Lounge Act
Settlement talks have begun on the Harbor Bay Village VI housing project. This is the proposed 104 households in the middle of a business park with no direct connection to any services…oh yeah, and it is right by the airport, and in side the demarcation line where the noise from the airport will be so loud, people will who spend time in their yard will have to yell. (it’s all in the EIR).
First a map of the project site just so you know where it is. I find it’s always good to know where things are, before spouting off about them. It’s a trend I’m hoping to start among posters on the internet.
What’s concerning to me about this proposed housing, I mean besides almost everything about it, is the recurring use of the term “infill development” to describe this project as some sort of environmental panacea.
Infill is defined by the state of Oregon’s Infill and Redevelopment Code Handbook:
in•fill \’in-fill\ n : development of vacant or remnant lands passed over by previous development in urban areas.
The overall infill-housing argument is that every household built in the urban core (of which Alameda is a part) is a house not built in the exurbs of Livermore, Antioch and Tracy. The result is lower cost to public services (it’ incredible how much the cost of delivering water to outlying areas is), including police and fire, roads, etc. There’s a lower carbon footprint, other environmental impacts are reduced. With the right controls, infill protects agriculture and greenbelt areas.
Infill is a good thing. Infill is anti-sprawl, which is good.
However, infill doesn’t have to be housing. It can be commercial and other uses. The term infill does not support all housing proposals. There are good infill housing projects and bad ones (infill projects are like Democrats and Republicans that way).
Personally, Harbor Bay Village VI (HBVI) is of the “not good” variety. And our elected officials would be wise to stand up and deny it. While one of my big concerns is the airport noise, and why we would be choosing to locate future Alamedans so close to this nuisance, I’m sticking to infill issues today.
There is a lot of good information out there about building good infill projects. The Northeast-Midwest Institute has a concise list of 14 design principles that are pretty clear.
- Neighborhoods: Neighborhoods are compact, pedestrian-friendly, and mixed use with many activities of daily life available within walking distance. New development should help repair existing neighborhoods or create new ones and should not take the form of an isolated “project.”
- Infill development: Reclaim and repair blighted and abandoned areas within existing neighborhoods by using infill development strategically to conserve economic investment and social fabric.
- Mixed-use: Promote the creation of mixed-use neighborhoods that support the functions of daily life: employment, recreation, retail, and civic and educational institutions.
- Citywide and regional connections: Neighborhoods should be connected to regional patterns of transportation and land use, to open space, and to natural systems.
- Streets: The primary task of all urban architecture and landscape design is the physical definition of streets and public spaces as places of shared use. Neighborhoods should have an interconnected network of streets and public open space.
- Public open space: The interconnected network of streets and public open space should provide opportunities for recreation and appropriate settings for civic buildings.
- Accessibility: Buildings should be designed to be accessible and visitable while respecting the traditional urban fabric.
The recurring themes in these guidelines “interconnectedness,” “Walkable,” and “Mixed Use.”
“Interconnectedness” speaks to being a part of adjacent neighborhoods as well as connecting to existing services and retail. “Walkable” is similar. Walkability is a function of this interconnectedness. In fact, studies have shown that the interconnectedness of streets and density of intersections (meaning having multiple ways to walk to a specific destination) are the biggest factors in whether or not people actually walk as a part of their daily routine.
“Mixed Use” is thrown around in Alameda a lot. But it doesn’t mean large tracts of land dedicated to one specific use (i.e Housing, Commercial, Residential). It specifically refers to mixing the uses together. Measure A, by limiting the ability to mix residential and retial/commercial, makes this all but impossible, but I digress.
So how does HBVI stack up? “interconnectedness?” Hardly. The EIR for HBVI specifically states that these houses will NOT be connected the adjacent residential areas in Bay Farm Island.
“There would not be any access from the Project Site to Catalina Avenue or to other residential streets in the existing Bay Farm Island area.”
Go back and look at that map. Imagine a fence, or a wall running parallel to Catalina. Is this a project that is connected to existing services? Retail? Neighborhoods? No.
“Walkability?” Hardly, the nearest store is nearly a two mile walk through a business park, despite being 0.4 miles from Harbor Bay Landing.
“Mixed Use?” There is nothing mixed-use about this project. This is 104 houses built in the midst of a business park. It’s one and a half miles from the nearest public school, but it sure is close to the raiders headquarters, and if they have Alameda Alliance for Health as their insurer, they can almost walk across the street to pay their premiums.
Again, the Northeast-Midwest institute hits the nail on the head:
“What about unsuccessful infill? This occurs when municipalities, perhaps desperate to boost tax revenues, accept any development proposal.”
HBVI is not “compact and pedestrian friendly.” It’s not walkable. It’s nothing more than auto-centric sprawl created at the outer reaches of our city-limits. Anyone wanting to make the “infill” argument, should be looking at Northern Waterfront, North Park Street, Webster Street, Alameda Point, etc., These are locations with existing infrastructure and true infill potential.
As I mentioned above, infill is a good thing, when implemented correctly. It’s counter-productive when used as an excuse to create bad projects.
Leave a Reply