Anti-prop 8, pro-equality rally at City Hall on Saturday

The passage of Proposition 8, which eliminated the right of same sex couples to marry in California, put a serious damper on what should have been an amazing election night for many of us. While 52.2% of California voters said yes, we can take maybe a little bit of comfort in the fact that bigotry isn’t quite so much in vogue in our neck of the woods - 62.2% of Alameda County voters said no. (Just for fun - our no vote was bested only by Marin, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma Counties, and we tied with Mendocino County.)

It was a banner day for intolerance, not just in California, but across the country. Read more

New Park in the DTO! (with pictures)

I know I promised many of you that I’d have all my endorsements for the quickly approaching election published today, but, um, I just couldn’t finish. But Monday! I promise, I will have it all done and ready for you on Monday. So because I actually want to be able to get all that done on time, I’m keeping things here short today. Read more

Is there no limit to the DTO’s appetite for the world’s most tasteless sandwich?

Seriously! How many Subways can downtown support? There’s already three I can think of, and I believe another one coming in the retail space at the new Madison Lofts building in the Lake Merrit apartment district, and then today I was just innocently walking along San Pablo, and I see this! Read more

Encinal Tower renderings

As promised, I now have fancy renderings of Encinal Tower to share with you guys, courtesy of the nice people over at SOM. Read more

Spotted: Near Riot at the West Oakland Multi-Purpose Center

V Smoothe, here. Your one and only source on the scandalous circus that constitutes Oakland politics.

Okay, it wasn’t quite so bad as the headline suggests. But OMFG, last night was like, the mother of all meetings. Well, at the very least, it was hands down the best one I’ve been to in the past year. Read more

The tallest building in Oakland! No, a new one.

OMG, folks. I know I promised to write about crime like a week ago, and I will, soon, I swear. I was going to do it today, but I am just way too excited right now to blog about anything but Encinal Tower.

Read more

Good news about City Walk

Looks like downtown’s inventory of abandoned half-built buildings is about to be cut in half, with news in the Trib of construction restarting on City Walk.

The Trib’s story is weirdly optimistic, with lines like:

The framework of the building was largely completed when the work halted. City officials said they were dismayed at the halt in construction.

So…the framing on this building, I have gotten the very clear impression from a number of different people that there’s some kind of problem with it and will have to be removed and rebuilt for the third time. The staff report (PDF) for a Council discussion of the project last winter seems to concur:

Project construction was delayed several times due to problems with framing sub-contractors. The initial framers performed substandard work and had labor problems which required them to be replaced. Work had to be removed and rebuilt again. A third framing sub-contractor was later hired. Olson eventually wrote the general contractor a default letter regarding various construction defects and other problems on the site. Rather than correct the defects, the contractor vacated the site.

Anyway, at that December meeting, the Council amended their DDA with Olson Co. (I wrote about it for the Oakbook) to extend their completion deadline, which, under the original agreement, had been the end of 2007. The Council agreed to an extension for the project, giving them a new completion deadline of June 30, 2009 and conditioning that they restart construction by January 31, 2008.

As anyone who walks by 14th and Jefferson can tell you, construction obviously did not restart by that date. In fact, in today’s Trib story, we learn that Olson is hoping to resume construction by November!

Look…the City is in a really difficult position here. Olson has totally failed to meet their deadlines, which means we are entitled to penalize them. Of course, doing so will only compound their troubles and might make it even less likely that the damn thing ever gets finished, and of course, nobody wants that. The nightmare scenario (which could happen, though almost definitely won’t) would be the City itself getting stuck owning a partially built project with construction flaws. Nobody wants that. So the temptation to be accommodating and just give Olson whatever they need is understandable.

But it’s also not fair to everyone else. I’m, well, pretty pro-development for the most part, and most of the arguments I hear from anti-growth types give me a huge headache and make me roll my eyes. But when they complain that they don’t trust the developers will keep this promise or that promise or that whatever condition of approval will actually be met…well, I see where they’re coming from. It’s pretty hard to argue against that when the City just lets a developer violate their DDA and stick the community with a big hunk of blight for a year (or in the case of 14th and Jackson, let properties sit shrink-wrapped for years). I’m sorry that Olson had that long legal battle with their contractor and I understand times are tough for the building industry, but we can’t let our sympathy get in the way of good government, and we shouldn’t forget that times also got tough for the small businesses that had to live next to the abandoned construction site - until they closed!

At last night’s Planning Commission meeting, all these people from the neighborhood around the new Kaiser Hospital were like, completely freaking out over the idea that one of the three new buildings might not get built at the same time as the others. When the Commissioners asked why we couldn’t just require them to build everything at once, the response was that we have no way to enforce such a condition. They should figure out a way to enforce things, whether that involves writing penalties into the approval (That’s just an example off the top of my head, I don’t actually know if you’re allowed to do that, but I’m sure that there must be something) or what, because letting developers get away with not keeping promises only gives more fuel to the complaints of anti-development activists.

In this case, we have a DDA that gives us very clear power to extract penalties from Olson for failing to meet deadlines, and the City should absolutely do so, even if it causes more headaches on this particular project. It would suck to have City Walk sitting around abandoned even longer, and it would suck even more if the City ended up having to take it away and tear the damn thing down and start looking all over again for a developer (one hopes it things would not get to that point), but it would also establish a precedent that we do not consider it acceptable to violate the terms we set. And in the long run, that would be better for everyone in Oakland.

Tower and base

So the new CBD Zoning (PDF) is going to the Zoning Update Committee again today, and the recommendations continue to be completely bizarre, overly complicated, and completely unconcerned with the historic character of downtown (in fact, on Monday’s downtown walking tour, at one point someone asked strategic planner Neil Gray, who was explaining the code to the group, which of the 8 or so buildings we were looking at right then would be permitted under the new code, and he was forced to admit that not a single one of them conformed).

I’ve said all this before. What I want to talk about today is tower and base. The form being dictated by the proposed code is terrible. I’m sorry, it’s just awful. I simply cannot understand why anyone would think it’s a good idea in the first place, and I absolutely cannot understand why, after seeing this silly design model month after month after month, the Committee members have not asked staff to eliminate it.

So in case you haven’t been following the discussion, this is what the form-based aspect of the proposed new zoning code does: buildings have a maximum allowable base height and also a maximum allowable tower height. The idea here is that all new buildings will have a wide base on the street, but that the tall portion of the building will have a narrower tower. In the maximum height area, buildings are described as having “unlimited” heights. What is unlimited is the height of the tower - the base of the building has a maximum height of 120 feet.

On Monday’s walking tour, Gray pointed out the new Madison Lofts building as a “model” of what the new zoning is trying to achieve.

So you see how the bottom of the building goes all the way out to the sidewalk, and then the bulk of the building is smaller, so the upper floors are not flush with the sidewalk? Under the proposed code, all new buildings are supposed to look like that. And what I still cannot understand is why? Do people really think that this building is better because the tower is set back from the sidewalk? Unlike practically every other building in the neighborhood, the bulk of the building mass is not flush with the street - in what way does this improve the pedestrian experience? Who benefits from this? Is there really anyone who finds this shape aesthetic pleasing? I really, really, really just don’t understand why we would even consider dictating this very specific and very ugly form for every new building downtown. Who is benefitting? Who? And where in the LUTE is there any justification for doing this, because I sure as hell can’t find it.

The key to creating a pleasant streetscape and pleasant pedestrian experience is demanding quality ground floor treatments and design. I think, when you’re walking past the windows on the 14th Street side of this building, that it’s pretty pleasant. And I certainly don’t see how it would be less pleasant is the rest of the building was the same size as the ground floor portion. It seems to me that the only thing the tower/base regulations really achieve is a reduction of potential density, and I really don’t think it should be our goal to limit density in the Central Business District, home of 3 BART stations and most of the major bus lines in town, and Oakland’s best hope creating future employment opportunities and tax base growth. That’s like, exactly the opposite of what the General Plan says to do.

For a building roughly this size, the tower/base form is pointless, but relatively inoffensive. I mean, I think it sucks that the Madison Lofts are smaller than they need to be, but life goes on. But for larger buildings - well, frankly, it just looks stupid. For example, we started the tour at that huge surface parking lot at 14th and Jackson in front of the post office - the one where Chauncey Bailey was murdered. Gray explained that the proposed code for that lot would allow a base of 85 feet (the maximum base height for Height Area 4 has now been reduced from 100 feet to 85 feet for reasons beyond my comprehension), topped with a narrow tower of as much as 400 feet.

Again - why would anyone want to do this? Has anyone thought about what this is going to make downtown look like?

Think of the Trib Tower. Now imagine that the shorter part of the base was the same and the tower portion was like, twice as tall. That’s what we’re talking about. An exagerated version of what we’re talking about (nobody would build a tower so skinny now), but still, that’s the idea. Do people really think that would look good? I mean, I like the Trib Tower as much as the next girl - it’s fine to have a handful of buildings like that, they add some visual interest, I suppose. But do we really want every new building downtown to look like that? Do we really think that’s going “enhance” our skyline? Do we honestly think that this will make downtown a more pleasant place to be? Sigh. I just don’t get it.

Oh, and for those of you keeping score at home, the staff report (PDF) is once again wrong about the heights of existing buildings. On page 3 of the report, the description of Issue Area 1 claims that the buildings in the lakeside area south of 14th Street, like the County Courthouse and the Library, are between 40 at 87 feet in height. I swear, they tried to pull this with the Courthouse last meeting, too. Hi, folks - it’s a twelve story building. It isn’t 80 feet tall. In fact, according to CEDA’s own map (PDF), the Courthouse is 220 feet tall.

Related Posts:

• 07.16.08: An Alternative CBD Zoning Update
• 07.15.08: Can you make laws about building heights when you don’t know how tall buildings are?
• 05.21.08: CBD, back at ZUC
• 04.17.08: CBD Zoning Update Update
• 03.20.07: CBD at the ZUC
• 03.17.08: Zoning from Mars
• 03.02.08: Planning Commission approves new tallest building in Oakland - in December

601 City Center

Shorenstein’s new building at 12th and Jefferson downtown, 601 City Center, has a flickr page, with cool renderings, if anyone’s interested.

Related posts:

• 09.26.2007: Journalism by press release
• 09.27.2007: Shorenstein building update

Jean Quan continues to be totally out of touch

So this morning, Ron Dellums and Sandre Swanson held an event at the new Forest City Uptown Project to, I don’t know, talk about how great it is or something. Never one to miss an opportunity to stand in front of a camera, Jean Quan showed up. She jumped in to share her thoughts about the project, telling everyone that it’s important to remember that unlike most new developments downtown, the Forest City project is rental units, not ownership. This is true. It is important to remember that. Not nearly enough rental housing gets built in this town. But then she lost me, when she followed that statement with:

This ensures that families who can’t afford to buy condos can live downtown.

She then repeated variations of that sentence like 4 times, with multiple references to “working people.” (As if everyone who buys a condo just sits around all day eating peeled grapes and living off a trust fund or something.)

So, there’s no question that Uptown is totally drool worthy, and a wonderful addition to downtown. I’m not planning on moving in, but I am hoping to make friends with someone who does, so I can hang out at their pool. But at $2,400/month for a two bedroom apartment, I’m thinking Quan has a very different idea of what’s within the reach of all these “working people” than me or just about anyone else in Oakland.

Related Posts:

• 07.15.2008 Police parcel tax will be on the November ballot
• 07.11.2008: Jean Quan to Oakland: Please, give more of your money to non-profits
• 06.11.2008: Jean Quan doesn’t believe crime is up
• 04.24.2008: Jean Quan: out to lunch in San Ramon

An alternative CBD zoning update

So the Planning Commission’s Zoning Update Committee (ZUC) will meet today to discuss again the zoning update for the Central Business District (CBD). I’ve written about the zoning update process at length already, and at this point, I’m kind of bored with it all. I’m tired of writing the same things about how this plan is just terrible in every way. It stifles architectural creativity. It does not take into account the demands or realities of the market. Looking at the rules about minimum lot sizes and maximum buildable lot areas, you have to seriously question whether anyone even took a walk around the CBD and looked at what land there is to develop before trying to write rules for it. Read more

Can you make laws about building heights when you don’t know how tall buildings are?

Planning staff seems to think so.

We went over this, already, of course, after a meeting way back in March about the proposed CBD height limits, where a handout (PDF!) was distributed to help illustrate for the audience what these height limits would mean. That is, what does a 300 foot tall building look like, a 200 foot tall building, and so on. The heights on the handout were off, not just a little, but by measures of as much as 170 feet!

Another handout listed existing building heights downtown (PDF!), and the numbers there were wildly off as well. Here’s the breakdown: Read more

Next Page »