Blogging Bayport Alameda

July 25, 2016

In my own little corner

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:05 am

Remember the defeated container project on the corner of Park and Blanding?  Which, by the way, was Tony Daysog call for review.  I’ll point out that this particular developer is of the “mom and pop” variety that Tony Daysog loves so much when they are of the landlord variety, but not so much when they are of the developer variety.  I guess the construction of buildings and then owning and leasing them out is the difference between just walking in buying (or inheriting) a building and then leasing it out if Tony Daysog is to bend over backward to project you.  Details, details.

Anyway, the owner/developer did not go quietly into the night and for that I’m glad.  I was close to the site the other day and noticed that it was still just sort of a parking lot which, while the appropriate message for the entry way to Alameda for the parking obsessed is not really the most welcoming.

So, new plans which I really like.  Do I like them better than the container offering?  Hard to say, there was something viscerally relevant to the container project with it’s proximity to the Park Street Bridge and the nod to Alameda’s industrial past, but I’m not really one to get hung up too much on a story.  But I like the new ones.

Screen Shot 2016-07-16 at 6.31.14 AM

Screen Shot 2016-07-16 at 6.31.23 AM

Screen Shot 2016-07-16 at 6.31.32 AM

Screen Shot 2016-07-16 at 6.31.46 AM

Screen Shot 2016-07-16 at 6.32.16 AM

Screen Shot 2016-07-16 at 6.32.27 AM

There are also alternate designs if folks don’t like the opening on Blanding:

Screen Shot 2016-07-16 at 6.46.47 AM

Screen Shot 2016-07-16 at 6.46.56 AM

It’s on the Planning Board agenda tonight.  Along with revised plans for a Lincoln (off Webster St) project.  Revisiting of the second unit ordinance.  And Boatworks project.

Hopefully this time around people who are against it will come out early to help tweak whatever issues they have with the project and not at the last minute and use Council privilege to derail a great infill project.

My only hope is that it doesn’t morph into faux historical to appease people who aren’t thrilled with this type of architecture.


  1. Who wrote this?

    Comment by dave — July 25, 2016 @ 6:23 am

    • I got stuck on the third sentence. Anyway, for those lamenting the successful call to review of the container idea on Park, according to Jennifer Ott on Saturday at the tour of the Seaplane Lagoon site, there will be some container buildings going somewhere near the lagoon (I can’t remember the details details, but I think she mentioned restaurants and that they may be temporary)

      Comment by MP — July 25, 2016 @ 6:56 am

      • LD is a better writer than this. In particular, she would never make the its/it’s mistake. A certain Planning Board member often does, though…..

        Comment by dave — July 25, 2016 @ 8:10 am

        • I failed grammar, so I won’t comment on that. On the other hand, Lauren seems at times to have it out for Tony Daysog, and this piece seems to veer out of its way somewhat to get him, even though, while it was his call for review, it was a majority vote (absolute, or more than?) on the Council not to have the shipping container project on Park Street.

          Comment by MP — July 25, 2016 @ 9:33 am

        • or this, “Tony Daysog is to bend over backward to project you.”

          Maybe she’s letting the kids try their hand at projecting her.

          Comment by jack — July 25, 2016 @ 9:44 am

  2. I liked the container design as I thought it was unique and special, but this design I like also. What I found in Alameda, is you will never please all the people or most of the people part of the time. There will be some who like it, some who don’t and a lot who don’t care. I am surprised we have a new library and the Theatre parking garage ever happened, or even the remodel of South Shore Center. We let a few loud voices decide what is best for the whole community when many times is isn’t.

    Comment by joelsf — July 25, 2016 @ 6:31 am

  3. There is a big difference between inheriting a cottage when your aunt dies (for instance) and renting it out and building a building specifically as an investment, besides which, new construction has many other ramifications. Why there is so much puzzlement about what a “mom and pop” landlord is may be because some people define it more broadly, but to me, it’s someone like me who owns one house in Alameda and is renting it out while working out of state until I am able to return. I don’t really “earn” anything on the property because the mortgage payment on the Alameda house is more than I’m collecting in rent and I still have to pay rent myself for the apartment I live in. This was not an intentional business plan. It was done out of necessity. Believe me, I would much rather be living in my beautiful three bedroom house in Alameda than in a dinky one bedroom apartment in New Jersey. The IRS may consider my home “investment property” but that’s not the way I see it. It’s my home. Somebody else is just paying for the right to use it until I can live there again. This is why I consider the relocation costs proposed to tenants are an unfair burden to people in my situation, especially considering that my tenants income is over six figures and they will not be financially devastated should they have to move.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — July 25, 2016 @ 7:02 am

  4. I like the plan, I hope it passes! Park Street needs these kind of uses.

    There are mom and pop landlords, and small mom and pop developers, both who don’t have deep pockets. I’m sure they’ve invested a lot of money in this plan. Hope it happens this time.

    Comment by Karen Bey — July 25, 2016 @ 8:39 am

  5. I didn’t like the Container Concept at that particular location. I think Containers have a place in locations that were actually associated with a Port. This revised Plan is great. I’m glad they persisted and hope they are successful this time around.

    Comment by frank — July 25, 2016 @ 9:28 am

  6. Where’s the parking component?

    Comment by Basel — July 25, 2016 @ 10:13 am

    • I think they have arranged for nine spaces ‘off site’.

      Comment by frank — July 25, 2016 @ 11:48 am

  7. I think this design is much too dark and much too boxy. I have no idea why designers and developers like such dark, foreboding colors these days like the coffee brown and dark gray, but I would much rather see lighter colors (lighter off-whites, for example) used throughout. I would rather see buildings designed to brighten up foggy, cloudy, and dark days (or evenings) than to “cool down” bright, sunny days…

    And let’s not choose building colors *primarily* for ease of maintenance or to not show dirt….

    Comment by Jon Spangler — July 26, 2016 @ 6:57 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at