I don’t know how I feel about the follow-up “My Words” in the Alameda Journal, it seems sometimes wholly out of context since the author is “refuting” items that may or may not have been published within the paper itself, which leads to confusion for the majority of readers who may not be privy to what the critiques of the piece were and therefore only know through the follow-up My Word itself which may tend to distort what the initial criticism were in the first place. I certainly don’t know if Richard Bangert is addressing what I wrote directly or whether he is talking about conversations with other people who have expressed skeptism with his grand commercial plan, but here’s what I found troublesome about his characterization of his critics:
…I recently floated the idea of abandoning residential development and going all-commercial to alleviate the outbound traffic burden that would worsen with even the best transit. Skeptics responded by citing the commercial vacancy rates in Alameda and Pleasanton, decrying Emeryville’s economic “freak show” and asserting that residential development is the only sure financial bet…
I don’t know who called Emeryville an “economic ‘freak show’” but it certainly wasn’t me. Emeryville is very good at dong what they do, they manage to lure and retain all the big companies that Alameda can’t and probably never will be able to because they are Emeryville and they do what they do to make it happen. They generate amazing tax revenue, both commercial and retail, and that is to be commended, but their model is not duplicable for Alameda for obvious reasons. And I have never heard (or read) anyone say that “residential development is the only sure financial bet.” Perhaps folks have said that to Richard B. directly and off-line, but for most public discussions, no one has said that, and I’m sure as hell not saying it. In fact, I said:
…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…
So to cut to the meat of Richard B’s follow up is that he thinks we should model Alameda Point off of Deven, Massachusettes’s base redevelopment efforts, which contains a large amount of commercial and industrial space. I think that all examples of successful development efforts should always guide our planning process, even if it is in another city, another state, or another country…or hell even if it’s not an island. But if we are going to talk about best practices from base closures, we should be examining all of them, not simply the ones that perhaps meet what our own personal visions of Alameda Point should be. There are many bases that closed from 1988 – 1995 and there are a lot of uses that they have been converted to.
Interesting thing about Devens is that it did not exist as a city prior to the redevelopment and still isn’t a fully functioning town, according to the Wikipedia article, although that information may not have been updated either. Additionally Devens is located almost an hour away from the closest urban center (Boston). You can use your favorite mapping tool, I like google maps, to map Devens to Boston. It takes about an hour if you use the highway system, if you check the box to “avoid highways” while it gives a more direct route to cover the 36.7 miles difference between Devens and Boston, it also logs in a travel time of 1 hour and 25 minutes. So the lure of Devens as a new commercial center makes more sense than if it were located closer to existing commercial and industrial centers, as Alameda is.
I am puzzled by Richard B.’s contention that:
…After 10 years and little to show, it may be time to bid farewell to our current model of base conversion, with its legacy of failure in the Bay Area and beyond…
There are many successful base conversions, I’m not sure what aspect of the “current model” he is pointing to. Is it the master developer, because that is what MassDevelopment was, a master developer. It appears that Devens was able to move along a bit more quickly because the land did not end up being turned over to any city (because there was no exisiting city) but sold outright to the developer, from wikipedia (link somewhere above):
…The process for land distribution for all parcels on the former Fort Devens allowed the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Shriver Job Corps, Massachusetts National Guard, Massachusetts Veterans and MassDevelopment[2]to acquire the land. The bulk of the land was purchased by MassDevelopment for $17 million dollars…
What will always stick with me when I hear about new and improved plans for the point is something that was said by Pat Keliher at Wednesday’s ARRA meeting, I am going to borrow from Stop, Drop, and Roll’s paraphrasing of what he said because I’m too lazy too go back and transcribe from the video:
…Councilmember deHaan asked whether SunCal should be looking at housing due to costs and the current declining market. Keliher’s response (paraphrase ahead) “I don’t have a crystal ball and can’t predict future markets” and then he said “Although the marketplace might not look good today, at some point you have to bet on the future…If you’re going to be hyper-focused on what’s happening in the market today, you’ll never get anything accomplished.”…
And that is something that is important to remember, regardless of who develops Alameda Point all markets are cyclical, what would work if you started building today, may not work when you actually break ground. Simply because today’s market may tell us that commercial is the hot thing, it may not be that way when it’s time to actually build.
“SunCal has determined that it can’t build homes on the northeast quadrant at Alameda Point, north of West Midway Avenue and along the estuary because of geo-technical issues primarily related to seismic stability and liquefaction, Potter said.”
http://www.contracostatimes.com/alameda/ci_8487683?nclick_check=1
It is unclear as to what areas of the old base, if any, are suitable for residential construction.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 7, 2008 @ 8:05 am
I have gotten myself a self guided tour map of the base. It appears that most of the existing residential units at the base except for the BOQ and BEQ, are in the Northeast corner.
A friend who is temporarily housed in a Big White says the building is great but the floor is so warped a marble or ball will not stay in one place for two seconds. In order to re-compact the earth under the Big Whites, it has been stated they would all have to be temporarily moved off site.
Phil Tagami who is point person for historic preservation for SunCal, said he has become quite fond of these buildings. However, at some point in the past the relocation and soil compaction issue was said to add prohibitive costs to the possible preservation of the Big Whites.
I notice in the aerial map that the density of the existing SFH neighborhoods outside the fence to the south east, look much more dense than any of the existing residential on the base. I have also heard preservationists opine that the landscape and layout around various buildings like the Big Whites is an essential part of the historic character of the area which should be preserved.
While I’m fascinated that the developer’s preservation expert favors buildings like the Big Whites, I’m curious to know what viable options we have for any kind of construction on these areas up for seismic re-evaluation. I’m assuming they are at least areas without heavy contamination.( I don’t have that map before me).
The Navy hired historian Sally Woodbridge to assess the site in 1992 and she wrote “the buildings have a continuity of style and high degree of architectural integrity enhanced by the landscaping and park like open space”.
Perhaps if we extend work/live to the Point we could preserve open spaces around the BEQ and BOQ with higher densities within the existing structures, but on sites like the Big Whites one has to question having the cake and eating it, etc.
Some die hard Measure A supporters cite the 1983 ballot decision to destroy Red Brick building at Marina Village as the public having given a loud no to industrial rehab such as work/live, but again we can’t have the cake and eat it. That initiative had few total votes cast and passed by a slim margin.
Comment by Mark I — March 7, 2008 @ 8:49 am
That quote seems to say the opposite (backed up by SunCal’s presentation in December) that it’s clear where it’s not suitable, and therefore also clear where it is suitable.
It should also be pointed out that the non-suitability is for Single Family Homes (not all types of residences) due to the extreme costs of driving piles deep into the earth to shore them up against liquefaction.
Comment by John Knox White — March 7, 2008 @ 8:51 am
With all undue respect for Bangert’s floating idea, in my opinion, there is little in his commentary that warrants more than a quick read, a shake of the head and a quick move on to more important things, like the comics.
This idea of job creation at the Point then, ” …we could target employees of the new Point businesses as future homebuyers there. Once they moved in, the need to drive on and off the island would lessen, and it is more likely we would have built the vibrant multiuse community we desire. Additionally, employers often subsidize transit riding, and employee density could lead to an early ramp-up of improved transit for the whole island.”
“Target employees”?? That musing, in itself, shows someone who must clearly be out of touch with reality.
But wait, this statement about the Point really takes the cake: ” …and a location in a state ready to jump-start new industries such as biotechnology. Other opportunities like the grease-to-biodiesel plant being approved in Pacifica would be a perfect fit to supply ferries and possibly cargo ships at Alameda Point.”
This is a state ready to “jump-start” into bankruptcy and cant even find the loot to educate its kids.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 7, 2008 @ 8:54 am
His idea of commercial first, residential later is focused on current(like right now) market indications, but it says absolutely nothing about the white elephant in the room, MA and density,no matter what the order of development is.Which probably has more to do with our “6 month break” than anything else.
Still, I did like the housing mix in the MassDevelopment powerpoint. Even the styles would seem to fit nicely in Alameda.
Comment by MarkD — March 7, 2008 @ 8:59 am
For commercial develeopment the even bigger elephant is ACCESS. The commercial space at Marina Village suffers because it’s not on a freeway exit or major road. Same for Harbor Bay Business Park — even the Road to Nowhere hasn’t helped all that much.
Combine that with the serious cleanup issues that complicate residential and we gots ourself a pickle. Can we convince the Navy to keep the place?
Comment by dave — March 7, 2008 @ 9:25 am
# 3
How many piles are driven into the south shore sand? Single family dwellings are still being built there.
I believe it’s unnecessary to design beyond 7.3, if that high. When the big one hits the only structures left standing in this city will be those of the mind.
I was lucky enough to have been on Kodiak Island when the 1964 quake and tsunami put the boats from the marinas on main street and the Navy airplane hangars crumbling and flooded. The only design that could have saved the structures would have been to levitate about eight feet
Comment by Jack Richard — March 7, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
Is the land worth the $108,000,000 that the Navy wants? How thoroughly has the city researched the idea of just letting the Navy keep it? The old base is now the wild west. I cannot believe that there is any copper still out there to steal. The Feds seem to have limitless deep pockets and they do not have to worry about turning a profit. Right now, the city is stuck with policing it and even the police vehicles are being vandalized.
“VANDALISM — Someone broke into the Alameda Police Department’s DARE van while it was parked at Alameda Point and vandalized the interior. A guard with Sidebar Security, which the city has hired to help patrol the former U.S. Navy base, noticed the black Dodge van parked in the 1800 block of Monarch Street. Its side door was open and items from inside, including ceramic mugs, were scattered on the street. The guard reported it about 7:20 p.m.”
http://www.contracostatimes.com/alameda/ci_8487675
Reminds me of this song
http://tinylink.com/?YAMsrJk84w
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 7, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Jack,
You are only the third person I’ve heard tell first hand accounts of that quake which sounds thoroughly mortifying, both in intensity and duration.
According to a neighbor who was working with EBMUD at the time, in 1989 there were about 80 supply line breaks at south shore compared to a half dozen on the historic island, so one can assume there is that much difference between 1950s fill and historic compaction. I have not heard of settling at south shore as with Big Whites, so who knows how bad it is out at the Point, but there are dozens of chimneys on every block of the old island which will come down in a 7 or better. I keep a generator, a chain saw, and a giant steel pry bar in my garage along with the emergency water.
Comment by Mark I — March 7, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
There’s a San Francisco Estuary Institute that has wonderful maps of the Bay, from the early 1800s and the present. The coastline is radically different, all around the Bay. I suppose all coastal areas have more fill than seems obvious at first — see Boston’s Back Bay neighborhood, which was in fact a bay. I’m always surprised at how small the historic island was (is?), compared to the island now. These maps are available online, but the paper version that I happened to see is much more readable.
Comment by Darcy Morrison — March 7, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
Also to note: Rte. 128, the inner highway that circles west of Boston, is the local Silicon Valley (which I think is common knowledge). Rte. 495 is the outer ring, and Devens is close to 495 and the vicinity of high tech. This is not the boonies.
Comment by Darcy Morrison — March 7, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
Here are maps showing the areas of Alameda likely to liquefy and suffer intense shaking in an earthquake.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/alameda/
You can see the original shape of Alameda and how small Bay Farm Island was originally. Almost all of the old base is poor quality fill and will liquefy in a strong earthquake. ‘89 was nothing compared to what a similar strength quake on the Hayward fault cause.
Between the toxics and the potential for liquefaction, I question just how much the “land” is really worth.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 8, 2008 @ 7:42 am
The best idea I have heard is using the old base for a combination VA medical facility and city hospital. We have a large and growing number of veterans in need of care. We also have a local public hospital that is not viable in the long run. The Feds have a lot deeper pockets than Alameda and could provide for both security and transportation. With the medical facility as an anchor, perhaps adjacent development would then be possible. I think that it will eventually dawn on the council that the path they are currently taking leads nowhere.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 8, 2008 @ 8:35 am
# 9
Mark I, I was in a Patrol squadron VP-9 (P2Vs) at the time. Although our squadron was based here in Alameda (Hangar 39), I volunteered to be part of a four plane detachment with VP-2 (based at Whidbey Island) for a six month tour in Alaska. We flew out of Kodiak, Adak and a little Air Force base way out at the tip of the Aleutians (Shemya).
Our six month tour was just ending when the big one hit (on good Friday, no less). Perfectly beautiful late afternoon silent day. If you’ve ever been up in Alaska away from most civilization, the total silence is deafening.
I was in one of the hangars when it hit. The steam pipes near the ceiling in the hangar started shaking and breaking up then a low roar seemed to envelope everything. No one knew what was happening. Everyone exited the hangar and started running. The hangar was situated near the water (Old Woman Bay) and the airplane parking areas began cracking with water shooting up through the cracks. There were some long piling posts lying at the side of one of the aircraft parking ramps so I decided if I stood on one of the pilings I wouldn’t fall into one of the cracks.
We eventually made our way back to the barracks (interesting, the barracks were old wooden frame-on-surface pilings and remained relatively unscathed while the six foot thick re-enforced concrete hangar foundations cracked and buckled like saltine crackers). Later that evening a friend and I climbed half way up Old Woman Mountain behind the Hangar in order to try to get AM radio stations from the lower forty-eight. Rumors were running rampant about the rest of our squadron and the rest of the Aleutians. We finally got some news from an AM station in Seattle. They said Adak had sunk and that a tidal wave would wipe out Kodiak. We climbed a little higher up the mountain after hearing that.
The aftershocks continued all night and into the next morning. My recollection of the aftershocks is that they were much stronger than the Leoma Pria primary (I was in Alameda during that one).
Our planes couldn’t re-fuel because the underground fuel tanks had cracked and water contaminated the fuel so the next day a Air Force plane (C-135) landed, picked us up without shutting its jets, took off, flew north to Fairbanks to re-fuel and then to Sea-Tac where we disembarked from our great adventure.
What were the other two people you mentioned doing in Alaska?
Comment by Jack Richard — March 8, 2008 @ 9:51 am
Lauren, You’re the one who brought up Emeryville to knock down the all-commercial idea and used it as a disparaging characterization–emeryvillization (now, massachusettization)! I would have expected you at least to be pleased that the guy put residential back in as an option. What’s the matter with developing commercial before residential?
Comment by Smitty — March 8, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
I don’t think there is anything wrong with it, There’s just nothing great/new/ or different about it either. It doesn’t do anything to alleviate the problems we actually have.
Comment by MarkD — March 8, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
I didn’t realize that “-ization” was “disparaging,” perhaps someone could create a wikipedia article to memorialize that for the rest of us.
Comment by Lauren Do — March 9, 2008 @ 6:53 am
So Lauren, you agree. Your usage of “ization” meant that an all-commercial plan would be the “action, process, or result of doing or making” Alameda Point like Emeryville. It was obvious in your previous post that you meant it as a put-down. So let’s not waste time parsing words when context is everything.
Because you said that we should look at all successful base conversions (not Treasure Island, Hunters Point, etc.), it sounds like you agree that the city should send a delegation to Devens.
Post #16, re your statement “there’s nothing great/new/or different about it.” Look at Devens and compare it to the Point. Tell us if you see anything different. Devens = success; Alameda Point = failure. What it could alleviate is perpetual failure.
Comment by Smitty — March 9, 2008 @ 10:19 am
Smitty,
The “ization” reference was originally rooted in “Manhattonization” as a pejorative of density.
After reading the articles on line about Devens recommended by Richard Bangert there probably are similarities and positive examples of things to be taken from that conversion, but I think there are plenty of flaws in Richard’s choice for comparison. Jack’s reference to the available funds from the state budget is just one glaring one.
The idea that this is basis to send a delegation to this particular site seems a bit premature, frankly silly. I think there are plenty of apples and oranges in the comparison.
Darcy,
I know nothing about the highway routes or various belts of industry and commerce surrounding Boston, and why would the average bay area denizen? I did do the Google maps virtual “drive” through Devens, which blew my mind in terms of somebody having driven and filmed all the local roadways which one can retrace by computer. (No such file for Alameda.) The several miles of Devens through which I “drove” looked pretty damn rural and the satellite shot is also quite green. I tired of driving before I managed to hit any real population centers or other areas warranting comparison.
ANT,
If you are have grave doubts about the soil conditions I’m not sure why you like the idea of another hospital out there. All the hospitals in the bay region seem to be dangerously vulnerable to seismic activity.
Comment by Mark I — March 9, 2008 @ 11:28 am
Jack,
I wonder how being at the epicenter compared to your experience, which itself sounds pretty surreal.
I once spoke to an Oakland wharf rat/salmon fisherman who claimed to be in Anchorage during the quake. I don’t doubt that he was from his descriptions, but his claim that he surfed one of those fishing boats through the center of town on the tidal wave may have been something inspired by the bottle. I met somebody more recently who told me they had been there, maybe here in town, maybe a construction site lunch story. I can’t place that conversation precisely, but I’ll remember your story.
Comment by Mark I — March 9, 2008 @ 11:30 am
Mark — I guess I wasn’t explicit enough re 128/495 — I’m saying there are major business centers well outside of Boston, and I’m pointing this out because — obviously — people here may not know that. The town I grew up in is at least as far from Boston, and is now wealthy, has million dollar homes, and business parks, because it’s right on 495. It’s also got a lot of trees, because Mass. is forested and much of Cal. is not.
Devens is also well above sea level and not prone to earthquakes, also significant. Where comparisons are concerned, I think that should come first — there seems to be a disconnect, as if this were “old news” or something, and other models are essentially comparable. Well, they can’t be. I’m not sure what would be — a water-front business park in south Florida maybe?
Comment by Darcy Morrison — March 9, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
Re the idea of using the base for all commercial–
It seems to me that it cannot be done because the more commercial you put in, the more affordable housing that ABAG designates as your fair share of growth. So at least some residential MUST be put in to allow for the additional jobs generated.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — March 9, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
#22 I am from Pa. and familiar with the summer tree canopy. In my virtual car drive in Devens it looked almost as rural as pastoral Chaddsford where Andrew Wyeth painted, south west of Philadelphia and closer than Devens to Boston.
Something else likely not to compare well is the cost of housing in the immediate vicinity I was virtually driving through, regardless of corridors of McMansions in the region. There are folks with money in most regions, but we need to compare median price homes in a comparable radius to the inner bay region. And those McMansions may face the fate referred to in the Atlantic article.
The answer to your quake risk question is obvious. You’re still here aren’t you? Why is that? There is better ground than even the historic part of Alameda when it comes to quake safety, like bedrock in some hill locations. But those sites are virtually sitting on the Hayward fault. Most of us are in denial or lulled into a false sense of security. Not an excuse to ignore risk, but a reason we persist in facing it.
Comment by Mark I — March 9, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
#19
“If you are have grave doubts about the soil conditions I’m not sure why you like the idea of another hospital out there. All the hospitals in the bay region seem to be dangerously vulnerable to seismic activity.”
This would be a new hospital, built to current codes and backed by the deep pockets of the federal government.
There is an increasing demand for treating of our war wounded and other veterans. New facilities will have to be built — why not one in Alameda? Medical facilities also provide jobs. Having a new VA hospital as the anchor of Alameda Point makes as much sense as any of the other proposals that I have heard. The only other use that I can think of for the Point that might work would be to use it as a military base.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 9, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
The federal government’s deep pocket is a sieve, with the biggest hole in the Iraq War. They can’t afford to pay for clean-up of Alameda Point without waiting for a master developer to pay $108.5MM.
Hospitals are held to a much high seismic safety standard than most buildings (except for bomb shelters). Becuse of liquefaction, the deep piles needed for other buildings make in uneconomical for Suncal (or any developer) to build.
Just ask Catellus, who needed a pass from restoring the waterfront to the original agreement and then lost Clif Bars because of the delay.
Comment by S M — March 9, 2008 @ 5:13 pm