Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I went to a "Town Hall" meeting tonight about redevelopment in a fairly central neighborhood.
It was my first city meeting, and it was really interesting. Anyway, I remember submitting feedback on the plan and 3 proposals before things lost steam with the downturn. This was a relaunch of a stalled redevelopment planning project, and it seems like they will be starting the plan from scratch.
In a nutshell, the City of Oakland has identified a corridor as the perfect place for a shopping district for Oakland. It is well documented about the huge amount of retail leakage in Oakland. Basically, Oaklanders leave Oakland to go shopping and have a purchasing power of $5B annually. (Yikes!). If Oakland could convert these dollars and have them stay in town, the city could fund more services (obviously) with the revenues.
The purpose of the meeting was to get feedback/ideas/input on what people want. There was a large contingent from the nearby senior homes, some "social justice types," current commercial property owners, and long term residents.
What I found interesting, there was a mix of people who very informed and up on the planning lingo. And then other people who just wanted to air their personal preferences. So many people were talking about creating another neighborhood like some established areas in town with lots of restaurants, boutiques and neighborhood shops instead of something with the power to generate lots of sales taxes.
What was most interesting is that many people seemed to miss the key point of the redevelopment: capture more retail dollars in a shopping area. Oddly, the only department stores in the city of Oakland are Sears and Walmart. There is a Best Buy and Target that is shared with another city (revenues and land). Oakland is 56 square miles, has 400K people and there are lots of neighborhoods with average incomes above $100k. There is a huge amount of retail leakage in the area (and in neighboring Berkeley, but that is another story) The affluent residents of Oakland need to go to SF or a nearby suburb for basic shopping at a department store.
Official Site from the City (http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/CEDA/o/Redevelopment/s/Projects/DOWD008194 - broken link)
What interesting stuff have you observed from your city planning meeting?
What tips would you give the city on how to present their vision and why it is critical to the development, image and finances of the city?
What resources would you point an average resident to to become more informed on urban planning processes and principles?
Why do you think a neighborhood with lots of restaurants, boutiques, and neighborhood shops doesn't have the power to generate lots of sales tax? I don't know the details in this case (although a quick look at it looked like it does incorporate mixed-use and refers to creating a vibrant neighborhood), but often people are understandably concerned that big redevelopment plan often fall short of the ultimate goal. The landscape is littered with failures. Or are the people you're talking about opposing any national retailers? We get that around here, too. I always try to support local businesses over chains, but do think that large, successful commercial districts do a good job of being able to provide both. Old Pasadena (outside of LA) is a great example of a business district revitalization that is sometimes bashed as having too many national retailers, but its blend of the unique and the national destination places have made it a major success. What many people probably don't want is to feel like the city is trying to build a big mall-like shopping area filled exclusively with chain stores.
Around here, people mostly like to gripe about parking, traffic, and the height of buildings. They want it all -- no traffic, plentiful free parking, lowish density, good public transportation, and still overflowing with successful restaurants and businesses. And a lot of people just don't like change of any kind. The frustrations that come with the community involvement process is a big reason I don't think I could ever hack it as a city planner. WAY too many meetings, and way too much spinning of wheels. It's important to have public discussion, but there's just no way to please everyone.
I just skimmed part of the website you provided, but it looks like they could start with a more user-friendly document. Something with more pictures and illustrations to bring their vision to life. Presumably that exists in some form elsewhere, but the website does little to excite the imagination.
It sounds like jade408 is talking about big-box retail as the sales tax generator, as opposed to small local businesses/boutique businesses. I suppose perhaps some of their opposition comes from the fact that big-box retailers typically prefer to either build on greenfields or demo what is already there, while local small businesses tend to use existing real estate? The scars of old-school redevelopment are still present in urban downtowns and the minds of long-term residents. Anything that smacks of the same old "just demolish everything and we'll build something new and wonderful!" is unlikely to be well-received by people who have been repeatedly lied (or just ignored) to by previous developers and city governments.
Been to more planning, design, preservation and city council meetings than I can count. They're entertaining sometimes. Figuring out what is feasible, practical and affordable takes some time, and doesn't meet a lot of people's preferences, so there is always some grumbling with every decision, and often the best alternative is when all parties are equally pissed off at each other.
Oddly, the city of Oakland has a very small amount of large national retailers 100% in the city limits: one of each Sears, Home Depot, Walmart, Office Depot. There are tons of local businesses and successful districts all over town. Because the city is pretty anti chain. So much so, there are as far as I can recall 8 starbucks. 3-4 peets. My neighborhood (I live on the north end of the proposed development) had a hissy fit when starbucks and blockbuster wanted to come to the district. Today there are 5 coffeeshops in the neighborhood and one more on the way. All indie besides Peets and Starbucks. There is a huge opposition to big box (bigger sales tax generating retail) all over the city.
The neighborhood in question is a fading auto row surrounded by residential with a tiny bit of other commercial mixed in. Other businesses in the area generally serve the car dealerships and there is lots of surface parking (at least 5 big lots). Some car dealers have moved to the other side of town or closed up shop altogether, but honestly it isn't a great place for an autorow (you can't see it from the freeway). Over the past few years, about 5 restaurants/bars have opened up in the district, and a few art galleries have moved in. The site is anchored by downtown at one end and the new Kaiser campus/headquarters at the other (under construction).
I vote for some national retail. We don't need another cute local strip. Oakland has at least 8 of those already all over town where there are lots of local shops, restaurants, etc that are like "main street." In fact on either end of this redevelopment district there is a well established district of shopping etc and an up and coming art district with art and entertainment. There isn't a conventional mall (outdoor or otherwise.) The last one is in a poorer part of town and has been in decline for 20-30 years. It isn't even a mall any more, it like a city services satellite office with a police center, library, and social services offices + grocery store. There aren't any in the northern end of the city (where 40% of the high income neighborhoods are.)
Before there were a few visuals, but the city seems to have hidden those docs. That was a huge request. At the moment there were lots of aerial maps but no mockups of what is proposed. There were a few plans with some mockups a year ago on the site.
I'd really like to get involved in the planning process, but one problem my city has is everyone always thinks of their neighborhood and not the city as a whole. This can lead to some mixed up priorities. Anyway I feel like I can get involved by offering some regular, slightly informed resident perspective.
The big box thing is hard to fight in most cases. Local governments don't mind the tear-down and rebuilt cycle because it generates permit fees, or in some cases, redevelopment subsidies for tearing down "blighted" buildings and replacing them with something new. Big box retailers send one huge check for the taxes they generate instead of a bunch of smaller businesses sending in a bunch of small payments. Local governments see them as more work.
I'm not a fan of big box stores, but I'm not against them entirely. They are ok for basic items. I just have a hard time with the amount of Targets and Walmarts. There must be about 15-20 Targets within 30 miles of me and as many Walmarts, plus about 5 Kmarts and every one of them is a miserable place to be in because they are packed with people all the time. Plus the Best Buys, Home Depots, Lowes, Kohls, etc. It is like Americans can't think of anything else to do other than shop.
But back to the meetings. I've been to some of the meetings for my neighborhood. I give up on them. They are always dominated by people who want nothing to change. There is a stretch of a main road that comes into the neighborhood and Downtown Sacramento that needs some development because there is nothing but vacant lots, and buildings with nothing interesting going on in them for several blocks and I think that condition encourages the problems other people think building store with apartments above them will make worse.
Local business has a different effect on a local economy than chains. Because it is locally owned, more of the money remains in the local economy. I took a look at the site--it looks like this is a general plan amendment or a neighborhood plan, not a specific proposal, so there may not be specific renderings--changes in policy rather than a specific project.
Every neighborhood thinks of their neighborhood, not the city as a whole--while typically planning commissions think of the city as a whole, not the neighborhood. Get both talking and you can get to something like a consensus, at least some of the time.
In cities, malls are becoming pretty much irrelevant. Malls were intended as nothing more than a privatized, indoor replacement for a downtown shopping district--but if you can have a public, outdoor shopping district, why bother with the overhead cover and calling it a mall?
KC6ZLV: Going to local neighborhood group meetings is not quite the same as attending commissioner meetings--and not all neighborhood groups are anti-growth. Out in my end of town we spend as much time supporting projects we do like (new housing and mixed-use, new theaters, etc.), if not more, than opposing projects we don't.
Local business has a different effect on a local economy than chains. Because it is locally owned, more of the money remains in the local economy. I took a look at the site--it looks like this is a general plan amendment or a neighborhood plan, not a specific proposal, so there may not be specific renderings--changes in policy rather than a specific project.
.
I hope that goverments could become "gov 2.0" and give more insight on the whole process. I think people in the meeting were having a hard time visualizing what could happen, because the council has been talking about some local examples (Emeryville's Bay Street, Walnut Creek's Broadway Plaza and San Jose's Santana Row) that are in more suburban areas and feel sterile and generic, and not very Oakland. It also didn't seem like people wanted to visualize a Union Square lite for Oakland.
I know I don't want a big box/car oriented development, but a couple of department stores mixed in with some restaurants/bars/entertainment, a movie theater and neighborhood services would be good. Unfortunately I think people want another Rockridge/GrandLake/Hayes Valley like shopping district. Cute boutiques that are great for an occasional day trip but not an everyday destination for residents and a draw for out of towners. Our side of the hills could use destination retail, there are plenty of people that live with in 5 miles with the right income mix (at least 200K).
I am hoping the next meetings are more successful, where attendees can actually visualize what wil happen and how it will impact their services and the town on the whole. Everyone is concerned about crime in the area, and there are lots of seniors. The area is also surrounded by some of the denses neighborhoods in the city, so adding some density and Pedestrians will make it better for everyone. The nearby residents have no reason to head down to that part of the neighborhood, it is basically closed after dark or discontiguous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
