Alameda Point future-developers
I downloaded all 5 of the Alameda Point Master Developer Proposals submitted to the city to replace APCP with the intent of “reviewing” them all, one at a time.
If I was more organized (or if I had the time), I’d read them all, created a complete set of criteria and then review/rate them accordingly. But I’d never get anything done. So in a slightly (completely?) less thorough manner, I present my review of the Catellus “Home Again” proposal.
Initial Reactions: Pro: Catellus has a track record in Alameda and other cities of working of brownfield redevelopment and creating a variety of developments by working with the particular locality on their needs and vision. (I’m not making a judgment on how well they met the needs/vision; just that each of their developments has a certain local flavor to it). Catellus’ current work in Alameda gives them a head start in understanding the direction in which the city is attempting to move with its large developments and the concerns of the community at large.
Con: Catellus is currently working in Alameda. Which means that it would be developing retail that will compete with their current retail developments and may lead them to make decisions that are not in the interest of the city’s plans. Further, a wise person recently pointed out, that if Catellus were to get this second contract, the city would be at much greater risk from financial troubles affecting their ability to successfully develop either (or both) of the projects. Competition isn’t a bad thing.
Proposal particulars: The Catellus proposal appears to accept the PDC as the guiding planning document for the Point, despite the fact that one would be hard pressed to find anyone in Alameda who actually likes the plan. The council made it very clear that it’s a “planning study” in the first sentence of the Executive Summary. This is not a plan, it’s a study. As with their Alameda Landing plan, they do a great job of quoting the city’s vision and planning documents, sometime in contradiction of each other (“maintain a grid street pattern” and “restricting most traffic circulation to specific streets” appear one bullet point apart). They focus heavily on transportation and “de-emphasis of the automobile” which the existing Alameda Landing plan doesn’t really address beyond words. Their parking strategies, preliminary building plans, etc. are almost specifically “emphasis of the automobile” in their design.
My favorite part of the proposal is the overview’s 2nd paragraph which says: ”Catellus’ positioning as a business unit of Prologis affords it operating flexibility with coupled with the staying power of a $13 billion balance sheet.” An obvious swipe at APCP and their recent pull-out.
Affordable housing: Catellus says that they’ll honor the city’s commitments to build affordable housing at the point. No mention of middle-income housing, so one would assume the plan is for 25% low-income and 75% high-income housing.
Adaptive Reuse/Sustainability: Commitment to try and reuse buildings is here. And I like the idea of all reuse attempting to meet LEED Plantinum certification and Carbon Neutral designation. I’m disappointed that they only aim to do this with reuse building.
The rest of the proposal is essentially a reprinting of the overall city goals, responsibilities and guidelines (fiscal neutrality, etc.)
Catellus obviously has the knowledge and wherewithal to redevelop a site like Alameda Point. They do seem to listen well to the community, though the proof will be in the results at Alameda Landing, and unfortunately, that won’t happen before this project is underway.
I haven’t spent any time looking at their other similar projects, these two look like they speak to being similar to Alameda Point: Robert Mueller Municipal Airport (Still planning) and Victoria By the Bay (New neighborhoods still under development).
Leave a Reply