Measure A protects us from…….
Waterfront housing that increases the community feeling of safety and public space?
While perusing the Planning Board packet for last Tuesday night’s meeting–5/29 (yes, somebody does need to get a life, or at least a hobby), I read the Alameda Landing Development Plan and Design Review which includes such items as the landscape and parking plan for the new Clif Bar buildings (actually they are rehabbed old buildings), I can only imagine the outrage when people learn that there’s a theater in it and that it might attract…..people! Eek.
It’s bigger than the 250 seat theater at the new Rhythmix Cultural Works, which we all know is going to destroy the island with 50,000 visitors a year. For a city that continues to say it wants arts centers and museums, it sure seems like we only want failing ones, that way they won’t bring any traffic. but I digress badly…
Amongst the discussion of parks, public space, theaters (eek), restaurants and parking (phew), there is a section called “Housing Analysis” (page 13) which the Planning Board required of each development phase in the Alameda Landing project.
“The intent and purpose of requiring the residential analysis was that careful consideration should be given to including residential uses because residential uses would provide an evening and weekend presence adjacent to the Waterfront Promenade, which might make the Waterfront Promenade feel safer and more accommodating to city residents and more active during those times that the office uses were closed.
I’d quote more, but as you know Alameda is a unique island city, and apparently that uniqueness requires our PDF staff reports to be unsearchable and cut-and-pastable. Thereby necessitating the re-typing of any parts of it and my fingers are tired.
Well guess what? It turns out that putting Single Family Homes and Duplexes on the site doesn’t really work with the whole flow, and kind of limits the vision of the waterfront as a public space, and actually, we’d have to tear down the historic buildings to build what would amount to 20-30 homes, which wouldn’t bring vibrancy, and therefore a feeling of safety, to the area.
Because I love Alameda soooo much, I quote from the staff report again:
From an urban design perective, the inclusion of single family or two-family homes that reflect the “working waterfront” character of the site would be difficult to accomplish. The scale and character of a single-family home is very different from the scale and character of the warehouse structures. The form of the existing warehouse buildings is low and expansive, consistent with the site’s significant dimension and scale. Typical detached single-family homes or duplexes — with peaked rooflines, garages, and wood or stucco facades—most likely would resemble the character of a typical single family subdivision (such as Bayport) rather than the urban waterfront envisioned for the site.
Although single family homes could be located adjacent to the waterfront and the warehouses, the inclusion of the single family homes and two-family homes would likely detract from the “working waterfront” character that the project is trying to embrace and highlight.
……..
To accommodate waterfront housing, the project would need to be completely redesigned. The waterfront warehouse would need to be demolished to make room for residential uses adjacent to the waterfront. {SD&R note: currently the plan is for the warehouse to be used for parking, so that you don’t see as much of it on the site. If this demolition happened, an extra 160 spaces would need to show up somewhere else.} The rear warehouse would need to be demolished to accommodate a new multi story building with parking on the ground floors and the 100,000 square foot building program for the Clif Bar Headquarters on the uppoer floors. This redesign might provide space for a small residential subdivision of 20-30 single-family homes on 2,000 square foot lots in front of the new building facing the Waterfront Promenade.
Did you notice the big-time flaw in the analysis? I bet you’ll be reading it on the Alameda Daily News any day now…..That’s right, some times they hyphenate “single family” and other times they don’t. And as we’ve learned, if you can’t trust someone to edit properly, then you can’t trust their information. Dang….digression again!
I really wanted to point this out as yet another reason why talking about the effect of Measure A and what it allows and doesn’t allow, is a good thing for the community. This project has 300 planned housing units. Imagine if they could be incorporated into the waterfront site as condos and apartments. Less traffic, more people using the waterfront, less need for parking (the housing and offices could share the spaces since they are used at different times), and a real mixed-use, transit-oriented development. Not just in name, but in function.
But it’s better to protect 35 year-old laws, just because they protect us.
Uwe J. Springborn
May 31st, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Besides being rambling and difficult to follow, one wonders if the author wouldn’t be much happier in another community that shares similar points of view and standards. The Richmond district of San Francisco, or perhaps the lower Nob Hill should provide the parking availability and level of traffic the author seems to enjoy.
As for the rest of us who chose Alameda as a place to live precisely for the “35 year-old laws”, how about you let the “un-progressive” lot of us enjoy the restrictive (if rambling) protections that the City of Alameda so kindly affords us.
Michael Krueger
May 31st, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Ah, my favorite Alameda argument: “If you don’t like things just the way they are, then get the heck out of town.”
I still don’t understand exactly what the “protection” in this case would be. If the number of housing units were held constant at 300, how would allowing some of those units to take the form of waterfront condominiums and apartments suddently transform the development into the Tenderloin (”Lower Nob Hill”)? Residents of multi-family housing own fewer cars and drive less, so the traffic and parking problems would be reduced, not increased.
Also, I’m a little puzzled by the reference to the Richmond neighborhood in the same breath as the Tenderloin. Although not exactly Measure A compliant, the Richmond has more single-family homes and lower density than many parts of San Francisco. By the logic of Alameda’s strongest Measure A supporters, it should have the lowest traffic and easiest parking in the city.
Uwe J. Springborn
June 1st, 2007 at 9:20 am
I like the inflammatory response.
Lower Nob Hill becomes the Tenderloin. Good one. Let’s see, the peak of Nob Hill is pretty much at California and Mason, so the Lower Nob Hill are could be said to be approximately from Pine to Sutter and from Powell to Jones. From the closest corner of this area, arguably Jones & Sutter to the extreme edge of the Tenderloin is what 5 or 6 blocks, maybe another 3 or 4 to the real rough areas. Yep, we could definitely paint that with the same brush.
And still, you help make my point exactly. The Richmond district HAS the lowest traffic and easiest parking in San Francisco. Generally one is able to find a spot within 2 or 3 blocks from home within 20 minutes of arriving there.
In the lower Nob Hill area one is rarely that lucky and invariably pays a parking operator.
I would also like to see the “stats” that indicate that people who buy condos have a statistically significant difference in automobile ownership, and following the prior history of sensationalism, let’s try to keep things on an “apples to apples” basis. Let’s compare property owners in the $600K median housing price range and see if the number of BMW’s in the driveway of a single family home is really much different than the number of Mercedes in the condo parkade. And in the same area. How about Dublin or Pleasanton? My guess it’s right around the same number within less than one standard deviation point.
Finally, Yes. It makes me sound old, unpleasant, and even (dare I say it) conservative but… if someone doesn’t like it, they should get out of town. I didn’t like the area I lived in prior to Alameda and got out of that town to live here, knowing what I was getting into. Would it be nice to add a couple of mortgage helper suites - sure. Would it be nice to not have to jump through flaming hoops while juggling chainsaws to renovate a bathroom - absolutely. Would it be nice to have the ugly old warehouse at Clement and Oak replaced with housing - yep. But not so nice that I wish Alameda to change that much.
The nice thing about the Bay Area is you can find exactly what you are looking for. City Life - SF, Yuppie Hood - Walnut Creek, Big Bucks - Atherton. Small town feel - Alameda. Why cram in some condos to ruin it. There is enough room for condos on the Oakland side of the estuary.
Of course, but the proximity standard, Jack London area is the same as West Oakland anyway
Lauren Do
June 1st, 2007 at 11:06 am
From Traditional Neighborhoods and Auto Ownership by Hess and Ong.
Michael Krueger
June 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Sorry I got off on the wrong foot there. I do tend to get defensive whenever the “if you don’t like it here then leave” argument comes up. I do like it here, and I don’t want to leave. That doesn’t mean everything is perfect and should never be changed. We may disagree on what (if any) changes we would like to see in Alameda, but I hope we can respect each other’s opinions without suggesting that anyone should leave town because of them.
Please forget I ever mentioned the Tenderloin. I had a friend who lived there, and he told me that “Lower Nob Hill” is just a euphemism for the Tenderloin. When I saw the same phrase used here, I thought it was just an attempt to sneak in a reference to a high-crime neighborhood. I realize now that this was not intended at all, and my response was a product of incorrect information from my friend and an overly defensive posture on my part. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and I can assure you that I will not confuse Lower Nob Hill and the Tenderloin again.
I am, however, still a little puzzled by the reference to the Richmond. If it’s not traffic and parking hell, then why name it as a place that “should provide the parking availability and level of traffic the author seems to enjoy”? I assumed this was a sarcastic remark implying that the author would be happier in a place with difficult parking and lots of traffic. If traffic and parking in the Richmond are so much better than Lower Nob Hill, then why tar these two neighborhoods with the same brush?
Putting these minor questions aside, I am left with one big one: Why is the issue of Measure A so often approached as an all-or-nothing choice? It seems that we must either keep everything exactly as it is — despite the unintended negative consequences — or we must open the floodgates to development and turn all of Alameda into Manhattan. Must the answer be one of these extremes?
For example, in a hypothetical plan for Alameda Landing, what would have been the harm of capping the number of housing units at 300, but allowing some mix of lofts, condominiums, and apartments in some of the waterfront buildings? How would a change like that “ruin” Alameda?
Joel
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:40 am
Uwe,
If you don’t like the way things are get out, is such a cope out. While we are not leaving so get use to it. Not everyone needs to have your views to live in a place, and we all should have the opportunity to voice our views and change things if we see something we think needs changing. Just because you lived here longer doesn’t necessary make you more entitled.
If you lived here for awhile your property taxes are probably a lot less. It would be interesting to see a study of the %’s of the property taxes raise in here of the people who have move in the last 5-10 years vs those who have been here longer? Maybe they should get more of a say on things…not really serious about that.
I lived in Lower Nob Hill and it was the Tenderloin, there is no exact lines for the people who lived there. One day they call it one thing the other and call what ever they want and it goes back and forth. Parking there was easier than the Richmond which Iived in also. I did notice in both places most people took public transit to work. I don’t want to live in either of those place and I can’t afford any longer a lot of the Tenderloin. Have you been on Polk Street lately. We looked at a 2 bedroom 2 bath small loft (no view) 2 1/2 years ago for 1.2 million…plus HOA fees.
Uwe J. Springborn
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Multiple Responses.
Loren:
Excellent quotation. However, as a person who has tried public transit from the Island, I am doubtful of it’s success. While AC transit Transbay Express is a nice service the predictability and consistency is tenacious at best. Late is expected, missing buses not unusual. The addition of 300 high-density units is insufficient to add cost benefits to public agencies to improve the service. The result is a parking crush.
Only by converting large areas would there by a change in public transit, but by doing so there is an alteration of the community. It is this alteration that Measure A supporters oppose.
Michael:
You are definitely correct in detecting the sarcasm in the Richmond district remark. Can’t fault you there. Richmond is “parking purgatory”, Nob Hill is “parking hell”. It is a situation I would prefer never to see in Alameda, and worse than it already is. (My condolences to those of you who live on Willow).
The reality is that a change to a single area won’t ruin Alameda, but it opens a door to the “what about me” and “why can’t I”. I guess that I am so happy to have found Alameda that I would prefer to live out my life on this island (and I am pretty young yet - decades before retirement). So I feel that I really must support for the “Measure A is All” side and keep it in strong force.
The other thing is that it’s so sad to stroll down some of the streets and have the ugliest apartments stuffed into lots between the eclectic mix of the original homes. (Pacific really suffers from this) So it’s selfish but I am willing to ’sacrifice’ a bunch of condo dwellers to the gods of Measure A and suggest they move some else. How about around Lake Merit?
Kyle:
Man o’man. I could have some discussions with you.
As a side point I have only been in Alameda for 7 years, which is not really a long time and owned my house for less than 5 so I pay a good property tax. Chances are you pay less than me - then again maybe not because I can’t ever see even looking at $1.2MM homes, so you are probably rich.
I kind of like the “votes by money” idea - very republican that.
What kind of sticks me, however is the attitude that “I” can move into a place that’s a certain way, and just because “I” don’t like it, “I” am going to change it because “I” am the most important person in “MY” life, and the 60,000 residents around me don’t matter because it’s not what “I” what.
This is the attitude that all those whiners in South San Jose are doing now, first the move into an area called “Coyote Valley” and then demand the state massacre the coyotes because their household pets are at risk.
Or the people who move close to an airport and then snivel because of the noise.
The coyotes and the airport and Measure A were here first. It’s the environment that’s being moved into.
It’s the same attitude as those drivers who block intersections because it’s more important that “I” get through this light than the people on cross traffic.
And quite frankly I suspect it’s the same for those who support a Target store because it’s far too inconvenient to drive the six miles to San Leandro or 8 miles to Berkeley to go to a Target. It’s much better to create a traffic nightmare right here at home.
Oh, I may be opinionated and arrogant, perhaps even outrageous and unpleasant. But I look around at this community and realize that it is the way it is because of an overall agreement by a group. At the very least I am willing to acknowledge the rights of others to form their community in a manner that they see fit. I used to live in Walnut Creek, but I wasn’t comfortable with the Yuppies in their BMW’s so I acknowledged that WC was a yuppie town and found somewhere else to live. I wouldn’t buy a house in a gated community because maybe one day I may decide to plant a rose in a spot that the ‘community plan’ says only lawn should grow. But I acknowledge the people and their planned communities and wish them a happy existence. And in Alameda, I recognize that the ‘average’ and apparently the ‘majority’ likes it this way. I look to myself and find that I can agree with this and with minor adjustment, fit in and not disparage my neighbors lifestyle desires.
So, once again, I close with: Alameda - Love it (the way it is) or leave it (and find some where both you and your neighbors will be happy to have you there).