Becky O'Malley posted an editorial reflecting on what she wanted to say to our class today.
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-11/article/29443
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Homeless Shelter
I found an article in the Berkeley Daily Planet about one of the homeless shelters in
Prior to 2002, the emergency shelter was provided by a number of churches on a rotating basis. In 2002, J.C. Orton, the operator of the shelter, was approached by the city. The city expressed interest in creating a permanent emergency shelter with funding from the city. Orton stated that the hardest part of creating the shelter was finding a venue. Orton contacted the churches that were involved in the rotational shelter program, and St Mark’s was the only one that expressed interest.
The doors at St Mark’s are open from 7-9pm for people to sign in. Each person is given a pad, a sheet, and a blanket for the night. The sheets are collected in the morning and are taking to the Laundromat. There are usually between 50 and 60 people, mostly between the ages of 26 and 55. There are usually 4 to 6 times as many men as women. The people using the shelter leave by 7am the next morning.
The article describes some personal stories from various people who have used the shelter. Most describe the difficulties they face in trying to find employment and a permanent place to live. One person expressed concern that the Public Commons for Everyone Initiative Berkeley will lead t more harassment of people who live on the streets.
Lydia Gans, St Mark’s Provides Shelter in Bad Weather, The Berkeley Daily Planet, January 29, 2008, available at http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-01-29/article/29041.
Monday, March 10, 2008
University Ponders Prospects for People's Park
People’s Park is about to reach its fortieth birthday and it needs to change. UC Berkeley has embarked on a comprehensive process to re-think how People's Park can better serve the campus and the broader community.
Despite the diversity of perspectives of the park's many stakeholders, most recognized the park's historical significance and had a strong interest in revitalizing the park to serve the community. Stakeholders also shared a common goal of having the park be a welcoming and safe open space.
Several intriguing possibilities were suggested as part of the park study, including using the park as a performance and fine arts public venue or as a learning space devoted to sustainability, health and wellness or global peace pursuits.
As a next step, the advisory board recommended that the university hold a design competition to solicit detailed plans for the park's redesign. The board has also recommended creating a new task force devoted to addressing issues of homelessness in and around People's Park.
Whether the park ultimately includes outdoor exhibits, a café, an amphitheater or meditation spots – or not – the goal is to create a park that can truly serve the community and campus.
University Ponders Prospects for People's Park, Cal Neighbors (Cal Neighbors, Berkeley, Cal.), Winter 2008, available at, http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2007-11-06/article/28293.
Despite the diversity of perspectives of the park's many stakeholders, most recognized the park's historical significance and had a strong interest in revitalizing the park to serve the community. Stakeholders also shared a common goal of having the park be a welcoming and safe open space.
Several intriguing possibilities were suggested as part of the park study, including using the park as a performance and fine arts public venue or as a learning space devoted to sustainability, health and wellness or global peace pursuits.
As a next step, the advisory board recommended that the university hold a design competition to solicit detailed plans for the park's redesign. The board has also recommended creating a new task force devoted to addressing issues of homelessness in and around People's Park.
Whether the park ultimately includes outdoor exhibits, a café, an amphitheater or meditation spots – or not – the goal is to create a park that can truly serve the community and campus.
University Ponders Prospects for People's Park, Cal Neighbors (Cal Neighbors, Berkeley, Cal.), Winter 2008, available at, http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2007-11-06/article/28293.
An Interesting Twist on Historic Preservation: “Twenty-first Century Pre-war Apartments”
Jennifer Bleyer, ‘Pre-war’ Apartments Rising Just Down the Street, March 9, 2008, New York Times, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/nyregion/thecity/09prew.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22historic+preservation%22&st=nyt&oref=slogin (last visited March 10, 2008).
I found this article in the New York Times yesterday highly amusing. It is also something of a play on, and at the same time critique of, the concept of historic classifications and preservation.
The article looks at a new high-rise residential development that recently sprouted up on the Upper West Side of New York City which is advertising its condos as “Twenty-first Century Pre-war Residences”. The article discusses the marketing value of these types of classifications.
Of course, the pro-development, New York City attitude highlighted in this article is better juxtaposed than compared to Berkeley’s anti-development sentiment, but I found it an interesting perspective for comparison, particularly for those of us planning to write on TDRs and historical preservation in this context.
I found this article in the New York Times yesterday highly amusing. It is also something of a play on, and at the same time critique of, the concept of historic classifications and preservation.
The article looks at a new high-rise residential development that recently sprouted up on the Upper West Side of New York City which is advertising its condos as “Twenty-first Century Pre-war Residences”. The article discusses the marketing value of these types of classifications.
Of course, the pro-development, New York City attitude highlighted in this article is better juxtaposed than compared to Berkeley’s anti-development sentiment, but I found it an interesting perspective for comparison, particularly for those of us planning to write on TDRs and historical preservation in this context.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Berkeley Council passes plan to stop bad street behavior
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/13/BAGQGQEGR11.DTL
Another objective of PCEI is to use the criminal justice and social service systems to force the homeless population of
Homeless advocates have fought passionately to stop the initiative, which they argue victimizes the city’s most vulnerable residents by criminalizing their behavior. They argue that the $2 million per year cost required to fund the program would be better spent on housing.
Even so, the PCEI is hoped to revitalize
Thursday, March 6, 2008
City to Study Costs of Proposed Development
Sameea Kamal, "City to Study Costs of Proposed Development," The Daily Californian, Mar. 6, 2008 (available at http://www.dailycal.org/article/100771/city_to_study_costs_of_proposed_development).
According to The Daily Californian, the Berkeley Planning Commission voted (6-3) to study the economic feasibility of the DAPAC downtown development plan before approving it. The study is estimated to potentially cost Berkeley $25,000 to $30,000.
Will Travis--we know him as DAPAC’s chair--voiced his support of the Planning Commission’s decision, while opponents criticized it as a tool for delaying development.
The main argument for the study was something we have heard more than once over these past few weeks: the cost of adding to a project the two additional stories permitted under DAPAC’s plan would outweigh the developer’s expected income.
The Commission will request approval for the funding at an upcoming City Council meeting, and the Council will then have to contract out for the study. Any findings would not be expected until June.
See also Richard Brenneman, Planners Make First Move to Challenge Downtown Plan, Berkeley Daily Planet (Feb. 29, 2008) (available at http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-02-29/article/29344/print).
David Jackson summarized Brenneman's article for the blog on 3/5.
According to The Daily Californian, the Berkeley Planning Commission voted (6-3) to study the economic feasibility of the DAPAC downtown development plan before approving it. The study is estimated to potentially cost Berkeley $25,000 to $30,000.
Will Travis--we know him as DAPAC’s chair--voiced his support of the Planning Commission’s decision, while opponents criticized it as a tool for delaying development.
The main argument for the study was something we have heard more than once over these past few weeks: the cost of adding to a project the two additional stories permitted under DAPAC’s plan would outweigh the developer’s expected income.
The Commission will request approval for the funding at an upcoming City Council meeting, and the Council will then have to contract out for the study. Any findings would not be expected until June.
See also Richard Brenneman, Planners Make First Move to Challenge Downtown Plan, Berkeley Daily Planet (Feb. 29, 2008) (available at http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-02-29/article/29344/print).
David Jackson summarized Brenneman's article for the blog on 3/5.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Is "The Main Street USA Approach" right for Berkeley?
www.mainstreetusa.org
The “Main Street Approach” is a “community-driven, comprehensive methodology” to revitalize business districts, premised on encourag[ing] economic development within the context of historic preservation in ways appropriate to today's marketplace.” The Approach emphasizes that it is an “incremental” plan that is “not designed to produce immediate change,” and cautions against following in the footsteps of plans that fail to address the root causes of economic decline, choosing, rather, to go for quick-fix solutions like arena’s or pedestrian malls. Bolstering its claims, Main Street USA touts statistics proclaiming the creation of an average of 250 new jobs over 10 years, and cumulative net growth of new businesses totaling an average of 70 over the same period.
Me: “Wow! That sounds great! Where do I sign?”
Main Street USA: “Well, as it turns out, Berkeley is already a success story!”
Me: “Bees in the what now?”
Berkeley is listed among the success stories of the program, under the title “Berkeley, Calif., tackles social issues and alters perception of crime.” Listed among the achievements of the DBA’s adoption of the Main Street USA Approach are changing the city’s attitude towards the downtown area, tackling social issues (read: Homelessness), and altering the perception of crime downtown. To hear them tell it, Berkeley is already a thriving community with a strong economic outlook and a firm grip on the issues of homelessness and crime.
To understand how this might be, one need only look at the date of publication: 1997. Now, I have no idea what Berkeley was like in 1997, but I have no reason to doubt that it was well on its way towards fabulous revitalization. Berkeley circa 2008, however, appears to present a different perspective. Nevertheless, the Main Street USA Approach does appear to contain some useful advice for those contemplating a redevelopment scheme. The Approach emphasizes that the scheme must be comprehensive and incremental, incorporate Self-Help in the form of true commitment by the residents and business owners of the rewards of the program even if it requires changing their attitudes, emphasize quality in every aspect of the project, working with the existing strengths of the city, and implementing the plan in a way that yields frequent visible changes to remind those involved that the project is underway and is succeeding.
Applying these principles to the DAPAC plan, it appears that Berkeley may have a few lessons to learn. First, the DAPAC plan appears to fall victim to the urge to cut in broad swaths rather than making incremental gains. This is evident in the plan’s call for a pedestrian walkway on Center Street and the Day-Lighting of Strawberry Creek. These would constitute radical changes to the streetscape of the downtown area, not the incremental but visible improvements advised by Main Street USA. Second, from the accounts given by the various speakers and the narrow passage of the DAPAC plan (along with the veiled allegations that even some of those voting in support of the plan did so only because they doubt is real viability), Berkeley cannot claim to have built a consensus among the interested parties.
Still, all is not necessarily lost for Berkeley. Scanning the list of the “nuts-and-bolts ingredients” of a successful program, Berkeley’s situation does not seem hopeless. Of the seven ingredients listed, Berkeley satisfies five: (1) a traditional business district exists, with (2) a decent concentration of remaining businesses; (3) the area is committed to revitalizing the downtown, and (4) has adequate human and financial resources to do so (according to Mayor Bates, at least); finally, (5) there is a commitment to maintaining historical buildings. What Berkeley lacks is (1) broad-based support for the revitalization plan and (2) consensus among the affected parties. From this, it appears that Main Street USA would advise Berkeley to attempt to build a consensus in the community over the need for and implementation of a revitalization plan. Realistically, this seems unlikely. Given the creation of the DAPAC plan and the commencement of construction of the Brower Center and the new UC Berkeley Art Museum, though, the area does appear to be moving forward with incremental changes that have the potential to yield visible improvements in the area. Perhaps the success of these programs can be an end-run around the so-call consensus pre-requisite, turning public opinion in favor of the redevelopment plan after its implementation rather than before.
The “Main Street Approach” is a “community-driven, comprehensive methodology” to revitalize business districts, premised on encourag[ing] economic development within the context of historic preservation in ways appropriate to today's marketplace.” The Approach emphasizes that it is an “incremental” plan that is “not designed to produce immediate change,” and cautions against following in the footsteps of plans that fail to address the root causes of economic decline, choosing, rather, to go for quick-fix solutions like arena’s or pedestrian malls. Bolstering its claims, Main Street USA touts statistics proclaiming the creation of an average of 250 new jobs over 10 years, and cumulative net growth of new businesses totaling an average of 70 over the same period.
Me: “Wow! That sounds great! Where do I sign?”
Main Street USA: “Well, as it turns out, Berkeley is already a success story!”
Me: “Bees in the what now?”
Berkeley is listed among the success stories of the program, under the title “Berkeley, Calif., tackles social issues and alters perception of crime.” Listed among the achievements of the DBA’s adoption of the Main Street USA Approach are changing the city’s attitude towards the downtown area, tackling social issues (read: Homelessness), and altering the perception of crime downtown. To hear them tell it, Berkeley is already a thriving community with a strong economic outlook and a firm grip on the issues of homelessness and crime.
To understand how this might be, one need only look at the date of publication: 1997. Now, I have no idea what Berkeley was like in 1997, but I have no reason to doubt that it was well on its way towards fabulous revitalization. Berkeley circa 2008, however, appears to present a different perspective. Nevertheless, the Main Street USA Approach does appear to contain some useful advice for those contemplating a redevelopment scheme. The Approach emphasizes that the scheme must be comprehensive and incremental, incorporate Self-Help in the form of true commitment by the residents and business owners of the rewards of the program even if it requires changing their attitudes, emphasize quality in every aspect of the project, working with the existing strengths of the city, and implementing the plan in a way that yields frequent visible changes to remind those involved that the project is underway and is succeeding.
Applying these principles to the DAPAC plan, it appears that Berkeley may have a few lessons to learn. First, the DAPAC plan appears to fall victim to the urge to cut in broad swaths rather than making incremental gains. This is evident in the plan’s call for a pedestrian walkway on Center Street and the Day-Lighting of Strawberry Creek. These would constitute radical changes to the streetscape of the downtown area, not the incremental but visible improvements advised by Main Street USA. Second, from the accounts given by the various speakers and the narrow passage of the DAPAC plan (along with the veiled allegations that even some of those voting in support of the plan did so only because they doubt is real viability), Berkeley cannot claim to have built a consensus among the interested parties.
Still, all is not necessarily lost for Berkeley. Scanning the list of the “nuts-and-bolts ingredients” of a successful program, Berkeley’s situation does not seem hopeless. Of the seven ingredients listed, Berkeley satisfies five: (1) a traditional business district exists, with (2) a decent concentration of remaining businesses; (3) the area is committed to revitalizing the downtown, and (4) has adequate human and financial resources to do so (according to Mayor Bates, at least); finally, (5) there is a commitment to maintaining historical buildings. What Berkeley lacks is (1) broad-based support for the revitalization plan and (2) consensus among the affected parties. From this, it appears that Main Street USA would advise Berkeley to attempt to build a consensus in the community over the need for and implementation of a revitalization plan. Realistically, this seems unlikely. Given the creation of the DAPAC plan and the commencement of construction of the Brower Center and the new UC Berkeley Art Museum, though, the area does appear to be moving forward with incremental changes that have the potential to yield visible improvements in the area. Perhaps the success of these programs can be an end-run around the so-call consensus pre-requisite, turning public opinion in favor of the redevelopment plan after its implementation rather than before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)