Blogging Bayport Alameda

January 11, 2016

Block 8 is great

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:01 am

Tonight the Planning Board will take the first look at the next building to be proposed at Site A: Block 8.  Block 8 will be the affordable housing development and senior housing.  Between you and me, I really like the design for this building a whole lot better than the market rate Miami Beach.  As an aside I was recently in Miami and ended up on one of those big bus tour type things.  Long story involving a late flight out.  Anyway I was on the “Beach Loop” which took the scenic route through Miami and a by a lot of the old art deco buildings and less all the glass the Block 11 building would have fit in pretty seamlessly over there.

Anyway, I’m glad to see the affordable and senior housing get built first.  Given all the supply issues which have contributed greatly to the housing issues it will be good to get some supply into the pipeline especially of the affordable variety with the understanding that the market rate development (along with lots of grant writing and creating financing) goes towards building these projects.

The details from the staff report:

On Block 8, Eden is proposing two separate buildings: a senior community building and a family community building. The senior building will include 59 very low and low income one and two bedroom units.  The family building will include 69 very low and low income family apartments including both one, two and three-bedroom units.  Each building has a two-bedroom unrestricted apartment for an on-site resident manager. Therefore, the total of 130 units is proposed on Block 8.   To qualify as low or very low income a household earns between 30 and 60 percent of Alameda County Area Median Income.

A 56’ pedestrian park runs between the two buildings, providing visual relief to the four story massing, and an open space amenity with shaded pedestrian and bicycle pathways. The internal park is approximately 11,760 square feet in size and will be shared by residents of both buildings.  In addition, the Senior Building includes an additional approximately 6,000 square foot courtyard on the second floor, and the Family Housing Building includes an approximately 8,502 square foot courtyard.  Both courtyards are located on the second floor above the ground floor parking structures.

block8_01

block8_02

block8_03
block8_04
block8_05
block8_06
block8_07
block8_08
block8_09
block8_10
block8_11
block8_12block8_13
block8_14
block8_15
block8_16
block8_17
block8_18
block8_19
block8_20
block8_21

Advertisements

20 Comments

  1. The plans are basically the same as Rich Sorro Commons in Mission Bay (215-225 King St) which is the first affordable family/senior housing project done in Mission Bay. The design has just been tweaked a bit. I guess there is nothing wrong with reusing old plans especially if they worked.

    Comment by joelsf — January 11, 2016 @ 6:52 am

  2. They do look a little like Mission Bay, but they have some of the same architectural characteristics from the surrounding buildings as well. It will be interesting to see the color palate for these buildings. We’ve got some great colors to choose from.

    Comment by Karen Bey — January 11, 2016 @ 7:23 am

  3. Ugly, faceless, characterless boxes…generic and bland…could be built anywhere. Nothing about this design says “Alameda” in the least.

    Comment by OhAlamedaYouAreOnTheWrongTrack — January 12, 2016 @ 9:26 am

  4. Before long, there will be an old pick-up truck or two on the lawns and old-timers will come to love the comfortingly familiar ambiance.

    Comment by BC — January 12, 2016 @ 10:05 am

  5. post # 3, please tell us what says “Alameda”.?

    Comment by John P. — January 12, 2016 @ 11:46 am

  6. I say…

    Comment by jack — January 12, 2016 @ 4:33 pm

  7. I say again. Alameda says it all

    http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/inspections-from-hell/Content?oid=2073865

    Comment by jack — January 12, 2016 @ 4:37 pm

  8. I guess a “warehouse” might as well look like one. Shudder.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — January 13, 2016 @ 6:11 am

  9. They should have balconies so that the people living here could have container gardens. Surely that would not add that much cost.

    Comment by Kevis Brownson — January 13, 2016 @ 6:09 pm

  10. 2: I agree. Most recent developers have chosen “cost-effective” designs: big, boxy, plain, dark, and visually/structurally unrelieved structures that are so far from pleasing to the eye. Balconies might help, but those alone are not enough. And why not choose some lighter, less depressing, and more people-friendly color palettes instead of grays and browns that shout “ordinary”?

    I expected better from Joe Ernst and his team.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — January 14, 2016 @ 10:30 am

  11. 9. It sounded like they wanted to drive the community to the shared outdoor spaces. Each building is designed w/ a 2nd floor courtyard w/ community garden space and more, in addition to the parklet running between the buildings.

    10. Expect some brighter colors for the senior building which came in unironic grey the first go around. They admitted that this was a “first pass” with the colors.

    It is 130 units of low income housing in what will be a transit rich, sought after location. Hard to find a lot of fault with these plans. The key is to get them built before the economy stalls and financing dries up.

    Comment by BMac — January 14, 2016 @ 11:07 am

  12. The colors could be a bit better, but they are not all that bad now. The designs fit what is affordable. The economy is about to tank again, as it did in 2008, so doing things as inexpensively as possible is the smart thing to do. Post #3 – if you can define Alameda, please do so. There has been nothing to communicate where we are going as a city or what “voice” we will carry in to the future. If there is one, I certainly have not heard it. I like what I see from the Alameda Point developers and feel that Joe is representing us well.

    Comment by Bill2 — January 15, 2016 @ 1:29 pm

  13. conceptual folks, that means its just an idea of what colors might be used.

    Comment by John P. — January 15, 2016 @ 3:39 pm

  14. Re 11: That’s great that there will be second floor community gardens and a courtyard– do people have windows that open out to the courtyard? I still would like to see balcony space because sometimes one just wants to be outside and alone! A balcony even tiny would be a solution.

    Comment by Kevis Brownson — January 16, 2016 @ 10:48 am

  15. Balcony’s would be okay for some but many people just them for storage (look at Summer house you never see anyone out on their balconies). Also to put Balcony’s around the building would slightly decrease the shared courtyard space and/or reduce the size of the building and/or apartments. If I had a choice of a balcony or more inside floor space I would choose the additional inside space. But this is just my preference.

    Comment by joelsf — January 17, 2016 @ 8:37 am

  16. I like the idea of having balconies , at least on the upper floors. Makes it easy to jump off if the stock market/economy keeps tanking.

    Comment by jack — January 17, 2016 @ 10:07 am

  17. I think vigi positive attitude is rubbing off on Jack…or maybe it is the other way around. It is always delightful to hear from you Jack.

    Comment by joelsf — January 17, 2016 @ 2:42 pm

  18. Happy Martin Luther King Day Jack.

    Comment by John P. — January 18, 2016 @ 8:04 am

  19. “Happy”? Considering your reference to this particular day, is that an evocative or just a conceptual comment?

    Comment by jack — January 18, 2016 @ 10:10 am

  20. who knows???

    Comment by John P. — January 18, 2016 @ 6:24 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.