Oakland Projects and Business Development (Marina, Orinda: where to live, gardening, inclusive)

[SocSciProf]

Originally Posted by jade408

I've had getting rid of my car on the mid-term roadmap for a bit. Initially I was hoping to move to a more transit oriented neighborhood (with closer car share stops), I haven't moved yet. Hence, no push to get rid of my car. I also have a plan b, but that is about 2 years out. One of the 2 will happen in the next 2ish years, but as it stands using my deeded parking spot has no impact on anyone else.

When the time does come for me to move, a parking space isn't on my priority list. Unfortunately you think your preferences should inform all development. Most of our development assumes everyone has a car and needs a parking space. This increases the cost of development significantly. We have a housing affordability problem, and removing parking spaces does a good deal to remedy that. About 20% of Oaklanders do not have cars anyway, why should 100% of our housing be designed for people with cars?

First, Jade earlier indicated she lived near Piedmont Avenue. That's a pretty transit-accessible area of Oakland. Second, she indicated she had no need for a car for commuting, and made much of using only for one 100 mile back-and-forth to exurbia. That was my whole point--people who have the means will keep a non-commute-car just for such trips. Third, I asked only because you said you did not need a car. Now you say the parking space you have means it has no effect on anyone--totally destroying both your key previous claims that: 1)builders don't need to provide at least one parking space per unit, and 2)someone is hurt if they do provide at least one parking space per unit. If the builders of your building had not provided a parking space for your unit, your car would be out on the street--just like all the cars of those parking-space-free units of the building we were discussing. And, if your parking your car off-street hurts no one--as you say above--then it would not hurt anyone to build buildings with one parking space per unit.

This isn't my "preference." I have space for my car, and the building is no threat to me, its enough blocks away I won't be impacted (although its close enough I will hear the gnashing of teeth) ;-) I address this issue because I happen to care about the city and the future. Whatever gets built, we as a city are stuck with it for decades. In general, but especially in building and infrastructure creation moments, it pains me to see slogans replace analysis, especially when people voicing the slogans can't even live by the slogans they impose on others. Sure, someday you'll ditch your car. I'm sure you have the best of intentions to do so. But why don't you reflect on your experience and consider the insight it supplies for others' possible plight? Why don't you wonder: If I find it that hard to do, should I assume others will have it easier?

There are lots of reasons others *won't* have it easier--complex families (e.g., child visitation needs), poor policy leading to poor transit development (hopefully this won't happen, but would you bet your mobility on it), health reasons (that prevent standing at transportation hubs for long periods), and more. Why assume everyone will have no more difficulty than you--even as you yourself STILL have your car?

Finally, if the developers make one parking space per unit, if you happen to be right and the residents don't want/need a car, the resident could rent the space our to someone else, making the unit more affordable. Basic capital opportunity. But creating insufficiency from the start? That's just shortsighted folly. Alas, that is what all too often passes for "good policy" in many places.

[SocSciProf]

Originally Posted by ketch89

SoSciProf seems to prefer anecdotes to statistics, so here's mine:

I'm a car-free Oaklander in a building with no parking at all. I live about 1 mile from 19th street bart, and bike everywhere. When I take a recreational trip (my girlfriend and I enjoy camping...) we get a car from enterprise... It's significantly cheaper and easier than owning a car for us. Different lifestyles are different. Not everyone needs or wants a car.

One quick question: Are all your building-mates car-free, too?

Anyway, good for you, finding a lifestyle that works for you. And, I agree not everyone needs or wants a car. Still, according to Jade, 80% of Oaklanders have cars. So, if you're interested in statistics, there's that.

[04kL4nD]

one of the reasons I LIKE living in Oakland is that having a car isn't a huge hassle. I absolutely 100% need a car to get to work and transit isn't a viable option. with that said, unless I'm heading out for the weekend on a trip, my car stays parked in the garage all weekend.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by SocSciProf

First, Jade earlier indicated she lived near Piedmont Avenue. That's a pretty transit-accessible area of Oakland. Second, she indicated she had no need for a car for commuting, and made much of using only for one 100 mile back-and-forth to exurbia. That was my whole point--people who have the means will keep a non-commute-car just for such trips. Third, I asked only because you said you did not need a car. Now you say the parking space you have means it has no effect on anyone--totally destroying both your key previous claims that: 1)builders don't need to provide at least one parking space per unit, and 2)someone is hurt if they do provide at least one parking space per unit. If the builders of your building had not provided a parking space for your unit, your car would be out on the street--just like all the cars of those parking-space-free units of the building we were discussing. And, if your parking your car off-street hurts no one--as you say above--then it would not hurt anyone to build buildings with one parking space per unit.

My building was built in the 1950s, where they decided everyone needed a car. Most of the buildings on my street also have garages. When I moved in, I needed the car for my commute so I chose an apartment based on my necessity to have a parking space. The vast majority of buildings in Oakland have parking garages. Adding a few new ones without is pretty minor. We no longer live in an era where everyone expects and wants to have a car. And if you need a parking space, you can choose any one of the 90% of buildings that have parking. My sibling also lives in Piedmont Ave. She doesn't drive and picked a building that charged for parking so she could save money!

This isn't my "preference." I have space for my car, and the building is no threat to me, its enough blocks away I won't be impacted (although its close enough I will hear the gnashing of teeth) ;-) I address this issue because I happen to care about the city and the future. Whatever gets built, we as a city are stuck with it for decades. In general, but especially in building and infrastructure creation moments, it pains me to see slogans replace analysis, especially when people voicing the slogans can't even live by the slogans they impose on others. Sure, someday you'll ditch your car. I'm sure you have the best of intentions to do so. But why don't you reflect on your experience and consider the insight it supplies for others' possible plight? Why don't you wonder: If I find it that hard to do, should I assume others will have it easier?

There is analysis. In many areas of town there are way too many parking spaces! Downtown / Uptown has a parking vacancy rare of about 35% on an average day! Parking is overbuilt in many places. Why waste space and resources to leave empty parking spaces!

There are lots of reasons others *won't* have it easier--complex families (e.g., child visitation needs), poor policy leading to poor transit development (hopefully this won't happen, but would you bet your mobility on it), health reasons (that prevent standing at transportation hubs for long periods), and more. Why assume everyone will have no more difficulty than you--even as you yourself STILL have your car?

Finally, if the developers make one parking space per unit, if you happen to be right and the residents don't want/need a car, the resident could rent the space our to someone else, making the unit more affordable. Basic capital opportunity. But creating insufficiency from the start? That's just shortsighted folly. Alas, that is what all too often passes for "good policy" in many places.

Parking spaces do not rent for the cost of construction. Avoiding the spaces all together is what makes things more affordable! An underground spot costs $50-80k to build!

[Oakformonday]

I just read Jade408 above. I live in Adams Point where most of the multi-unit building were built in the 1960-70's. Each apartment/condo has one parking space. I have a deeded space with my condo. Since I do not have a car, I rent it out to a neighbor for $100/month. It is a win-win for both of us. I will probably need a car in the future so it is good to know that I have that option. BUT, I don't think every new building built near BART needs to have a space for every unit. The Millennials are not even learning to drive. The major appeal to these building is there proximity to public transportation. The Sociology? professor is using out of date data to form his opinion.

There will still be plenty of places for those that want parking. I do not see an issue here. If you want parking then you only look at places with parking. It's like if you want 2 bedrooms then you don't look at a studio. Right?

[jsba]

33-story tower in Oakland's Uptown nears final vote - San Francisco Business Times

This looks promising for downtown if it get built to spec. Good height and market rate housing in a prime location on Broadway right over BART. As with all projects of this size in Oakland lets see if it actually gets built.

[ketch89]

I really can't believe that they're putting 350 parking spaces on top of BART... There are plenty of people who would live in that building without a car. Should be 1 space to every 3 units... Or just parking for the 2 bedroom units only. Such a waste of space that could otherwise be more housing.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by ketch89

I really can't believe that they're putting 350 parking spaces on top of BART... There are plenty of people who would live in that building without a car. Should be 1 space to every 3 units... Or just parking for the 2 bedroom units only. Such a waste of space that could otherwise be more housing.

This article explains Oakland's screwed up parking rules really well!

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oaklan...wFullText=true

The thing is, DTO has so many garages that are empty and closed at night. We need to do more sharing of garages, especially in northern downtown / Uptown areas.

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by jsba

33-story tower in Oakland's Uptown nears final vote - San Francisco Business Times

This looks promising for downtown if it get built to spec. Good height and market rate housing in a prime location on Broadway right over BART. As with all projects of this size in Oakland lets see if it actually gets built.

With 1br rents up 20% yoy, there should be no reason these projects shouldn't get built because the demand is there. All in the vicinity of the 19th st BART station, near Uptown Station, and a few blocks from Lake Merritt. These towers would add to the skyline and density of towers in that area, increase foot traffic and livelihood from the 1000+ new residential units they bring, yakkity *** ***....Uptown is destined to become THE neighborhood.

1900 Broadway (339ft- 33 stories- 345 units)
brick-llp

1700 Webster (24 stories- 206 unit tower)
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...and-tower.html

1640 broadway (247 unit) proposal that's in talks with a financial investor..
Lennar Corp. in talks to invest in Oakland residential tower at 1640 Broadway - San Francisco Business Times

2270 Broadway (289ft- 24 stories- 223 units)
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...partments.html

[PixelatedTherapy]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Well, here goes.

I saw this on GlobeStreet and thought it was interesting:



City Walk Rendering:

http://portalimageworks.com/Projects...erior_3_sm.jpg

Glad its going to be completed.

I think it's cool that Oakland is becoming more desirable, but no one seems to understands that this type of yuppie aimed development is displacing thousands of working class people in Oakland, which isn't fair and seems to be predatory in some cases.