Look, I get it. The City Council loves the Alameda Theatre. They love the way it looks, they don’t want anything to interfer with the look of the front of the Theatre. They don’t want people to park in front of the theatre/cineplex, they don’t want bikes in front of the theatre/cineplex and considering their decision on the mid-block crosswalk the other night, they don’t want people in front of the theatre either.
I hate to state the obvious, but — as others have said before – the sidewalk on that side of the street is too narrow to accomodate sidewalk dining, people queueing in line for tickets, and folks just trying to use the sidewalk as a sidewalk. And there are plans to let Angela’s at the corner also further narrow the sidewalk with its own sidewalk dining. I’m not against sidewalk dining, in fact, I like it, but if the City is going to allow businesses to take up precious sidewalk space, they need to make up for it by widening the sidewalk.
The plan is, now, just to blub out tiny sections on each side of the marquee in order to protect it from any other damage. Not to, oh, provide more sidewalk space for folks when there is a line in front of the theatre and the Alameda Wine Co. which severely limits the sidewalk space for other purposes.
Rather than bulb out a small section to the west of the theatre, bulb the whole section from the Wine Companty to Oak out. The space won’t ever be used for street parking — the Park Street Business Association has said it will fight any effort to being parking back there — so use it for sidewalk space, particularly in light of the fact that Angela’s will be adding sidewalk dining as well.
Anyway, I was a little frustrated with the discussion around the mid block crosswalk, which is a no go, at least after this meeting. The Council felt as though the better option was to try to modify the behavior of jaywalkers through enforcement rather than put a mid block crosswalk in. In fact, that was the rallying cry that night, to ticket the jaywalkers, because once someone gets one, they’ll tell their friends, who will tell other friends and bam! problem solved.
Or people will just continue to jaywalk when there aren’t cops around anyway.
There seemed to be a consensus with the Council that putting bicycling parking in Lot C (across the street from the theatre) was a better alternative than putting bike parking directly in front of the theatre. Even though it’s clear from the many many bikes using street poles, lights, and other assorted furiture to secure their bikes to that more bike parking is necessary for theatre goers. So people going to the theatre will be parking in the lot across the street, yet be expected to detour their way either to Park or Oak, cross at the intersection there, then walk all the way back to the theatre. Yes, it’s not that far of a walk, and if it were a four lane arterial road I’m sure most people would take that trek in order to preserve life and limb, but the reality is, it’s not. It’s a two lane road.
As we all learned in grammar school, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Folks parking their bikes (or their cars for that matter) in Lot C, if they are heading directly to the theatre will walk across that street. Mid block crosswalk or none. So we can either put one in and anticipate that Alameda drivers will honor it or we can ticket the crap out of the scofflaw pedestrians.
And apparently the Council just wants to ticket the crap out of pedestrians. That’s one way to raise funds in the City.
I can go with widening of the sidewalk in front of the theater corner to corner, to avoid the stupid bulbouts. The city however should retain a drop off zone, which will keep people from circling around for parking, increasing the chaos, just to let someone out or in.
When people were opposing the megaplex, demanding setbacks for the new theater was a very big thing. We pointed out the width of the sidewalk on the west side of Central and wanted the setbacks to match. However, PSBA was so busy throwing manure at the “detractors” they couldn’t see what’s good for them either. Now they’ve slowly come to a realization that a wider sidewalk is good for business. They should get some quicker minds on board.
The problem with the mid-block sidewalk is that it will cause a snarl near a very busy intersection. Imagine if cars have to stop for 20 seconds to let pedestrians go across in the middle of the block while the light is still green at Park Street. You have a back up across Park Street, and instant trafiic jam both ways. Make people walk, it’s good for them. They may also get something to eat on their way, wasn’t that why staff didn’t want a direct garage entrance into the theater?
The problem with the bike shelter is that 1) it is unnecessary, 2) it will be a litter trap 3) it is ugly 4) it will soon be a homeless, not a bike shelter. This last one has nothing to do with hating the homeless, I just think they would be served better by a real shelter that a bike shelter to pee or sleep under. Wish Bike Alameda would withdraw the shelter idea and feel just as taken care of if they got simple racks instead.
Comment by AD — December 4, 2008 @ 9:27 am
Correction in paragraph #3 above: the problem with the mid-block CROSSWALK, not sidewalk.
Comment by AD — December 4, 2008 @ 9:43 am
Bike Alameda did not request the shelter and there will just be bike racks, not the “oasis” as proposed by staff.
Comment by Lauren Do — December 4, 2008 @ 10:22 am
There are frequently trucks making deliveries to the restaurants, and they are forced to idle in the middle of the street, impeding traffic flow. Combine that with a mid-block crossing, and it is a mess.
I do agree that bike racks are a better idea (and I think can ultimately accomodate more bikes), and in fact, just generally there need to be more bike racks all over the downtown area.
On the weekends, we will walk down to the high school bike racks, but durning the week, during the day, that is not an option.
As for ticketing the crap out of pedestrians, this reminds me of the whole bike/skateboard fracas earlier in the year.
They say “buy, shop, spend” but then don’t make it easy to go there to do that. Regulate people within an inch of their lives, they say.
Another problem with sidewalk dining is the smoking issue. Has anyone ever come out of Safeway and been gassed by tobacco smoke from the people (mostly staff on break from SWay and other stores)who hang there?
Comment by E T — December 4, 2008 @ 10:36 am
The sidewalk is way too narrow by the theater. If they were planning on having sidewalk dining, they should have included the sidewalk. There also needs to be a passenger loading zone by the theater.
There isn’t a need for a mid-block crosswalk. That block is very short. The police do not enforce the no skating or bikes rules on the sidewalk, so I don’t see why they would enforce jaywalking laws. The police have become lax on all sorts of traffic enforcement. If you try to solve the problem with “police enforcement,” you are basically saying that we’ll just have to live with the problems.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 4, 2008 @ 11:13 am
#3. Good to know. WHOSE idea was that, anyway?
Also, restaurants should remove the fences from around their sitting areas. What are they afraid of, somebody would sit and wear out the chairs without paying? God forbid that ever happens! It just might get people to fly out of control.
I for one would never sit withing the little dog enclosure in front of Pappo’s–eating within a pen is below my dignity.
Comment by AD — December 4, 2008 @ 11:15 am
There is a passenger loading zone in front of the theatre, it’s whatever is white curbed.
The City Council directed the Police to begin citing for jaywalking because it’s “dangerous” and the City shouldn’t encourage mid block crossing. Even though the reality is people are going to do it anyway.
The shelter idea for the bikes originated from City Staff.
Comment by Lauren Do — December 4, 2008 @ 11:28 am
7) “…citing for jaywalking because it’s “dangerous”…”
It’s only dangerous to the jay walkers. Let a couple of them get run over then leave them there like we do squirrels and other birds that get run over.
Comment by Jack Richard — December 4, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
Perhaps the city council should give the police a listing of behaviors ranked by danger level. For example: super dangerous, very dangerous, just plain dangerous, not so dangerous, dangerous but ignore, etc. That would help the police to better do their job.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 4, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
#6, think the fences around the seating areas are required because the establishments serve alcohol…it is an ABC requirement.
Comment by JDWalter — December 4, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
What’s an ABC requirement? Cera Una Volta serves alcohol and doesn’t have fencing. The gelato place on Santa Clara doesn’t serve alcohol and has a fence. Are you sure it’s not just a silly trend? The restaurants on Castro Street in Mntn View also don’t have fencing, though they are well separated on a step down platform. What does the law say?
Comment by AD — December 4, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
How much do the restaurants pay the city to use the public right-of-way to do business?
#7
“There is a passenger loading zone in front of the theatre, it’s whatever is white curbed.”
But it will no longer exist if the sidewalk is widened to accommodate all of the proposed restaurants.
The city should have planned ahead on this one. I doubt if the conditions by the theater would allow someone in a wheelchair or walker to get by. It is as bad as some parts of Columbus in North Beach.
And as for the pedestrians, I agree with JR. They are only a danger to themselves and I’ve seen many pedestrians do far stupider and more dangerous things in Alameda than cross mid-block on Central between Park and Oak. Frankly, some of the nearby food establishments pose a worse health hazard. Check for yourself.
http://www.acgov.org/aceh/food/restaurant_inspection.htm
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 4, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
They could consider what they did at (what I believe the name of the place is) Harrington’s Bar & Grill in the financial district and move the facade back and make room for covered sidewalk eating which may be better due to the climate anyways. Although since they have done most of the build-out (tenant improvements) for these establishments they wouldn’t want to do that unless they thought it would make them a profit. Harrington’s did a very good job in my opinion.
Comment by Gunter — December 4, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
#13
I remember Harrington’s pre-earthquake when I worked on Montgomery. I still enter through the original door. I like what Harrington’s did even though I never sit outside with the youngsters. It was a good compromise that preserved the original bar yet provided an additional option. I have found memories of downing a few by their fireplace.
http://www.sfphotorama.com/uploaded_images/Harringtons_Bar_Grill-702645.jpg
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 4, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
Alcohol policy irks owners at sidewalk cafes
Restaurateurs say city’s rule is unfair
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/07/05/news/coastal/encinitas/ze11186fcdde8f77f8825747900740e9e.txt
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 5, 2008 @ 6:40 am
Thanks for both links ANT. So how does Harringtons get away with their tables? Or do they not serve alcohol outside? Or is it because they are not in the public right of way? Do you know?
Comment by AD — December 5, 2008 @ 7:27 am
#16
They aren’t in the public right-of-way — except when patrons inch onto the sidewalk. I don’t know how strictly this rule is enforced in SF. I’ve seen tables on the sidewalk in SF without railings with customers drinking alcohol. I’ve also seen it in Alameda, though I’m not saying where.
http://www.diningwithsophie.com/dogs/petfriendly/location/Figaro/193.html
(Perhaps this has to do with how the public right-of-way is defined?)
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — December 5, 2008 @ 7:53 am