Blogging Bayport Alameda

December 10, 2012

You grace me with your cold shoulder

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Landing, Development — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:00 am

Wow, I went from seriously hating the design for the Alameda Landing residentialxto now being very pleased with how the developer has worked out all the problems that were mentioned by the Planning Board and made it into something that actually is very well thought out.

Screen Shot 2012-12-07 at 6.32.39 PM

You can click the link to see the old version, but trust me, this one is loads better.

Here are a few broken down shots from the staff report which shows in detail what some of the subareas will look like, I really like what they did with this parcel which is the isolated bit to the north near Cardinal Point.   According to the staff report all these units will be townhomes and the big park will give residents at Cardinal Point somewhere to go which is positive addition to the existing neighborhood.   It looks like they’ve also built in a better buffer on the south side for the homes that will face the big blank Target wall.

Screen Shot 2012-12-07 at 6.33.48 PM

At first I was concerned about the units on Mitchell Avenue because it appeared that they were, again, turning a cold shoulder on that main thoroughfare, however, a later slide (I have the screen cap further down) shows how the developer has fixed this problem and it turned out to be one of my favorite elements.   Also, I love the cross block paseos that provide easy pedestrian access instead of being “super blocks” that make walking difficult.   Eliminating the random wall of houses on the west side is a big plus as well.

Screen Shot 2012-12-07 at 6.33.31 PM

The Village Green is a hold over from the old version, actually this whole section is unchanged from the last version, but was probably the lease problematic the first time around.

Screen Shot 2012-12-07 at 6.33.16 PM

The major change in this section is the multi-family housing portion to the South.   Using the two large buildings to screen the parking is great.  Also connecting the multi-family housing to the neighborhood and connecting Street C all the way through to Stargell unifies the multi-family as part of the neighborhood as opposed to isolating it the way that it was in the previous version.

Screen Shot 2012-12-07 at 6.32.59 PM

And this is my favorite part of the new design: corner house designs!   That way there are no “cold shoulders” to the street.

Screen Shot 2012-12-07 at 6.34.52 PM

Well done developer and well done Planning Board members and staff that made this project one that is completely worthy of the location.


  1. I guess people with no imagination have to live somewhere. Hate to see this Bay Farm vibe on the main island, though.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — December 10, 2012 @ 8:16 am

  2. Ann Shaker meets Herr Bauhaus at the corner, how atypical of old Alameda where Que Vicky met Pecos Pete at the station.

    Comment by Jack Richard — December 10, 2012 @ 9:55 am

  3. Now if only we can get a retail center like the one proposed in the ALH Urban & Regional Economic retail study — I’d be happy.

    Comment by Karen Bey — December 10, 2012 @ 10:25 am

  4. This isn’t bay farm, bay farm is a much of meandering streets that are all buffered off from one another. The grid setup is more in line with the main island. New houses in an old town are always going stick out, but these are designs that will withstand the test of time. There are some minor tweaks that can happen, but overall this looks like the right direction.

    Comment by jmz — December 10, 2012 @ 10:27 am

  5. Oh, yeah. The grid makes all the difference.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — December 10, 2012 @ 10:36 am

  6. we can’t keep building houses that look like the ones from the 1900’s, just like we can’t keep building Fords like my 1939 coupe. Even though I would love to have that car back, time moves on and so new homes will look new.

    Comment by John P.(L) — December 10, 2012 @ 12:46 pm

  7. No problem with them looking new. It’s developments I don’t care for. Even when “they are not all the same”, yeah, they pretty much are. I don’t like having to look at the house number to know whose house I’m visiting.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — December 10, 2012 @ 2:03 pm

  8. Let me just point out that the purpose of the Planning Board meeting tonight is less about bitching about the “cookie cutter” ness of the actual units, because “developments” with similarly styled never existed in the olden days, right? Everyone all had super special houses designed individually for them by super special architects. The point of tonight’s meeting is about the design of where the residential plots are going and how the streets will be aligned and where things like parks are going to go, which way houses are going to face, where sidewalks will be located, etc.

    Comment by Lauren Do — December 10, 2012 @ 2:22 pm

  9. Lauren, the only thing I have never really liked are what I call “pocket parks”. For me they don’t work because they are passive, not very usable, I would rather see that space be combined into one nice park that kids could really use. I realize someone would then have to pay to maintain them, so when developers put them in here and there I’m just not impressed.

    Comment by John P.(L) — December 10, 2012 @ 10:14 pm

  10. Much of the East End is developments. In the “olden days” developers seemed to have more & better imagination.

    Comment by vigi — December 11, 2012 @ 12:48 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: