Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

green dev and mega projects from today's NYT

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey Rensch
    Recommended article on green development and mega development(s) such as Saltworks -- in today s Ny Times but reported by Bay Citizen. Jeff
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 4, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Recommended article on green development and mega development(s) such as Saltworks -- in today's Ny Times but reported by Bay Citizen.

       Jeff

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/us/04bcweber.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bay%20area%20growth&st=cse
    • Bruce Liedstrand
      Peter Calthorpe, referenced in the article, is a good urban theorist, but his projects don t always live up to his theoretical standards. The Saltworks
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 4, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Peter Calthorpe, referenced in the article, is a good urban theorist, but his projects don't always live up to his theoretical standards.  The Saltworks project, as presently designed, has some serious issues that need to be addressed.

        Bruce Liedstrand


        On Jul 4, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Jeffrey Rensch wrote:

         

        Recommended article on green development and mega development( s) such as Saltworks -- in today's Ny Times but reported by Bay Citizen.

         Jeff

        http://www.nytimes. com/2010/ 07/04/us/ 04bcweber. html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bay%20area% 20growth&st=cse


      • Joel Davidson
        Bruce, Thank you. The Saltworks project is a shell game that is a loser for the people over developers at the least and the earth at most. Joel ... Joel
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 4, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Bruce,
          Thank you.  The Saltworks project is a shell game that is a loser for the people over developers at the least and the earth at most.
          Joel

          On Jul 4, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Bruce Liedstrand wrote:

           

          Peter Calthorpe, referenced in the article, is a good urban theorist, but his projects don't always live up to his theoretical standards.  The Saltworks project, as presently designed, has some serious issues that need to be addressed.


          Bruce Liedstrand


          On Jul 4, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Jeffrey Rensch wrote:

           

          Recommended article on green development and mega development( s) such as Saltworks -- in today's Ny Times but reported by Bay Citizen.

           Jeff

          http://www.nytimes. com/2010/ 07/04/us/ 04bcweber. html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bay%20area% 20growth&st=cse




          Joel Davidson




        • Irvin Dawid
          Joel, Bruce, As Jeff notes, the article really isn t about just one development - but ... Several other local megaprojects, while not posing quite the same
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 5, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Joel, Bruce,
            As Jeff notes, the article really isn't about just one development - but several:
            (Calthorpe's) version of green development favors megaprojects that create the density needed for efficient mass transit. But these huge developments are anathema to many environmentalists and community activists — and the divisions reflect a growing split among people usually thought to be on the same side

            Several other local megaprojects, while not posing quite the same issues as the Saltworks, nonetheless highlight the tensions.

            Alameda Point, also designed by Mr. Calthorpe, would bring around 4,500 housing units to a decommissioned naval base on the island of Alameda. For Mr. Calthorpe, it’s a green, “transit-oriented” development. For local voters who rejected the plan overwhelmingly earlier this year, it is too big and too damaging to the existing community.

            The Treasure Island project, which would place 8,000 housing units and other development on another former military base in the bay, and the Hunters Point development, which would transform the naval shipyard into a large mixed-use community, have also drawn fire. 
            I'm somewhat familiar with those projects - but I think Treasure Island is considered outstanding by most - so I'm not sure I'd put it in that category - clearly the Alameda Shipyard would be one which deserves support the most.

            The point I'm trying to make is that while many enviro, community, and cities have stated their opposition to Saltworks, I think you can see how that same opposition can be shown to any of the above projects - all of which are within the urban core and will provide 'close-in' homes for Bay Area workers and others who want to reside here, as opposed to move further out to find an affordable home.

            It's an excellent article - I hadn't seen it and I have a subscription to http://www.baycitizen.org! (Signup for Our Newsletter)
            On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Joel Davidson <joelscottd@...> wrote:
             

            Bruce,
            Thank you.  The Saltworks project is a shell game that is a loser for the people over developers at the least and the earth at most.
            Joel

            On Jul 4, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Bruce Liedstrand wrote:

             

            Peter Calthorpe, referenced in the article, is a good urban theorist, but his projects don't always live up to his theoretical standards.  The Saltworks project, as presently designed, has some serious issues that need to be addressed.


            Bruce Liedstrand


            On Jul 4, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Jeffrey Rensch wrote:

             

            Recommended article on green development and mega development(s) such as Saltworks -- in today's Ny Times but reported by Bay Citizen.

             Jeff

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/us/04bcweber.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bay%20area%20growth&st=cse



          • Joel Davidson
            My concern is the predictions for global warming (change) have most bay oriented housing under water in 50 years. That is shameful shilling of the bay for
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 5, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              My concern is the predictions for global warming (change) have most bay oriented housing under water in 50 years.  That is shameful shilling of the bay for housing!
              We must build higher inland away from the bay.
              Joel
              On Jul 5, 2010, at 9:02 PM, Irvin Dawid wrote:

               

              Joel, Bruce,

              As Jeff notes, the article really isn't about just one development - but several:
              (Calthorpe's) version of green development favors megaprojects that create the density needed for efficient mass transit. But these huge developments are anathema to many environmentalists and community activists — and the divisions reflect a growing split among people usually thought to be on the same side

              Several other local megaprojects, while not posing quite the same issues as the Saltworks, nonetheless highlight the tensions.

              Alameda Point, also designed by Mr. Calthorpe, would bring around 4,500 housing units to a decommissioned naval base on the island of Alameda. For Mr. Calthorpe, it’s a green, “transit-oriented” development. For local voters who rejected the plan overwhelmingly earlier this year, it is too big and too damaging to the existing community.

              The Treasure Island project, which would place 8,000 housing units and other development on another former military base in the bay, and the Hunters Point development, which would transform the naval shipyard into a large mixed-use community, have also drawn fire. 
              I'm somewhat familiar with those projects - but I think Treasure Island is considered outstanding by most - so I'm not sure I'd put it in that category - clearly the Alameda Shipyard would be one which deserves support the most.

              The point I'm trying to make is that while many enviro, community, and cities have stated their opposition to Saltworks, I think you can see how that same opposition can be shown to any of the above projects - all of which are within the urban core and will provide 'close-in' homes for Bay Area workers and others who want to reside here, as opposed to move further out to find an affordable home.

              It's an excellent article - I hadn't seen it and I have a subscription to http://www.baycitiz en.org! (Signup for Our Newsletter)
              On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Joel Davidson <joelscottd@gmail. com> wrote:
               

              Bruce,
              Thank you.  The Saltworks project is a shell game that is a loser for the people over developers at the least and the earth at most.
              Joel

              On Jul 4, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Bruce Liedstrand wrote:

               

              Peter Calthorpe, referenced in the article, is a good urban theorist, but his projects don't always live up to his theoretical standards.  The Saltworks project, as presently designed, has some serious issues that need to be addressed.


              Bruce Liedstrand


              On Jul 4, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Jeffrey Rensch wrote:

               

              Recommended article on green development and mega development( s) such as Saltworks -- in today's Ny Times but reported by Bay Citizen.

               Jeff

              http://www.nytimes. com/2010/ 07/04/us/ 04bcweber. html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bay%20area% 20growth&st=cse





              Joel Davidson




            • Irvin Dawid
              Joel, I m certainly no expert on this project, and since Sierra Club has taken an official opposition stand, I ve got to keep my mouth shut and pen silent. My
              Message 6 of 9 , Jul 6, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Joel, I'm certainly no expert on this project, and since Sierra Club has taken an official opposition stand, I've got to keep my mouth shut and pen silent.  My understanding is that levees will be included - I do not share your belief below, though.  Adaptation to climate change, including rising sea levels, is as important, if not more, than mitigating climate change.
                ID

                On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Joel Davidson <joelscottd@...> wrote:
                 

                My concern is the predictions for global warming (change) have most bay oriented housing under water in 50 years.  That is shameful shilling of the bay for housing!

                We must build higher inland away from the bay.
                Joel

                On Jul 5, 2010, at 9:02 PM, Irvin Dawid wrote:

                 

                Joel, Bruce,

                As Jeff notes, the article really isn't about just one development - but several:
                (Calthorpe's) version of green development favors megaprojects that create the density needed for efficient mass transit. But these huge developments are anathema to many environmentalists and community activists — and the divisions reflect a growing split among people usually thought to be on the same side

                Several other local megaprojects, while not posing quite the same issues as the Saltworks, nonetheless highlight the tensions.

                Alameda Point, also designed by Mr. Calthorpe, would bring around 4,500 housing units to a decommissioned naval base on the island of Alameda. For Mr. Calthorpe, it’s a green, “transit-oriented” development. For local voters who rejected the plan overwhelmingly earlier this year, it is too big and too damaging to the existing community.

                The Treasure Island project, which would place 8,000 housing units and other development on another former military base in the bay, and the Hunters Point development, which would transform the naval shipyard into a large mixed-use community, have also drawn fire. 
                I'm somewhat familiar with those projects - but I think Treasure Island is considered outstanding by most - so I'm not sure I'd put it in that category - clearly the Alameda Shipyard would be one which deserves support the most.

                The point I'm trying to make is that while many enviro, community, and cities have stated their opposition to Saltworks, I think you can see how that same opposition can be shown to any of the above projects - all of which are within the urban core and will provide 'close-in' homes for Bay Area workers and others who want to reside here, as opposed to move further out to find an affordable home.

                It's an excellent article - I hadn't seen it and I have a subscription to http://www.baycitizen.org! (Signup for Our Newsletter)
                On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Joel Davidson <joelscottd@...> wrote:
                 

                Bruce,
                Thank you.  The Saltworks project is a shell game that is a loser for the people over developers at the least and the earth at most.
                Joel

                On Jul 4, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Bruce Liedstrand wrote:

                 

                Peter Calthorpe, referenced in the article, is a good urban theorist, but his projects don't always live up to his theoretical standards.  The Saltworks project, as presently designed, has some serious issues that need to be addressed.


                Bruce Liedstrand


                On Jul 4, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Jeffrey Rensch wrote:

                 

                Recommended article on green development and mega development(s) such as Saltworks -- in today's Ny Times but reported by Bay Citizen.

                 Jeff

                http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/us/04bcweber.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bay%20area%20growth&st=cse





                Joel Davidson







                --
                Irvin Dawid
                753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
                650-283-6534 (cell)
              • Bruce Liedstrand
                Irvin: I concur that the article was about the broader issues, not just one development. My take on the broader issues: 1. Although NIMBYs still fight almost
                Message 7 of 9 , Jul 6, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Irvin:

                  I concur that the article was about the broader issues, not just one development.  My take on the broader issues:

                  1.  Although NIMBYs still fight almost any higher density, many environmental groups recognize the need to cluster new development in higher densities on effective public transportation.
                  2.  Although the public arguments are usually about density, the real issues are effective transit connections and urban form.  Is the development really good urbanism on a functional public transportation system so people who live and work there don't need to drive?  The Saltworks project, as presently designed, fails that test.  It is a very large drivable community, not a transit-oriented development.  People will drive to get back and forth between the Saltworks and downtown with its Caltrain station.  We can do better than that.

                  Bruce


                  On Jul 5, 2010, at 9:02 PM, Irvin Dawid wrote:

                   

                  Joel, Bruce,

                  As Jeff notes, the article really isn't about just one development - but several:
                  (Calthorpe's) version of green development favors megaprojects that create the density needed for efficient mass transit. But these huge developments are anathema to many environmentalists and community activists — and the divisions reflect a growing split among people usually thought to be on the same side

                  Several other local megaprojects, while not posing quite the same issues as the Saltworks, nonetheless highlight the tensions.

                  Alameda Point, also designed by Mr. Calthorpe, would bring around 4,500 housing units to a decommissioned naval base on the island of Alameda. For Mr. Calthorpe, it’s a green, “transit-oriented” development. For local voters who rejected the plan overwhelmingly earlier this year, it is too big and too damaging to the existing community.

                  The Treasure Island project, which would place 8,000 housing units and other development on another former military base in the bay, and the Hunters Point development, which would transform the naval shipyard into a large mixed-use community, have also drawn fire. 
                  I'm somewhat familiar with those projects - but I think Treasure Island is considered outstanding by most - so I'm not sure I'd put it in that category - clearly the Alameda Shipyard would be one which deserves support the most.

                  The point I'm trying to make is that while many enviro, community, and cities have stated their opposition to Saltworks, I think you can see how that same opposition can be shown to any of the above projects - all of which are within the urban core and will provide 'close-in' homes for Bay Area workers and others who want to reside here, as opposed to move further out to find an affordable home.

                  It's an excellent article - I hadn't seen it and I have a subscription to http://www.baycitiz en.org! (Signup for Our Newsletter)
                  On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Joel Davidson <joelscottd@gmail. com> wrote:
                   

                  Bruce,
                  Thank you.  The Saltworks project is a shell game that is a loser for the people over developers at the least and the earth at most.
                  Joel

                  On Jul 4, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Bruce Liedstrand wrote:

                   

                  Peter Calthorpe, referenced in the article, is a good urban theorist, but his projects don't always live up to his theoretical standards.  The Saltworks project, as presently designed, has some serious issues that need to be addressed.


                  Bruce Liedstrand


                  On Jul 4, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Jeffrey Rensch wrote:

                   

                  Recommended article on green development and mega development( s) such as Saltworks -- in today's Ny Times but reported by Bay Citizen.

                   Jeff

                  http://www.nytimes. com/2010/ 07/04/us/ 04bcweber. html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bay%20area% 20growth&st=cse





                • Tony Carrasco
                  I agree with Bruce, Peter Calthorpe is a Suburban Urban Designer with an Urban face, and better Ped sidewalks and garage locations. Tony Carrasco CARRASCO &
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jul 7, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment

                    I agree with Bruce,

                    Peter Calthorpe is  a Suburban Urban Designer with an Urban face, and better Ped sidewalks and garage locations.

                     

                    Tony Carrasco 
                     
                    CARRASCO & ASSOCIATES


                    1885 El Camino Real
                    Palo Alto, CA 94306
                    650 322 2288 x111
                    Fax: 650 322 2316

                     

                    This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for the addressee named above.  If you are not a named addressee, you are notified that you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this communication without the consent of the sender and that doing so is strictly prohibited.  If you received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify sender via return e-mail and delete it from your computer. Thank you.

                     

                    From: ALPA_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ALPA_Forum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Liedstrand
                    Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 10:10 PM
                    To: ALPA_Forum@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [ALPA_Forum] green dev and mega projects from today's NYT

                     

                     

                    Peter Calthorpe, referenced in the article, is a good urban theorist, but his projects don't always live up to his theoretical standards.  The Saltworks project, as presently designed, has some serious issues that need to be addressed.

                     

                    Bruce Liedstrand

                     

                     

                    On Jul 4, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Jeffrey Rensch wrote:



                     

                     

                    Recommended article on green development and mega development(s) such as Saltworks -- in today's Ny Times but reported by Bay Citizen.

                     

                     Jeff

                     

                    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/us/04bcweber.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bay%20area%20growth&st=cse

                     

                     

                  • Irvin Dawid
                    posted on Planetizen , with thanks to Jeff: Calthorpe Clashes With Environmentalists .
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jul 7, 2010
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      posted on Planetizen, with thanks to Jeff:
                      Unfortunately, the editor redid my introduction:
                      Famed architect Peter Calthorpe has designed several large developments planned for the San Francisco Bay Area, but some local environmentalist groups aren't satisfied that they are green enough. http://www.planetizen.com/node/44973 (continues)
                      [was: Well-known, Berkeley-based new urbanist, Peter Calthorpe, is one of the most influential proponents of smart growth in the country, yet his support for massive projects like the Redwood City Saltworks has not endeared him to many environmentalists.]

                      On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Tony Carrasco <tony@...> wrote:
                       

                      I agree with Bruce,

                      Peter Calthorpe is  a Suburban Urban Designer with an Urban face, and better Ped sidewalks and garage locations.

                       

                      Tony Carrasco 
                       
                      CARRASCO & ASSOCIATES


                      1885 El Camino Real
                      Palo Alto, CA 94306
                      650 322 2288 x111
                      Fax: 650 322 2316

                       

                      This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for the addressee named above.  If you are not a named addressee, you are notified that you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this communication without the consent of the sender and that doing so is strictly prohibited.  If you received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify sender via return e-mail and delete it from your computer. Thank you.

                       

                      From: ALPA_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ALPA_Forum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Liedstrand
                      Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 10:10 PM
                      To: ALPA_Forum@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [ALPA_Forum] green dev and mega projects from today's NYT

                       

                       

                      Peter Calthorpe, referenced in the article, is a good urban theorist, but his projects don't always live up to his theoretical standards.  The Saltworks project, as presently designed, has some serious issues that need to be addressed.

                       

                      Bruce Liedstrand

                       

                       

                      On Jul 4, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Jeffrey Rensch wrote:



                       

                       

                      Recommended article on green development and mega development(s) such as Saltworks -- in today's Ny Times but reported by Bay Citizen.

                       

                       Jeff

                       

                      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/us/04bcweber.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bay%20area%20growth&st=cse

                       

                       




                      --
                      Irvin Dawid
                      753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
                      650-283-6534 (cell)
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.