newman is a Los Angeles–based writher specializing in architecture, urban design, and real estate planning. He is a senior contributing editor of the California Planning – Development Report and is a frequent contributor to numerous newspapers and magazines including the New York times, the Los Angeles Times, Architecture, and Metropolis.

Highlights from the article:

Like boxers vying for a title, two very different ideas of planning are competing for the future of Alameda Point, a 770-acre community carved out of the former military base next to Alameda, the city. The choice is a 1950s-style bedroom community, all houses and cars and little else, or a mixed-use community in the style of the early 21st century, where higher densities are the trade-offs for premiums in open space and historic preservation.

…

On the positive side, Alameda Point is almost a blank canvas as a residential community (many of the military buildings have already found new commercial users) and could be a demonstration of forward-looking planning, as well as a notable new source of housing in the Bay Area only a short ride from a BART station. Following some initial design work by ROMA, the local base reuse authority hired influential urban designer Peter Calthorpe to draw up Measure A-compatible and non-Measure-A alternatives.

SunCal knows it must tread lightly in any major undertaking, particularly in the Bay Area. So far, SunCal has played its good-neighborhood card skillfully, even if the developer’s preference for the denser, single-family-plus-multifamily option can be faintly discerned through all the smiling neutrality…The most eye-catching feature of the map of Alternative A is how much space must be devoted to home building; the amount of potential park space, although still decent, is reduced drramatically. The preservation of historic buildings is also limited.

Alternative B shows the advantages of combining single family homes with multi-family development. The greater intensity of development allows for a greater amount of park space, including what appears to be a green promenade that connects, or nearly so, parks on the both the north and south ends of Alameda Point. The second scheme also has room for neighborhood-serving retail, which the developer touts as environmentally friendly, because residents would have little need to drive elsewhere for basic needs. Alternative B’s additional bus stops make it more transit friendly than Alternative A…

Measure A’s notion of a bedroom community is outdated and may not deliver the quality of life that its framers envisioned…

These comments should not be interpreted as an attack on suburbia or single-family housing. The culprit here is inflexibility, not any type of housing or neighborhood. Single-family housing is indeed desirable, but not in isolation from other forms of housing in a way that would create or enforce segregation by income. The mix of uses is sustainable in Alternative B, because it means that people can shop on foot or bicycle if they desire. Alternative B promotes flexibility and choice – of housing type, of transit mode, of outdoor recreation – and is a reflection of experience and the complexity of actual urban life.

Knowledge delivers a knockout punch to nostalgia. Alternative B is the winner.

But of course, we know now that the cry is no longer: Measure A compliancy at all costs, historic preservation and open space be dammed.  No the mood has now shifted to: commercial only, let’s build ourselves some “jobs.”  As though the jobs magically appear once the commercial is zoned and built, tell that to Alameda’s 18% vacancy rate for commercial space.

Perhaps those that are tooting the “commercial only” horn should show us doubters what it is about Alameda that might draw the sort of business and industry we are looking for and whether or not their “commercial only” vision would mesh with the values of businesses we want to lure. 

I know that businesses like Clif Bar are considered good, but what drew them to Alameda was a the perception that Alameda shared its “green values” and its easy commute, access to renewable energy, ample parking, and access to public transit.  Also, Clif Bar didn’t want to be located next to industrial uses any longer either.    Would Clif Bar have considered moving to some large business park like complex where there employees would have to drive to get there, drive to go to lunch, drive to get back to work, and drive to get home?   If what we want is to lure as many “good” businesses as possible, then let’s figure out what types of businesses we want to see in Alameda and see what it would take to lure them here.  Is it Hacidena Park or is it a mixed use environment?  Or is it a hereto undiscussed hybrid.   Because simply building it will not bring “jobs” to Alameda.