But as for residential developers not being interested in industrial west oakland, I have to call BS. Up until city council approved the ILPP (provided the city planners’ office create flex space), there were developers and property owners championing residential development at every single meeting. Planning commission, both CEDA meetings, you name it. Once the proposal was approved, they dissappeared like a puff of smoke. I can tell you they sure as hell weren’t interested in coming to the stakeholders’ meeting. I also had a long conversation during election season with a lending officer from Bank of Alameda and all the plans they were trying to put together for funding residential development in case ILPP fell through.

And as for residential reversion, I did paint it a little too strongly as a “developer issue”. My bad. It’s also simply an organic issue about the natural progession of residents being drawn to “hip” artist areas. This issue isn’t really a HUGE problem by itself, but when you throw in the fact that it would also affect the ability of industry to get work done (noise complaints, pollution complaints, etc.) the problem gets quite compounded.

But regarding the “residential reversion” you’re so concerned about – I think this is a false fear spread by the industrial-land zealots. The lofts in San Francisco were never occupied by artists: the live/work spaces in SOMA were built to escape the office-space cap and then quickly transformed to residences after the dot-bomb. Considering there are not high fees or absolute caps for housing in Oakland, and demand appears to be less than stellar, it is unlikely that residential developers are interested in industrial land. They certainly aren’t interested in the live/work process going on now.

Who’s “road to gentrifcation” are we talking about? The whole point of ‘flex space’ and the stakeholder’s meeting with the city planners’ office was to help incorporate one group who suffers the effects of gentrification (artists/entrepenuers) into the protected land of another such effected group (industrial interests).

That being said, I’m all for gentrification in some areas. It can do a lot of nice things for a city. But you can’t let it happen for an entire city because cities need balance and diversity.

And as for Oakland being “over” for artists, I know a lot of artists that would lustily disagree with you. But even if that were so, I hardly see them being replaced by trust fund babies. I don’t see many Pac Heights’ers mingling with the “bridge and tunnel” crowd. With our current economy, I see artists being replaced by nothing. All the more reason to make them feel welcome and appreciated.

also, love the lebowski referecne. I’ll have a white russian for you after work.

I prefer to think that Oakland has a chance to avoid the mistakes of other cities. We don’t have an artist exodus yet and we have time to stop it.

The city won’t engage in any large scale displacement of artists any time soon. Large scale displacement of a demographic that is creative, educated, anti-authoritarian, and have flexible job schedules? You do the political math. We’re relatively safe. For now.

It’s clear to me that in many cases, quasi-legal buildings have been able to negotiate with the city. As long as they’re making improvements and there’s no imminently horrible danger, code evictions seem relatively uncommon, particularly with larger artist communities. The danger we face is when economics force us out. It’ll be a while.

—

What I’m trying to do is actually not about art. I don’t want special rules for artists, because I don’t want the government deciding who is an artist and who is not.

When we talk about artist’s work/live in industrial areas, we really should be talking about all high-impact entrepreneurs. Work/live is a vehicle for entrepreneurship. High-impact entrepreneurs would include everything from glass and metal artists to carpenters and electricians. It might also include importers, who need a lot of truck traffic and want to live in their working warehouses.

I believe this approach is better than providing artist-specific rules. When you have artist-specific rules, the only artists who can take advantage of them are usually already established. They’re also often the artists who are best at networking and paperwork, who in my experience, aren’t usually the best artists.

Also, if the focus is on high impact entrepreneurs, I believe we can create rules that more effectively exclude the luxury condos that both business and artists fear.

—

There are some in City Hall who think that artists aren’t real businesses. I disagree, quite a few local artists really are functioning businesses. But again, it’s not about the art. It’s about noisy entrepreneurship.

I am a work/live entrepreneur. I maintain a carpentry shop in my warehouse space. This week I will be hiring 2 local laborers from a legal labor agency, one local master carpenter, and a local engineer. All of these people are Oaklanders. I also buy all my lumber in Oakland from a locally owned yard. Because I don’t commute from the sticks, I don’t drive by non-Oakland stores on the way to and from work. I also don’t jam up the freeways.

I would love to see places created where contractor, metalworkers, artists, glassblowers and other noisy entrepreneurs can work, live, and incubate. If Oakland makes this possible, we can have real work/live that is green, promotes local businesses, promotes local business alliances, and has real potential to benefit the city. What’s not to like?

in the food chain, we come after cockroaches on your road to gentrification. we fulfill a need.

i’ve closed down cities before. SF, London, NYC, LA. easy to spot when its going to happen. first sign here: ruby room.

oakland is slow. but as far as artists go, oakland is over. big time. suit up for trust fund babies who like to give themselves that name.

and kids getting money from mommy and daddy for cannabis college degrees.

yikes.

http://www.abetteroakland.com/nancy-nadel-to-artists-move/2008-03-06

What an auspicious way to kick things off!