We have to make upper Broadway a pleasing residential and retail area connecting Rockridge to Downtown. This upper Broadway area has the potential to be a great pedestrian friendly neighborhood. The topography of the area is definitely conducive to walking and connecting the general populace to neighborhoods like Piedmont Ave., Adam’s Point, Lake Merritt, Uptown, Temescal etc.

Unfortunately, to build anything in Oakland, California, or in the United States, takes a gargantuan effort at a glacial pace. After returning from a two week visit to Portugal, it’s incredibly disheartening to see how far behind we’ve gotten as a Nation. Lisbon is a wonderful modern city with amazing historic architecture huge closed off squares and pedestrian areas, great public transportation, clean streets etc. However, they do pay heavy road tolls to maintain their awesome highway system. People pay high road and gasoline taxes for the benefit of the whole. Unfortunately, the right wingers in this Country have brainwashed the Nation into thinking the only rightful place for taxes is to keep us “safe” via a huge and wasteful military budget. The end result is that we are rotting from within.

Oakland has great potential, but I’m not holding my breath. I’ve seen the glacial pace of development in Oakland for many years.

Downtown department stores at one time before some of us were sentient (or born), but into the 1970s:

Large buildings still standing:
Kahn’s later Liberty House now the Rotunda
I. Magnin
Capwell’s/Emporium/Sears
Roos Brothers (15th & Broadway)

Demolished:
The Grey Shoppe (Broadway/20th, where nondescript grey office building stands amid parking lots) was a fabulous example of really good art deco, and I still grieve its demolition.

From the photo of just that one example it’s hard to see if there are other stores nearby. I remain concerned about the affects on other retail (& whether middle or upscale stores & boutiques would be willing or reluctant to commit), but am open to it if examples can be given/shown.

After all there’s no point to having a redevelopment area of just 1 store, or just big box retailers…

If you want to continue to encourage suburban use patterns, you put big-box stores out on the outskirts where people are forced to drive and where land is cheap enough that no one insists that parking lots be underground or non-existent. A true urban environment can handle large departments stores. The Rotunda Building, for example, was a giant department store.

http://www.amiba.net/pressroom/urban_target_10.05.html

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/080529bigbox.asp

http://recenter.tamu.edu/pdf/1747.pdf (possible look for the Kia bldg)

Would Target be willing to use some of those, as in a step towards what Wholefoods did? (& any examples of Target doing this) If not would that kill their prospects?

Personally I think their standard big box designs would fit better off the freeway or by itself off a major thoroughfare, not anchoring a multi-unit downtown complex (and would be f-ugly downtown, even if I agree it would be nice to have one).

I’m also concerned if any other stores or boutiques would want to locate near a discount store? There are NONE of significance near Target Albany, Walmart Oakland, or Costco.

Can a big box like Target be incorporated into a Berkeley style 4th St. or Walnut Creek style (just as general examples) or does one preclude the other?