Stop, Drop and Roll

24 Responses to “Alameda Point Legal Trouble? Nah!”

1. James
   June 11th, 2009 at 7:35 am

   Here’s my two cents….
   I know opinions are set and those opinions predispose individuals to draw conclusions biased to one’s preset opinion but it seems pretty disingenuous to not acknowledge that the developers will add more commercial/business space in the mixed use category thereby adding commercial/business space above and beyond what is outlined in the commercial and business park category. Just cause it’s in a different category, doesn’t make it different. Come on Mr. Knox, remember the real world where store fronts, cafes and business parks are all commercial developments. MIxed-use is code for strip mall with apartments.

2. James
   June 11th, 2009 at 7:39 am

   My bad…should’ve addressed you as Mr. Knox White–no disrespect intended.

3. John Knox White
   June 11th, 2009 at 9:12 am

   No offense taken.

   I believe what you have written above is exactly the point of the post. The developer specifically says that the mixed-use areas will have commercial/business space. That’s why the total amounts in the initiative language are higher than the totals of only the exclusive Commercial & Business park areas.

   The legal filing is completely erroneous in its claim precisely because of the point you make, a point which is explicit within the initiative itself.

4. M.I.
   June 11th, 2009 at 9:58 am

   James

   Mixed use is code for mixed use. If you can change the climate of the commercial retail environment such that we will have apartments over mom and pop stores instead of what you refer to as strip mall retail, let’s hear the grand strategy for that. But over all the idea of living space over commercial is to go back to what we had at the stations when Alameda was built out but building more of it is prohibited by Measure A.

   Alameda Point is really a complex site in so many respects I don’t want to get bogged down with it because my intent hear is only to defend mixed use as a generic prototype. Across the country we have let a bad model proliferate where business park is in one place, a school in another, tract homes in another, retail mall in another. The roads between have no sidewalks and the distances between them may be miles. It forces people to stay in their cars. Reintroducing mixed use is simply trying to reverse a bad trend. It’s not the fault of New Urbanists that the over all trend of retail in our culture has leaned toward schlock.

   When El Cerrito Mall got the same treatment South Shore is now getting as Towne Centre there was a momentary push to rebuild it as what would have been the first regional attempt at a mixed use transit village. The retail do over is pretty awful, Towne Centre is much nicer. The Fruitvale transit village struggles with the demographics. I think it was built ignoring the surrounding neighborhood, in terms of who uses BART to commute and where they live. This is not my professional line so this is conjecture, but I have always had the sense that El Cerrito was a big missed opportunity for the application of mixed uses in an environment where it might have thrived and proved why it is sound design.

5. Norbert Scheunemann
   June 11th, 2009 at 10:54 am

   Dear Mr White,

   if you have some time to put your math skills to another test would it be possible to post a viable scenario about how all those additional people who might one day live/work at Alameda Point squeeze through the Webster Tube? The tube is already congested now !
   In general you often state that the SunCal project is not very well understood by Alameda residents – well SunCal blew it big time by hiring a bunch of rather annoying folks harassing us outside Alameda grocery stores to sign the ballot initiative. EVERYTIME I asked one of them about Alameda Point all I heard was “are you for or against the clean up?” They did not know anything at all about the details of the planned use, even though it was presumably spelled out in the large manuals they had with them….

6. Edmundo Delmundo
   June 11th, 2009 at 11:00 am

   How do we find out:

   1. How many signatures have been gathered to place the initiative on the ballot?

   2. How many signatures is required to get it on the ballot?

   3. When is their petition deadline?

   Does the ballot measure have a chance? It’s kind of interesting that we’re voting before we’re voting.

7. Lauren Do
   June 11th, 2009 at 12:16 pm

   Hi Edmundo:

   The number of signatures needed is 15% of registered Alameda voters, approximately 6000 and some change. I believe all the signatures are due on Monday by the close of business.

   As to the gathered number, I don’t think anyone knows except SunCal, but we should know by Monday if SunCal submits their signatures.

8. Jayne Smythe
   June 11th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

   I been finding it interesting to read here about how transit could be improved and that we should use public transit instead of drive, and such.

   I agree with that, because I take the bus and I ride BART.

   But what don’t make no sense to me is how this blog can be for a development that will increase traffic, pollution, noise and decrease access!

   It sorta seems to me that you are tryin’ to ride two horses at the same time. I mean, I have read all the initiative pages, and I don’t see the traffic part in the general plan.

   Maybe I am missing that, and it really is in there. But I don’t see it, and I ain’t blind. And y’all been working on the transportation planning for so long, it seems a shame that it is not in there glowing with neon print, so’s we can all see it and know what a fine job y’all have been doing in the Transportation Commission, and how that will all figure in to the new development, and such.

   So, if you can put a link out there for us, that would be real nice.

   Say what you will, Oakland does have a case with regard to traffic, and Alameda has a legal obligation to meet in that regard…

9. John Knox White
   June 11th, 2009 at 4:07 pm

   Norbert,

   First off, there’s nothing formidable about the math above. The point is that a 3rd grader could do it.

   most of the math has been done and presented in the WRT study, which is the basis for the Alameda Point Transportation Master Plan.

   Overall, the project generates traffic that is mitigated by it’s design which is supportive of sustainable transit. The project also suggests using increased transit service, paid for by the project, to decrease the number of vehicles from the rest of the main island to lower the cumulative impact of Alameda Point on existing service. At the end, the study found that mitigations (as are proposed at Alameda Point) combined with island-wide improvements that result in a 1-2% shift in modes from the rest of the island, would result in traffic impacts no greater than the Preliminary Development Concept, which was the latest iteration of planning thought at the time.

   I will try and do some further analysis in the coming months (or more clearly, get independent analysis completed in the coming months) that would clarify this more specifically to Alameda Point.

10. Norbert Scheunemann
    June 11th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

    Hello John,

    I will admit I tried to add a touch of irony when asking you to put your math skills to good use, but now you are responding with nebulous statements such as “Overall, the project generates traffic that is mitigated by its design…” (did SunCal come up with that?) Please do not take it personal when I say this: anyone in high school might wonder how it is possible that the issue of square footage is being calculated down to the last foot but NO numbers whatsoever are provided in regards to the traffic impact? To me, 4000 plus new units for Alameda mean at least 4000 new cars, and since we can not assume all these good folks take the bus to go to Fenton’s, Best Buy or that tech job in San Jose, traffic will be a major issue no matter how many new ferries and buses are being added. Does SunCal imply the new residents will be a “special sort” who happily ditch their cars and jump on the bus whenever they can? So if you do have some viable numbers and studies on the traffic impact please do share once they are available. Of course could also be that SunCal already ran the numbers and did not like the results…

    Thanks !

11. James
    June 12th, 2009 at 7:24 am

    M.I.-
    It IS the fault of New Urbanists if their theoretical “design plan” doesn’t actually do what its intended to do when it becomes reality. If “New Urbanism” results in schlock, then “New Urbanism” fails. Theory vs Reality–Just cuz it’s a neat idea that doen’t work, doesn’t mean it works. Town Centre, El Cerrito, Fruitvale Bart, Concord Bart, etc, etc ad nausea…And until planners actually foresee and mitigate the manipulations that corporate greed will inevitably seek in order to sate said greed, 95% of all large developments will not just add to, but will compound the mess that is Bay Area “progressive growth”.

12. dave
    June 12th, 2009 at 8:30 am

    Given how quiet the signature gatherers have been for the last several weeks, it is a fait accompli that they have the required number and will be submitting it moments before the deadline.

13. M.I.
    June 12th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    James,

    If the culture demands schlock retail and you object to that then object to it in all contexts. I reiterate that the New Urban model is actually old urban model in the case of the stations, but in any case it doesn’t have the culpability you insist on lending it with regard to quality of retail , while at the same time at least a mixed use site with whatever quality retail the public demands is a better land use than a totally auto dependent strip mall with same schlock. I would maintain that the quality of life potential of mixed use would increase the likelihood of HIGHER quality retail with people living in close proximity.

    Everybody likes to bash “developers”, but just as you all complain about the the tenants of New Urbanism being merely theoretical ( as opposed to have working models EXACTLY like Alameda Point), show me where you see mom and pop developers thriving or where there is a proliferation of all the light industry that is supposed to make leasing existing buildings at the Point a viable alternative. Best I can tell that is all theoretical too.

    After a lecture on greenbelts at the Demo club Wednesday, Doug deHaan pointed out that there were several hundreds of thousands of dollars ( millions?) of potential interim leases cued up at Alameda Point in 2001 which were lost when APCP came in and did away with long term leases. I wish Doug would list exactly what those leases were so we could better understand what might be viable. I started to ask him about the West Berkeley Plan, a plan Berkeley developed to retain existing light industry in that corridor. Doug jumped in commenting they are failing, which brought me to ask why then we should expect to be able to attract it? Suddenly the conversation was over and he had to go.

    It’s not that I don’t have doubts about many aspects of the SunCal plan or how consistently a mixed use template can be effectively applied in genarl, I just think rants about corporate greed are a red herring and a diversion to an honest discussion directed at ferreting out effective land use models.

    So James, the schlock is the combined fault of the proliferation of the corporate approach to retail and consumers patronizing such venues. That type of retail has in fact has gotten it’s biggest foothold in the auto-centric strip “maul” which has filled in farm land between traditional mixed use down towns all across America, and I challenge you to prove how it is significantly exacerbated by mixed use design.

14. Jayne Smythe
    June 12th, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    LOVED THE PUN!

    “tenants of new urbanism”…

15. M.I.
    June 12th, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    more like double entendre

16. James
    June 13th, 2009 at 6:08 am

    But M.I., that’s exactly my point. New Urbanism fails in the exactly way Old Urbanism fails because that’s how our society “plans” growth—based on money. And to beat the horse completely senseless, unless there is a societal edict that takes corporate “viability” out of the equation, we’ll always get profit driven “shlock”. Just for the record, while malls may have started the drive to anchor tenant based development, new malls haven’t been the model for decades, New Urbanism HAS BEEN. See Jack London Square, Emeryville Bay Station, Santana Row, Fruitvale Station, etc, etc. Everyone of these “developments” has significantly contributed to the destruction of traditional economic model based on locally owned businesses in mixed use town centers. Smaller spaces for smaller businesses owned by local business people….It did work for generations and (would actually rightfully be called New Urbanism) if you took the “corporate viability” profit margin out of the equation. The great non-car based cities weren’t planned according to what developers would like to build. they were built according to a societal plan, not a business plan!

17. James
    June 13th, 2009 at 7:51 am

    Oh and while we’re discussing models for land use…The reason mom and pops aren’t thriving is because cities are handcuffed by Prop 13 in terms of where they get their money from. Cities need cash, can’t get it from property taxes, so they support developments that bring in more money. If the basis for land use is ultimately how much money is produced for city coffers, then I submit New Urbanism is just like strip malls–Land developments that need to attract non-resident consumers which in turn promotes car usage. People only get out of their cars if they can walk to a destination…..Transit villages must still promote auto traffic or they fail. (See Fruitvale Station.) Money vs quality of living is the ultimate question when it comes to planning IMHO.

18. Michael Krueger
    June 13th, 2009 at 10:16 am

    Although I’m familiar with critiques that claim “New Urbanism fails,” I’m puzzled by the claim that “Old Urbanism fails.” I have heard the proponents of low-density automobile-oriented development claim that “Old Urbanism” is a failed model, but I’m surprised to hear that from someone who favors “locally owned businesses in mixed use town centers.”

    Most of Alameda, including our mixed-use-town centers, is an “Old Urbanist” development. Many of our homes and the buildings that house our locally owned businesses were built by—gasp!—developers who made a profit doing it. Would you consider these parts of Alameda to be a failure?

    Whenever I see groups of very similar Queen Anne cottages or Craftsman bungalows, things we now consider charming parts of our architectural heritage, I wonder whether the residents of the time were outraged by the fact that developers were building rows and rows of these tract homes along Alameda’s many rail lines—for a profit. I guess it shows the importance of building neighborhoods that will age well, just as Alameda’s early transit-oriented developments have.

19. James
    June 14th, 2009 at 7:16 am

    Mr. Krueger,
    There are subtle distinction between architecturally successful developments that ARE currently economic failures and architecturally successful developments that once WERE economic successes. Subtle, right? Do you have any idea how much the mom and pop shops have struggled “financially” for the last twenty years? Sales tax reports are easily available and they show how little money the small businesses in this town actually make. Architecturally, the “Old Urbanism” models , the various stations that make up this town, are wonderful—but as an economic model they WERE successes; now they ARE failures.

    The big question you should ponder is… Why did they go from past successful economic model to current failure?

    Give ya a hint….When were most of Alameda’ s stations built and why were they built around rail- lines? What is the dominant mode of transportation now??

    *smirk*

    I love most of the original architecture in this town, but not because it’s charming. I love it for the CRAFTSMANSHIP that went into it, the SCALE of it, the THOUGHT that went into it. If you are advocating a return to those ideals, I’m right behind you. But I would whisper in your ear, as you charge into your defense of New Urbanism, Where are you gonna find a city that accepts the lesser sales taxes from such a development? And perhaps most importantly, where are you going to find a developer who won’t scrimp on materials and labor costs to build such wonderful buildings that age so well?

    Trust me, the profit margins for the ‘developers’ of old was a pitance compared to the profit margin for McMansion monstousites.

    Forgive the long-winded rant but these issues require a depth of thought that involves both idealism AND real-world realities. The solutions lie in changes to our thinking far beyond nostalgia, zoning mixes and profits…..

20. M.I.
    June 14th, 2009 at 10:00 am

    James

    You have done a great set up for an detailed argument for the solution you allude to in the last sentence with your pragmatic synthesis of idealism and real world, as you call it. The floor is all yours. Rather than just try to rip New Urbanism a new one, let’s hear your in depth details solution, not just the generalities you allude to here..

    I taker it you read a lot. Have you read the story of Robert Moses in New York Sate? Maybe revisit your own question above * smirk* and think about how the New Urban model is at least aimed at a remedy for what killed old urbanist model.

    It takes political will to change prop 13, which is a bit beyond the purview Peter Calthorpe. How much of the blame for this hugely systemic problem of modern consumerism which drives the schlock can you really lay at the feet of people like him.? Go ahead, continue…

21. M.I.
    June 14th, 2009 at 10:23 am

    Today’s NYTimes Magazine on over adundance of retail.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/magazine/14FOB-Consumed-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine

22. James
    June 15th, 2009 at 8:29 am

    Morning, M.I. et al.

    Before carrying the discussion any further, I’d like to sort of tip the cap of acknowledgment to the writer of this blog for providing the forum. Don’t know if it’s proper blog etiquette but …Thank you, Mr. Knox White.

    Just to clear up any misconceptions, I agree with an awful lot of the ideals of New Urbanism and, from what little I know of him, Peter Calthorpe. My problem with New Urbanism isn’t really the theory, it’s with the disconnect between its ideals and the reality of what gets designed and built. Let’s put it this way—Communism is a wonderful Utopian theory that fails miserably because it doesn’t take human nature into account. And cheerleading for Communism without understanding and acknowledging its failures in its current form would be a large part of the reason Communism continues to be useless. Using buzzwords like “New Urbanism” or “smart growth” or “transit villages” or any of the other nonsense phrases doesn’t deal with the real challenges of why developments work or don’t. I’m truly sorry if such dismissiveness offends but my hope is to direct the attention of the intelligent and passionate people here toward the real issue. What kind of a world do we want to live in and how do we build the infrastructure for that society taking into account the various conflicting priorities of everyone involved?

    I own a small business that is directly involved in construction and/or remodeling (very green and very Old School Craft), I’d like nothing more than to own a space of my own (certainly can’t afford one in Alameda!) and I’m a third generation CA native. I’m married (by the way.. the Wife was born and raised here in Alameda) with 1 kid and I’d like to be able to retire someday.

    Those are just the top o’ my priority list….but there are other people involved ain’t there?

    I studied architecture for two years before dropping out (much like Peter Calthorpe did … ), and I am intimately familiar with the players who are involved in large developments, what their priorities are and with how the design process works. We need to break them down into specifics…

    But… jeez…this is gonna a far longer than I hoped…

    I am hoping to outline the various impediments to “good urban design” and then address the solutions to those issues. I can blame M.I. for the length of my post so far; she (Damn, look at me assume! Sorry…) he or she asked for an in depth detailed solution…well be careful what you ask for!

    lol

    Makes me wonder if there are any objections to building the argument in this long winded way or is this not the place for it? I’d be happy to correspond with individuals if Mr. Knox White or the consensus of the board would prefer I do that…

    Let me know if I should continue…

    Regards,
    James

    PS..Can’t read the NYT article ‘cuz I’m not a subscriber…I’ll look around for it. Thanks….

23. E T
    June 15th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    James, I would love to have you expand on what you say. I think it is germane to the entire discussion of development in general.

    I think a lot of anti-development people might not have taken the views they have if they had not seen so many promises broken, and so many poorly envisioned and/or shoddy commercial/mixed use developments. We have a ton love lovely commercial space that has been vacant for years before the financial meltdown, for example. Why is it empty? And if it is empty, why do we need more? Could those development areas be reconfigured in a way that would make them viable?

    As you point out, new urbanism does not logically assume development that is non-auto-centric. There are a few people that have tried to point out that planning needs to include moving services into the area to meet the needs of the sub-community, and that this aspect is never adequately handled. Consequently, all the shopping centers have a few anchor stores, but not much else to meet people’s weekly errand needs. So, that means a bus ride or a drive up the highway or across town to another mall, increasing the time it takes to do things, and adding to the pollution factor that we are all supposed to, in this “I need it now” culture, be consciously avoiding.

24. M.I.
    June 16th, 2009 at 11:52 am

    James,

    I think my wife teaches or taught your daughter if I have correctly surmised who you are.

    I didn’t realize I got access to the NYT article because my wife has a subscription. Too bad. It is called “Repurposing Life” and it is about the glut or retail, mostly bad retail and how to “repurpose” the spaces.

    I posted it because it supports my argument that the quality of retail has to do with shifts in culture and it is made worse by auto-centric design and could be improved through mixed use applications. A problem is often that retail might best thrive in mixed use, but since there is an over all glut of retail spaces none of the existing really thrives. I encourage people to track down the article.

    Terms like Smart Growth may be overly simplistic and I tend to avoid them for that reason, but there in this case it makes sense because it insures we are all talking about the same thing more or less. The Communism analogy is a good one, but I will take it further and say that to me New Urban design is more like socialism which is a lot more pragmatic and applicable but too many people have no historic context of socialism and only relate it to stereotypes of Eastern block countries, which were more about totalitarianism or to European welfare states. The latter have high taxes but people get things like SECURITY in trade. The pejorative use of socialism as in “Obama is a socialist” is simple ignorant.

    We all use the term suburban and have long done so. Nobody argues that it is a vague term, but I could nit pick. People object to smart growth because they themselves think it’s dumb, but I think the term attempts to refer to common sense solutions when it comes to reversing dumb suburban models.

    ET wrote : “new urbanism does not logically assume development that is non-auto-centric”. Actually I think it does, but it doesn’t come with enforcement. At some point if we care about outcomes we have to get out of our cars. New Urban designs of mixed use at least begin to enhance that option as opposed to specifically auto-centric suburban strip mall models which lock in your car.

Leave a Reply