On the heels of the news that the City received an unexpectedly large check from Kyle Conner of the Alameda Theatre, Carolyn Jones of the SF Chronicle has also written up a little something about the revitalized theatre. Highlights:
Moviegoers, diners, moms with strollers, seniors sipping coffee, kids on bikes and out-of-town shoppers crowd the sidewalks.
“Park Street is happening. It’s very bizarre,” said Julie Baron, owner of Julie’s Coffee and Tea Garden on Park Street. “It used to be pretty slow, but these days everyone’s out seeing and being seen every night of the week.”
…
The project also includes an adjoining seven-screen multiplex and a 350-car parking garage, which have brought hundreds of people downtown at night, benefiting local restaurants and bars.
“Park Street has definitely had its ups and downs, but now we actually have people walking around at night, going to restaurants, shopping,” said Melody Marr, head of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. “The theater opening was the icing on the cake.”…
While we can debate whether or not the Theatre was the cause, catalyst, or had no effect on the very visible changes on Park Street, it is clear that there has been significant changes on Park Street. I would argue for the better, but in true Alameda fashion, I’m sure that others will say that the changes are for the worse.
A few new notable openings include, yes, another yogurt place (Frutti Yogi), Space Happy (rumor has it that the owner will chase down shoplifters, awesome!), Tot Tank (Baby Registry, enough said), Celebrity Ice, Dome Fits…and I’ve seen signs indicating that Park Street will be getting a new Indian food restaurant (India Garden? I think?) that is set to fill in the space between Monkey Bars and Yogofina. And, the old Pop Inn is undergoing a facelift and is set to reopen as “the Churchward, a modern bar” according to the sign that was there and then disappeared.
In other main street Alameda news, don’t forget that this weekend is the Webster Street Jam (formerly the Peanut Butter Jam). Three words: Artisinal Funnel Cakes. If that isn’t the main reason to get out there, I’m not sure what else is.
Just one of the inconsistencies in the article: A photo with the article states “…the garage brought…Tucker’s Ice Cream….”
The Chronicle needs a fact checker to verify statements before publishing a story.
Tucker’s has been in Alameda for decades, lonnnng before that garage!
Comment by RM — September 11, 2009 @ 8:14 am
The issues are so complex, it’s too much to ask for such an article, but the full picture would have extended to Park Street merchants and the measure H suits (particularly the guys who don’t have the sense to come in out of the rain and join Beery in his mediation). Just when the business districts reach a critical mass of activity and Alameda is discovered by the rest of the world (which in our love hate relationship with the rest of the world we all want and don’t want, right?), if we don’t negotiate a permanent parcel tax to do what H and A are doing, Alameda will be a place to eat, shop and see a movie (without a union projectionist), but not to live and send kids to public school.
Comment by M.I. — September 11, 2009 @ 8:26 am
Perhaps this new place will offer better Indian food than the dodgy stuff at India Palace.
Comment by alameda — September 11, 2009 @ 8:44 am
Artisinal Funnel Cakes. “If that isn’t the main reason to get out there, I’m not sure what else is.” Well then, I’ll tell you another very good reason to attend. Fantastic!!!
Earl J Rivard (& Friends)
Webster Street Jam
Sunday 13 September
Noon
Lincoln & Webster
Alameda
Hello, All!
Just back from a wonderfully successful show with the Fresno Folklore Society, Earl J is hard at work on his sophomore album, which will be out just as soon as we can make it happen.
In the meantime, you can catch him LIVE THIS WEEKEND with the wonderful backing of the same fine musicians who have been working with him in the studio.
Don’t miss it:
Earl J (& Friends)
Webster Street Jam
Sunday 13 September
Noon
Lincoln & Webster
Alameda
Bring your friends…these boys are gonna rock!!!
Much love,
Earl
Comment by Jack Richard — September 11, 2009 @ 8:47 am
Theater:
And who owns the Alameda Theater after 12 years?
by paying ‘rent’ he gets to own the whole thing.
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Comment by Sooz — September 11, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
Sooz,
Where did you come up with this information…I have never heard this?
Comment by Joel — September 12, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
Speaking of Webster Street, I hope that our island’s “other” business district (and, so-far, the one that is much-less-funded from City redevelopment coffers) gets its due in the coming years.
Webster Street deserves a more equitable share of City redevelopment bond financing, etc. One way to revitalize Webster snd the West End, of course, is to proceed with Suncal’s revitalization plan for Alameda Point, but Webster Street’s fate should not be dependent on the mostly-privately-funded and too-long-awaited revitalization of the former Alameda Naval Air Station….
Comment by Jon Spangler — September 12, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
Jon – nice try, but flawed premises again.
I agree Webster should get its fair share (see note #1); but your attempt at promoting SunCal’s plan is nonsense because its “mostly-privately-funded” is far too dependant on excessive public tax dollars with no promise of return on the investment we can’t afford. (Not to mention that Alamedans will not allow development on that scale that does not provide its own estuary crossing. SunCal’s plan does nothing to make this island more sustainable, or better off for residents, and it is a financial and traffic burden.
Secondly, the only reason it is “too-long-awaited” is the City’s repeated insistence to focus only on a single style of development – it’s the wrong path and they keep going farther down without exploring other paths.
Why is that? Why do they not look at alternatives? We’ll soon be back at square one like we were after APCP, only this time it will be the voters who show the intelligence to prevent un-supportable uber-growth.
Note #1 – “Fair Share of re-development” – I think you are a bit confused; Webster does get its fair share of re-development dollars. You may mean you think Webster St should get more attention and financial support from the City as they did for all the ’street beatification’.
Again, like with any debate, we should discuss the parameters of the wording “fair share”. Certainly it’s a buzzy catch-word, but what different methods can you think of to define its meaning and formulation?
Does “fair share” mean “equal amount”, or should they get City tax funded support based on what tax revenue they provide?
Should it be determined by the ratio of sales tax revenue generated by each business area that money gets redistributed by the city to each business district?
-An easy problem to spot in that thought is it would increase the inequity of tax supports for the different shopping districts. (Like making all pay raises percentage-based; – over time the gaps between pay levels get wider and wider thus creating inequity and over-supporting those at the top levels, something that needs to be addressed in our city and school contracts and in most public-employee contracts nation wide.)
Perhaps for fairness it should be the inverse of that ratio (if GABA represents all those not within WABA, PSBA or ShouthShore.)
That way the business areas generating the least sales tax dollars would get the most support, to draw more shoppers. That might not be a bad idea if all other aspects were balanced between districts, but of course that is not the case.
Some areas have more businesses, which should increase sales except all stores are not alike either (a super-store could wipe out dozens of smaller businesses) – also, all neighborhoods the shoppers are drawn from are not alike. SouthShore seems to be the new ‘glitzy mass market style’ Alameda shopping “district”, PSBA seems to have more neighborhood foot traffic, certainly helped by the theater and ‘hang-out spots, like coffee and frozen treat businesses. Certainly PSBA’ bonus of the $40M+ cost of the theater (incl debt service costs) cannot be discounted, I’d like to see the numbers if the level of success of the theater thus far is matching the cost outlays by the city.
Also some people still just want the basics for their shoping, sans the glitz and frills.
This is more a philosophical difference than an economic one. Many people just won’t buy into the ‘false front’ of mass marketing, – people who know a $200 pair of jeans does not make them a better off than a $20 pair. -For those folks, cement flower pots on the street are a parking obstacle, not a benefit. – I hope you can see what I am getting at without further explanation here/now.
Perhaps a way to find an ‘equitable fairness” is to use a ratio such as tax generated dollars divided by sq ft of retail/commercial within the district : total $ provided to district buy all government agencies or a recent 10 yr period divided by the net increase in tax returns to the city.
This seems like a decent touchstone of what “fair share” means. – Do you follow the logic? Or where is the flaw? This is really off the cuff, so there may be flaws and better alternatives.
Comment by Dave K — September 13, 2009 @ 10:43 am
I miss the days when southshore was anchored by a mervyns and nothing else, and park street was naught but party warehouse and linguinis and linoaks was in the distance, and the days when webster street was full of women of ill repute and bars and navy boys goin brawlin.
those were the days…
Comment by E — September 13, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
post # 9
Sorry E I don’t think so.
I’ll take Alameda today, its getting better by the day.
Comment by John Piziali — September 14, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
I agree with you, John P. I remember when one of the serious arguments about opposing the theater was “We like it funky in Alameda – we don’t want anything new and shiny; it won’t fit in our community – out of character!” Sigh!
Comment by Kate Quick — September 14, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
[...] a recent post, Lauren mentioned that an Indian restaurant would be opening up soon on Park St. As luck would have [...]
Pingback by Flavors of India « Alameda Musings — September 27, 2009 @ 7:36 pm