I realize that reporters are pressed for time these days and due to cutting back one reporter has to do the job of multiple reporters, but honestly, that’s really no excuse for truncating basic information about an issue. For example on Friday the Journal had a very short story about about the finalization of the land swap between Catellus and the College of Alameda for the Tinker/Stargell extension. It was a short article, with the new information being that the construction is due to begin in 2009 and be completed about a year later, which probably means late 2010 or early 2011. So this is what I found preplexing about the article:
…Catellus acquired the 25,000 square-foot building for the college in exchange for a right of way to extend Willie Stargell Avenue north of the college campus to Alameda Landing where Catellus will continue to build housing as part of its original agreement with the city…
How much more would it have added to the word count to include what the entire project is supposed to entail which is residential, commercial, and retail? In fact, I believe that Catellus wanted to start working on the commercial portion first in order to lure back ClifBar, so the whole portion about Catellus continuing to build housing is really strange. Considering that the housing market, particularly that for single family housing, which is what is slated to be built at the Landing, is really soft, Catellus — or rather the developer they choose to build the housing portion — will probably want to wait as long as possible to build the housing.
But anyway, speaking of Alameda Landing, they have a spanking brand new website redesign for those of you that are interested, complete with retail leasing information. According to this graphic from the leasing documents,
see that big building labelled A1? Yeah, that’s probably going to be Target, coming in ay 142.72 square feet and a “parking structure below.” I wonder if this will be undergrounded or whether the Target will be built on top of it as was proposed during the Alameda Towne Centre design.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
Lauren,
Don’t you think that Catellus will hire a housing builder as at Bayport and another builder to construct the commercial portion, as opposed to one sub-developer as you seem to have suggested?
When the original R&D plan looked like it wouldn’t pencil out and Catellus proposed a possible big box retail mall, I thought it was the public out cry against that which drove the planning through what has been two different sets of public workshops with the architects for the Ferry Building rehab in S.F. involved in the second round. They developed a mixed use plan with ClifBar as an anchor. Yet here we are back with Target, which seems like it was planned to be brought in once it failed at South Shore, regardless of whether ClifBar had been retained for the other building.
In terms of synergy and a cohesive fit of uses, I have no idea what to expect at this site. This site seems mildly worse than South Shore for Target because of the basic accessibility issues.
Comment by Mark Irons — November 10, 2008 @ 8:06 am
I will be glad to have a Target on the Island, but I wish that it could have been consolidated at the Towne Centre with the rest of the “stuff” that I need.
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — November 10, 2008 @ 8:16 am
Hi Mark:
No, I definitely think that Catellus will hire another builder to vertically develop their housing. Catellus, from what I understand, doesn’t do the single family housing thing — unlike Lennar. Although I think Catellus may opt to do the commercial development themselves since that is what they specialize in.
I think Catellus had always wanted Target for this Landing site, which was temporarily thwarted when ATC was actively going after Target and had the ability to occupy faster than a Target for Alameda Landing.
I didn’t think that I was suggesting that there would be one sub developer for all the other components, my complaint with the Journal article is that it made it seem that there would only be housing at Alameda Landing, which is not correct. Apologies if that was confusing. 🙂
Comment by Lauren Do — November 10, 2008 @ 9:01 am
I’m not a fan of target but at least the site is not so close to residential housing as what was proposed at ATC. Also, it is closer to the estuary than ATC, so people coming from off the island won’t have to drive across town to get there.
Comment by Michael Rich — November 10, 2008 @ 9:43 am
I have an idea … how about the Island bends over backwards right now to get Alameda Landing developed and Target in place as quickly as possible so that we can generate a bit more $$$ for the schools? Or would you simply prefer ANOTHER property tax increase approved by our community of renters?
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — November 11, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
Actually Mike, they are building 300 more houses there so it will be right next to houses.
After going to the Target in Walnut Creek a few weeks ago and seeing the traffic mess it caused I don’t think the Landing is a good place for Target as it will jam Tinker, and because there are really only 2 roads going there…Tinker and the Marina Village one. I also believe they are banking on most of the customers coming from Oakland as they are looking at about 500,000 people in a five mile radius, around 200,000 in a 3 mile radius. Forget about the 4000-6000 homes on the point this will jam the tubes, more than any housing on the point. Oakland won’t let Target in that is why they want to come here. Catellus gives you the contact information on the web site email them if you don’t want a Target email them.
The site even thought it doesn’t look like it is 10 acres larger than Bayport but they want to build 300 more houses, 400,000 square feet of retail and 300,000 square feet of housing, plus parking lots, parks, playing fields, and if you believe the drawing above half of the retail space will be target.
Because of the water table the parking below the store would probably be above ground. It was promises as a development which would not compete with existing business on Webster and Park street and would be transit friendly as they wouldn’t have big parking lots.
Comment by Gunter — November 11, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
Does anyone know if the Landing is still happening? I just read that their parent company CEO resigned yesterday and that the company is putting all new development on hold. This was a Wall Street Journal newswire item yesterday and their website also has a press release. There was also a mention of a 20-25% workforce reduction.
Comment by LittleMaria — November 13, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Here’s the link to the ProLogis press release:
http://ir.prologis.com/investors/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=347345
Comment by Little Maria — November 13, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
I’m glad to see Retail West enter the Alameda retail market. They were one of the partners of the “Streets of Brentwood” lifestyle center in Brentwood. I see they are doing the leasing for ATC — would be nice to see them get involved in the Alameda Landing project. Retail West seems to have a specialty in lifestyle centers -unlike Catellus whose specialty is big box power centers. Catellus is advertising a lifestyle center on their website for Alameda Landing but they want a super Target store for their anchor — very mis-leading!
I took a look at the Retail West website and checked out their list of lifestyle centers — now those are lifestyle centers!
Comment by Karen Bey — November 17, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
I think Alameda Landing is already under development so it will continue. “New Development on Hold Pending Improved Market Conditions. The company said that it intends to complete those development projects currently underway. Going forward, however, the company does not expect any new development activity for the foreseeable future and will not pursue entry into any new markets until conditions improve and liquidity returns.”
Comment by Gunter — November 17, 2008 @ 6:11 pm