More development...really? (Oakland, Alameda, Montclair: loft, condos, hotel)

[Gentoo]

I'm probablt going to get blasted for this but it's something I've noticed on a lot of the California forums.

There is often a lot of talk about developing an area. I just saw the LA thread where is was mentioned that LA needed more buildings for none other than to simply make it look spectacular. While I like skylines and all, I wouldn't use that as a reason for more development. It's not just thread and I'm not trying to bash any of the members who've said these thing. A Similar remark was made about developing the waterfront in Oakland. This area desperately need something that's for sure. However, rather than erecting more buildings which will add more people, more pollution and more urbanization in already very urban areas; why not add more green space? Why not for example take that area along Oakland waterfront and make it a large park which could be punctuated with small lakes and ponds and then perhaps add little shops and neat places to eat among the lawns and trees. Make a nice long waterfront park for both people and nature rather than concrete and glass jungles? LA is urban enough. In fact it's perhaps overdeveloped and is little more than sprawl that, even from the air, seems to have no end.

Am I alone in thinking that we need more green spaces in Ca. cities?

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Why not for example take that area along Oakland waterfront and make it a large park which could be punctuated with small lakes and ponds and then perhaps add little shops and neat places to eat among the lawns and trees.

Hi.

As you can see, condo and loft development at the waterfront has taken off:
http://photos.imageevent.com/kcphotos/oakland/large/oak_6382.jpg (broken link)

So much so that Jack London Square/Waterfront District is now the 2nd richest neighborhood in the entire city.
Average Family Income, 2008
2008 $211,234

The first highrise condo tower just opened in the waterfront area and it breaks with the industrial-looking projects before.
The Ellington at 222 Broadway


Actually, down Embarcadero, the $3 Billion 0ak to 9th project proposes millions of dollars of public greenspace:
http://www.oakto9th.com/images/splash.jpg (broken link)

They included that as part of their outreach to the community as part of the project's long term legacy.

The rest of the project is quite impressive.

Its currently mired in lawsuits brought on by NIMBYs but the city council approved it back in January.

Anyway, there are some other very impressive projects that will continue to transform the waterfront but are probably on hold until economic conditions improve.

Make a nice long waterfront park for both people and nature rather than concrete and glass jungles?

In theory its a great idea, but I just don't see people going there just for the sake of hanging out.
Union Point Park was built a few years ago right on the waterfront and imo its incredibly underutilized except by people who have secret rendevouzes with their lovers.(Im not talking from experience(LOL) but the times Ive taken my dog there I always see people coming in separate cars then getting into one car for a while-the windows get all foggy then half an hour later they separate back into their own cars and are off-yuck.) Maybe its cause of the out of the way location. I dunno.

Maybe such a park would thrive closer to Downtown such as what you propose.

In any event, thanks for bringing up this topic-I love talking about Oakland developments.

[llowllevellowll]

Good post, Montclair.

OP, I definitely think some people take it too far, but I have more of a problem with people developing farmland. I have no trouble with ideas to re-develop neighborhoods that are either blighted or not being taken advantage of to their full extent.

If you truly love your city, your town, etc, one thing you want to get out of the redevelopment is the opportunity, not just for a greater sense of community, but greater ability to create wealth. You can best accomplish that through garnering property tax - both for residential and commercial. I think, somewhat like from Montclair's photographs, that it can be done both at the same time.

You redevelop an area, have your residential sector, have your commercial sector... condos, a line of shops, a hotel, and greenspace to boot. In my home town of Cleveland, we accomplished something similar when we rebuilt Cleveland Browns Stadium. No one ever spent any time there, but put the stadium there, add a science center, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a line of vendors and shops, and a greenspace (Voinovich Park) - now, all of a sudden people are down there having lunch on the grass and watching the Goodtime III take off. Before? It was dirty industry and dilapidated docks.

I like re-development.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

I definitely think some people take it too far, but I have more of a problem with people developing farmland.

I agree 100%.

Which is why I am totally at a loss to explain this deranged proposal for Treasure Island:
http://www.triplepundit.com/treasure%20island.jpg (broken link)
They act like theyre returning TI to its organic self, but HELLO? Its MANMADE

Organic farms? Wetlands? Open Space? Say what?
Im sorry , but build damn casinos on that thing. Unleash Donald Trump on that thing. How about a futuristic stadium that connects to the mainland via some underground expressway that runs parallel to the Transbay Tube. I dunno, but anything but farmlands and wetlands. The whole darn thing is surrounded by wet.(the bay)

Something with a pop.

They have some nice highrises planned facing The City.


But I see yet another squandered opportunity with the rest of the plan. Bay Area planners don't do things BIG anymore.
http://www.urban-logic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/future-treasure-island-panoramic.jpg (broken link)

[Gentoo]

Very good points. I am totally for redeveloping blighted areas as well. Some however could be turn into green space. I also hate the development of farm land It's good for a city to have lots of green. Oakland as a general rule is green though just not in that area.

18Montclair, that first shot is nice and actually loks like parts of downtown SD that were recently redeveloped. I guess if people won't use such a place then it would be a waste to put it there. I guess that park is nothing like this?



People just chillin in the sun.

As far as treasure Island, I can see both sides of that. Having open land would be good if they plan on having people live in whatever they're going to put there. However, while I'm not a fan of casinos, hell why not on TI? give the BA a place to play as it's one of the only metro areas that has no casinos very close by. Why not right there with a view of the city?

What I do like is how they redeveloped Emeryville. When I moved to SD, that place was a no mans land, now it's one of my favorite places to go. Perhaps they can do this in Oakland as well?

[bellalunatic]

If the theory is to turn TI back to it's 'organic origins' then wouldn't it be under water?
Wasn't this the Treasure Island that was made by the Army Corps of Engineers, like Alameda?

They've been blathering on about developing TI for ages now, and I don't see how it would make sense really.

Just know that whenever they do build some ugly arse casino you better hope they put in their OWN island police station (they're going to need it) and fire station w/paramedics and their own desalination plant for their exclusive use.
Also, you better hope they have high speed ferry boats going back and forth every 5 minutes otherwise the traffic on the Bay Bridge will be impossible.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Why not allow developers put up what ever the market will pay for. If big buildings are profitable and the developer can pay for it or sell it, then why not? If the economy is not doing too well, (Hello) and a devlopment can not pay for itself then their is no need to build.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Montclair, what you are seeing with TI is the "Killer Anthropogenic Global Warming" (yes that's meant to resemble the much hyped "Killer Bees" canard) syndrome. Since most politicians and elites view Killer AGW as a serious threat and envisage a levee bound SF waterfront from all the continental ice in Antarctica and Greenland melting (which is actually not happening), they feel an urge to "mitigate" all the "carbon footprints" of any given development. That's what all the wetlands and such are all about in that plan.

(Newsflash - the CRU, UEA, NASA, GISS, et all, are all lying frauds - while there may be some slight climate impacts from CO2, they are no where near the fraudulent hype these so called orgs have been spewing)

[llowllevellowll]

Soapbox, anyone?

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Not sure what the CO2 levels are around here, but the BS level is very visible. (In reference to global warming and not development.)