Blogging Bayport Alameda

December 29, 2010

Trading spaces

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Landing, Development — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:04 am

Michele Ellson tweeted on Christmas day:

Which probably means that the infinitely delayed Alameda Landing project will be further delayed as the new owners of the Catellus brand and Catellus projects decide what they want to do with the project itself.   ProLogis, the company the bought Catellus a while ago, has sold off that asset to TPG Capital (as in Texas Pacific Group).

According to this article:

TPG points out that “real estate-intensive businesses constitute a core area of investment focus and expertise,” including ST Residential, Harrah’s Entertainment, Fairmont Raffles Hotels International, Neiman Marcus and ParkwayLife REIT.

I suppose the City Council should be getting an update about the Alameda Landing project soon given these new developments.   Psst, Catellus folks, your graphic at the bottom of page two of the Project Experience PDF is mislabeled.  You’re welcome.


  1. I’d say the opposite; the sale will likely hasten the project.

    Comment by dave — December 29, 2010 @ 6:42 am

  2. I hope that Dave’s assessment is correct, although it may take a while for the new owners and Catellus’ management to coordinate their efforts and $$$$….

    Comment by Jon Spangler — December 29, 2010 @ 9:56 am

  3. Alameda, the town where nothing gets done, ever.

    Comment by E — December 29, 2010 @ 11:10 am

  4. Alameda theater complex and garage

    Bridgeside center

    redevelopment of South Shore center

    Park and Webster st. revamp

    New entrance to Webster st. from the tube.

    the national economy will drive what happens at the base.

    Comment by John piziali — December 29, 2010 @ 11:43 am

  5. If I recall correctly, Texas Pacific Group was owned by some members of the Bass Family. Members of the Bass Family were previously involved with the development of Bay Farm Island. As a result, at the very least TPG’s owners appreciate the value of the Alameda land.

    Comment by BigAl — December 29, 2010 @ 12:02 pm

  6. I walked the property now known as Alameda Landing with Mayor Ralph in 1995, and we both saw the enormous potential. But if anything has stood in the way, (besides all those rotting piers), it’s the greed of city administrators, who make it impossible for developers to make any progress.

    It’s a great site for light commercial, restaurants and hotels, along the waterfront, which faces Jack London Square, but density advocates continue to promote housing. Access and egress is very limited, so that’s a no-brainer NO! But we can go another 25 — 30 years with nothing unless we get central planning as intelligent as we deserve.

    The new council? Don’t bet on it. More toxic fires there in old military buildings? Very likely.

    Comment by Dennis Green — December 29, 2010 @ 4:27 pm

  7. @6

    Catellus had a long history, dating back to the real estate recession of 1982-1983, of tying up ownership of big pieces of property but never developing it. I remember going to a very hostile meeting with Catellus’ lawyers in Palo Alto, way back in 1983 to confront them about their failure to discharge their contractual obligation to build out sewer, water and utility infrastructure for a poor schlepp low and moderate income housing developer who had bought land from them which was located behind one of their proposed shopping centers which they had arbitrarily decided to delay building. Of course, if anyone with half a brain in terms of real estate deals had checked out Catellus, they would have found the lawsuit over their breach of that contract. Old dogs don’t change their spots.

    Comment by BigAl — December 29, 2010 @ 10:15 pm

  8. A careful reading of ProLogis’ press release at:

    shows that the transaction is not structured as a sale of stock about which the City of Alameda has no right to object. Instead, ProLogis says they are selling specific pieces of real estate and the Catellus name to TPG. When a deal is structured as a sale of real estate, Redevelopment Disposition & Development Agreements (DDAs), Development Agreements and some conditional use permits in California give the city where the property is located the right to review and approve, disapprove or further condition the assignment of the rights under the DDA, DA or CUP on satisfaction of conditions imposed by the city.

    First, someone needs to look at the question of whether the Alameda property is on the list of real estate to be deeded to the new TPG entity owner. Assuming that it is, rather than the City of Alameda just passively acquiescing in the transfer of ownership of the real estate to the TPG entity, Dennis’ concerns illustrate that it is time for the City to formally tell the property owner: You’ve had enough time. You need to get your act together, remediate the property by a specific deadline, develop it by a specific deadline, or the city will take you back to square one in terms of land use entitlements.

    Does the new Council have the intellect to take those steps? Only time will tell.

    Comment by BigAl — December 29, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

  9. #8 Big Al

    I’ve always said that it was the Alameda Fisc/Catellus deal that was the template for the SunCal deal. SunCal saw that our Alameda City council was not very “real estate deal savy” which is why they were willing to risk everything on their one sided ballot initiative. SunCal also believed that if they could divide the community — pit us against each other and make Ann Marie Gallant the focus of the election, they could get rid of her. This is of course why they spent millions targeting her.

    One of the reasons I liked Ann Marie Gallant was because we finally had someone who knew how to advise the council and get better deals for Alameda. It’s not because I liked her personally, I don’t know her personally. I liked what she brought to the table.

    I wish Ann Marie Gallant all the best, and very much appreciate all her hard work!

    Comment by Karen Bey — December 30, 2010 @ 9:07 am

  10. Hopefully they get rid of the Target in their plan. If they put a Target in Alameda, it should go in the old Del Monte warehouse where the traffic will be shared by a couple of bridges and the tunnel.

    Comment by Joe — January 6, 2011 @ 6:34 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: