Residential evil

So I caught this article in the New York Times about Google and the City of Mountain View.   For those living under a rock, Mountain View is the city blessed with the good fortune to house the internet giant and all the taxes and assorted dollars that come with having Google in your zip code.

I think it is fair to say that most people in this town would welcome a Google-type business in Alameda.   Heck, I would imagine that most people would welcome  Google in Alameda.

But, not unlike Alameda, even when a solid corporate entity like Google wants to develop, there is push back.   Google has big plans for the City of Mountain View apparently, they want to build.   And what do they want to build?   They want to build a mixed used environment next to their headquarters for their employees.

Some folks, when discussing the future of Alameda Point, think that we can lure a large commercial client like Google, but do it without providing any residential at all.   It’s articles like these that talk about Google following the old “company town” model that proves these folks incorrect.   Highlights from the NYT:

For the city, Google is part economic engine, part benefactor and a soon-to-be real-estate developer with an opportunistic eye for underused assets

…

The most controversial Google plan so far is its possible expansion into the North Bayshore area, including residential towers of up to five stories. These would increase population density, and possibly traffic, in an area that has little of either. The proposal’s viability, in turn, rests in part on the long-term planning decisions now before the City Council.

After some members of the Council expressed concern last week, Google pushed back. In a Feb. 11 letter to the city manager, Google’s vice president for real estate wrote, “We would encourage you to provide opportunities for the North Bayshore area to continue to be the center of sustainable development for Google’s HQ campus.”

…

The North Bayshore development is one of two Google is considering; the other, further along, is for a residential, office and retail mix on federal, NASA Ames, land nearby. Construction is set to begin by 2013.

…

Sean Safford, a professor who studies organizations and markets at the University of Chicago, noted that Google was replicating traditional company-town practices by placing housing for its employees near its headquarters.

“It will be so interesting to see how much of their human resources strategy is about creating a community feeling that goes beyond the offices,” Mr. Safford said. “Sometimes when you’re competing for workers and prominence, there’s a need to stick your chest out and say, ‘We’re the big dogs in town.’ ”

In fact, when you think about the shuttered military bases in California, particularly the ones in the Bay Area, every one has a residential component.   Out of all the closed bases, Presidio, Concord, Hunters Point, Treasure Island, Mare Island, Hamilton, the only one that I can think of off the top of my head that is heading down the route of not having a residential portion is Oakland Army base, but it makes sense since the property is surrounded by the Port and industrial uses.

I imagine that Google is not building residential for their workers because they are trying to make a quick buck, but rather because that is what will keep their workers happy.   Our City Council should consider that carefully when we reflect on how to move forward with Alameda Point.

Advertisement