Oakland Projects and Business Development (San Francisco, San Leandro: duplexes, single, community)

[CirclingLogan]

Yeah, supertalls aren't necessary for a good neighborhood, but they can anchor/kickstart an area.

I would like to see more rowhouse developement, personally. The areas of western downtown/uptown have beautiful Victorians randomly surrounded by parking lots and other desolate spaces. If those areas were filled in with modern, contemporary rowhouses, a really livable, human-scale neighborhood could exist right on the edge of downtown, and the colorful Victorians would really pop among the modern architecture. Also, you really want a good amount of smaller buildings for future revitalization after inevitable decline. It's hard for the gays to move in and gentrify skyscrapers.

[CirclingLogan]

These are the kinds of developments I'm talking about:



They're all over Chicago.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by CirclingLogan

These are the kinds of developments I'm talking about:



They're all over Chicago.

I totally agree with this and your last post.

[borninamess]

i'm going post here just to agree with the infill/rowhouse/couple of stories over commercial over towers development. one would think after the installation of towers and subsequent destruction from the redevelopment of the 50s/60s would have eradicated this lazy approach... oakland has so many parking lots that are crying out for housing and commercial built to a human scale...

[wooliemonster]

Townhouses are great, I owned one for several years. But they aren't really that dense, typically. Typically 20-30 du/ac. Mid-rises are more appropriate for an area as transit rich and central as downtown Oakland and nearby, imho.

[CirclingLogan]

Originally Posted by wooliemonster

Townhouses are great, I owned one for several years. But they aren't really that dense, typically. Typically 20-30 du/ac. Mid-rises are more appropriate for an area as transit rich and central as downtown Oakland and nearby, imho.

Eh. I moved from Logan Circle in DC. Far more dense than anything in Oakland, and it's 66% row houses, 33% 4-12 story apartment buildings. Of course, many of them had been subdivided into multiple condos, but that's kinda the point. Small dwellings allow constant revitalization by small investors in future generations. If a neighborhood of all large buildings falls into decline, it runs the risk of becoming a permanent slum.

[04kL4nD]

Yeah, when I think of highrises in dense urban areas, I tend to think 'Housing Projects'- at least in most US cities.

Those renderings you posted would be PERFECT for Oakland btw.

[jade408]

Recap of Oakland's startup weekend:

https://www.edsurge.com/n/2014-02-10...-in-a-thousand

[jade408]

Originally Posted by CirclingLogan

Eh. I moved from Logan Circle in DC. Far more dense than anything in Oakland, and it's 66% row houses, 33% 4-12 story apartment buildings. Of course, many of them had been subdivided into multiple condos, but that's kinda the point. Small dwellings allow constant revitalization by small investors in future generations. If a neighborhood of all large buildings falls into decline, it runs the risk of becoming a permanent slum.

The Gold Coast and Adams Point areas of Oakland are pretty dense. Lots of buildings of moderate height with 25k+ density.

[CirclingLogan]

Originally Posted by jade408

The Gold Coast and Adams Point areas of Oakland are pretty dense. Lots of buildings of moderate height with 25k+ density.

Yeah, Adam's Point has great density, though it further demonstrates my point. The larger buildings in AP built in the 60s are far more likely to be in poor shape, while the single-family homes and 1920s 4-plexes have mostly been renovated.