The following is a very insightful response to the April 29th presentation of Safeway's 62,000sf expansion, by Jerome Buttrick, a local resident and key member of the Local Architects and Planners Guidelines Group. It succinctly describes why this outsized development is so antithetical and detrimental to the Rockridge and Elmwood communities:
Neighborhoods are defined by by architectural paradigms,or what we architects call 'typologies.' The dominant typology of College Avenue is crystal clear: small, ground-floor retail, 1200sf typically—that zoning allows to go to 7500sf—on the ground floor with one or two levels of offices or apartments above, such as Market Hall. At its most basic level this IS the building block of our neighborhood. It defines the neighborhood + the more we stick with it, the more alive the neighborhood becomes, as it puts people at home or at work above shops. By inserting a shopping center, as we saw on April 29, with more trips-oriented parking, 60,000sf of shops, no offices, or housing, glass 'bridges' and two-story undifferentiated walls into this neighborhood, you kill the dominant paradigm and therefore kill the neighborhood--'Walnut Creek Comes To Rockridge'. Accepting this will make IT the paradigm. Then what?
On April 29, Safeway got it exactly backwards. On the zoning side--remember Safeway owns a lot in a OUR neigborhood, not vice versa...
4 comments:
I can't see anything but abstractions in this statement. For example, you use the phrase "trips oriented parking". What does this mean? It is an incomprehensible phrase. If you put quotes on it and google it, yours is the only citation. As for the Market Hall, the neighbors vehemently opposed that project and actually blocked the development of apartments adjacent to the BART station.
When you say, "Safeway owns a lot in a OUR neigborhood, not vice versa" What would the opposite be? Would it be "Our neighborhood owns a lot in Safeway" = false? I think you are correct even though it appears that you are very confused about what you are trying to say...as the other commenter pointed out. The neighborhood does not own the Safeway lot and cannot dictate to them the requirement of building uses that are not required by the General Plan or C-31. Oh, but that is what you have proposed.
Either you have drunk too much coffee or you long for a 1950's style Soviet planned economy.
The dominent feature of Rockridge is the BART station. The purpose the neighborhood group is to prevent anyone from coming into Rockridge to use the BART station. The way to do this is to object to every proposed project for nonsensical reasons.
OMG, Safeway is a Corporation!
We can't trust the unwashed proleteriat to shop at VerBrughs, so all competitors must be stopped.
We know what is better for you and that is small shops.
Keep out of Rockridge! No Renters!
Normally I wouldn’t comment on posts but I felt that I had to as your writing style is actually good. You have broken down a tough area so that it easy to understand.
buy matacafe views
buy linkedin contacts
buy myspace views
Post a Comment