Condo projects are subdivisions and have more hoops to jump through than rental apartments with no subdivision plans. Projects subject to EIRs (there are a number of ways this can be triggered) may be subject to additional requirements, often called “mitigations,” in hopes of lessening environmental effects. This is more or less at the discretion of planning commission and city council, in the end.

In recent times both Oakland Heritage Alliance and staff have tried to attach conditions that connect demolition to actual steps toward doing the project, because we have seen too many cases of demolition followed by nothing.

Currently, the staff is drafting and commission will be reviewing a more comprehensive set of rules for demolition of historic resources. We have been hoping this will clarify things both for developers and for the community, so we don’t have to expend so much energy negotiating on a case by case basis.

In berkeley and sf you can’t demo buildings over a certain size until you’ve gotten approved plan for development?

The old building does have some historic merit, and I believe a B rating in the city’s historic survey. Some people advocated for incorporating it into project, which might have been feasible if seriously considered. TC was reluctant to do this kind of hybrid project, although the lot is certainly large enough. Much was made of “toxics” and that may have some basis. But the main argument TC made was that potential tenants might be creeped out that it had once been a funeral home–even though some very lively exercisers had been using the place for a long time.

Neighbors had concerns about having a tall blank parking garage podium abutting them, right on lot lines. There are some quite nice houses around there, and it is across the street from a historic church. So minor design modifications were made after some conversation with the immediate neighbors.

The Planning Commission required a contribution to the Facade Improvement Fund in mitigation for demolishing the old building, and required all permits to be paid for and approved before demolition could occur. A long string of agendized hearings were cancelled, as TC dragged out the process for months while the economy cratered.

Subsequently TC made the deal with the housing authority. Now the housing authority says the deal is off. There was loud neighborhood opposition (some neighbors would like to retain the old building and have a market-rate housing development incorporate it; some just want the market-rate housing). Many people suspect that once TC finally jumps through the various hoops, the old building will be cleared away and we’ll get:
a) a vacant lot or
b) housing authority will miraculously return with a housing project or maybe, possibly
c) TC will build a bunch of condos, try to rent them for awhile and pray for the market to cheer up.

It seems like really bad timing and quite possible that they will do something unexpected after this demolition occurs. Easy to imagine another twist in the story.

Oakland Heritage Alliance has repeatedly made the argument that TC should seriously look into incorporating the old building, but we have not, I must admit, made the kind of intense effort that we expend on the most greatly valued edifices.

We are very concerned, though, about the issue of premature demolition, for these reasons: a) it leads to vacant lots which become ugly or surface parking lots, and b) can cause the needless loss of historically or otherwise valuable buildings, when the project gets cancelled or the proponent is financially weak.

We don’t feel Trammell Crow has been entirely clear about their intentions. We also feel that the Housing Authority did not take speak with and work with the community and neighbors when they could have, if they really wanted to prove that the new project would be better built, better run, and a better neighbor than some of the old terrible projects nearby. They have a reputation to overcome.

I have the historic information on the building, if you want it, but am not going into it here as have gone on too long already. It is probably also available on the city’s website from the LPAB and Planning Commission hearings.

Correct me if wrong, but my impression of the surrounding area is that it was clear cut of residents in the late 50′s and early 60′s when the freeways went in and Pill Hill expanded. Other than the few residents of a few often chopped up exquisite single family homes left, and some interesting old apartment buildings, there just aren’t enough residents to raise a stink about any historical preservation or design review or plan to bring more poor people in.

it is time and thought consuming to demand expanded EIR’s, and question demolition permits. Those permits get issued, and once the asbestos clearances are ready, game over, fait accompli.

So does the Courthouse have official historical status, or pending or propose?

What’s the background and what are the issues? (what kind of courthouse was it and when?)

-len raphael
temescal

From the standpoint of someone rather enjoying the collapse of capitalism and the end of the folly and exploitation that these condos represent, City Walk stands as a monument to the end of capitalist domination of the economy. Maybe the future holds greater connection to nature and fewer hierarchical and exploitative economic and social relationships between people.

I don’t know how a sentence can “smell” of being a tenant but consider being more openminded; it could even be that your favorite poster on ABO is a renter.