Comments on: What land swap? http://www.abetteroakland.com/what-land-swap/2007-07-31 The Continuing Story of a City Fri, 10 Sep 2010 01:02:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: V Smoothe http://www.abetteroakland.com/what-land-swap/2007-07-31/comment-page-1#comment-42 V Smoothe Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:22:37 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/?p=27#comment-42 Deckin - Nancy Nadel never stops shocking me. I suppose I should be used to her hypocrisy by now, and expect it from her. Still, I was floored when I read that about the birds. Eric - Broadway should have more high-rises, but I think that commercial, not residential development is the way to go. It is a busy (and loud) street, and I simply can't imagine that a large number of people would be willing to buy condos right on a major downtown thoroughfare. We'll see how Broadway Grand does, but I think that location is removed enough from downtown proper that its success (or lack thereof) would be reflective of what could happen on 17th or 11th. Deckin again - Not too off topic. I always enjoy your comments (although I do miss your blog). I have not read the book you mentioned, but I will try to do so. It is indeed frustrating that Ron Dellums seems far more fixated on chasing phantom government grants than trying to maximize Oakland's own resources in a way that might do some real long-term good. Deckin -

Nancy Nadel never stops shocking me. I suppose I should be used to her hypocrisy by now, and expect it from her. Still, I was floored when I read that about the birds.

Eric -

Broadway should have more high-rises, but I think that commercial, not residential development is the way to go. It is a busy (and loud) street, and I simply can’t imagine that a large number of people would be willing to buy condos right on a major downtown thoroughfare. We’ll see how Broadway Grand does, but I think that location is removed enough from downtown proper that its success (or lack thereof) would be reflective of what could happen on 17th or 11th.

Deckin again -

Not too off topic. I always enjoy your comments (although I do miss your blog). I have not read the book you mentioned, but I will try to do so. It is indeed frustrating that Ron Dellums seems far more fixated on chasing phantom government grants than trying to maximize Oakland’s own resources in a way that might do some real long-term good.

]]> By: Deckin http://www.abetteroakland.com/what-land-swap/2007-07-31/comment-page-1#comment-40 Deckin Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:03:31 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/?p=27#comment-40 I hope this isn't too general or off the specific topic, but there's a great book that should be required reading for city officials. It's called The Social Atom, and it's by a physicist named Mark Buchanan. It's really a compilation of work that started with Thomas Schelling in the 60s about social change, but the current mayor's fascination with top-down social engineering and making a city into a 'model city' by means of government grants sorely needs some <i>fact based</i> cold water. Buchanan talks about Times Square in the 90s and how that area went from drug infested cesspool to family friendly tourist attraction and it's clear that one of the largest stimuli was large scale private investment--in that case Disney. That made it safe for other interests to invest in there and that brought people who demanded police protection (or better, whom the PD wisely saw required it) and then, just like Vonnegut's Ice 9, awoosh, the neighborhood changes. Not from getting more grants from the state, not from any central decision on the part of the city (in fact, the city was as surprised by the resurgence as anyone), but by letting interests take risks and bring in people. Once that happened, lo and behold, things got better for everyone willing to obey the law, rich and poor alike. And yet, our current mayor's mantra is that development must be viewed with suspicion, if not outright hostility. Oakland is so close to a real tipping point, if we could just lose the politicians whose belief systems are faith based relics based on their youthful influences in the 1960s and get some politicians up to date with current fact based research on how cities actually do change. (Apologies for the length.) I hope this isn’t too general or off the specific topic, but there’s a great book that should be required reading for city officials. It’s called The Social Atom, and it’s by a physicist named Mark Buchanan. It’s really a compilation of work that started with Thomas Schelling in the 60s about social change, but the current mayor’s fascination with top-down social engineering and making a city into a ‘model city’ by means of government grants sorely needs some fact based cold water. Buchanan talks about Times Square in the 90s and how that area went from drug infested cesspool to family friendly tourist attraction and it’s clear that one of the largest stimuli was large scale private investment–in that case Disney. That made it safe for other interests to invest in there and that brought people who demanded police protection (or better, whom the PD wisely saw required it) and then, just like Vonnegut’s Ice 9, awoosh, the neighborhood changes. Not from getting more grants from the state, not from any central decision on the part of the city (in fact, the city was as surprised by the resurgence as anyone), but by letting interests take risks and bring in people. Once that happened, lo and behold, things got better for everyone willing to obey the law, rich and poor alike. And yet, our current mayor’s mantra is that development must be viewed with suspicion, if not outright hostility. Oakland is so close to a real tipping point, if we could just lose the politicians whose belief systems are faith based relics based on their youthful influences in the 1960s and get some politicians up to date with current fact based research on how cities actually do change. (Apologies for the length.)

]]> By: Eric http://www.abetteroakland.com/what-land-swap/2007-07-31/comment-page-1#comment-39 Eric Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:02:06 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/?p=27#comment-39 The low-rise buildings currently on Broadway aren't really an ideal use of this land -- Broadway *ought* to be more high-rise than it is, so I can only hope that the remaining vacant lots (at 11th, 17th) will be used wisely. That said, this location on the lake is equally appropriate for high-rise development. As already remarked, Oakland's tallest is already on the Lake. Calling this project "sprawl" is utter nonsense. The low-rise buildings currently on Broadway aren’t really an ideal use of this land — Broadway *ought* to be more high-rise than it is, so I can only hope that the remaining vacant lots (at 11th, 17th) will be used wisely. That said, this location on the lake is equally appropriate for high-rise development. As already remarked, Oakland’s tallest is already on the Lake. Calling this project “sprawl” is utter nonsense.

]]> By: Deckin http://www.abetteroakland.com/what-land-swap/2007-07-31/comment-page-1#comment-38 Deckin Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:12:40 +0000 http://www.abetteroakland.com/?p=27#comment-38 Exactly what is 'Noodles' thinking about when she's talking about birds and this relates to a highrise how? Does she think another building will throw off those damn geese? And Naomi Schiff should be singled out for a precious skewering. She says that as we get more dense we need more, not less, open space. Of course, if she has her way, we'll <i>never</i> get more dense in the first place. So were she to be successful, we'd need absolutely no more green space--let's just leave it all parking lots! Exactly what is ‘Noodles’ thinking about when she’s talking about birds and this relates to a highrise how? Does she think another building will throw off those damn geese? And Naomi Schiff should be singled out for a precious skewering. She says that as we get more dense we need more, not less, open space. Of course, if she has her way, we’ll never get more dense in the first place. So were she to be successful, we’d need absolutely no more green space–let’s just leave it all parking lots!

]]>