As the citizens of a progressive and forward thinking city, we need to consider our transit modes in the future: many more of us will be taking BART/BRT, and riding bicycles. There will also be more residents in downtown nearby. Thus we need to enhance and acquire existing green spaces for park use, such as the Schilling Gardens parcel, that are near transit.

The Schilling Gardens could be an attractive and valuable park and a piece of the economic development puzzle, considering this park is proximate to downtown office buildings. Organizations and companies wishing to locate in downtown Oakland will enjoy having a beautiful space nearby to host banquets, meetings, and other functions.

As a city we must find the will and the way to acquire this parcel with Redevelopment or General Fund money, bond money, and/or philanthropic funds. It would be a mistake to destroy a historic, existing green space for a project that doesn’t even have ‘affordable’ inclusionary housing units.

There may be no equally-attractive parcel for this project. Finding a different site for the tower is not my main goal. My goal is to save the park from destruction; finding a site for the tower is not my problem if we can convince enough people to save SG.

However, having an alternate site for the tower would certainly make saving the garden much easier. I don’t really have a site in mind just yet.

We will be scheduling a community meeting in late Jan – early Feb to discuss just this issue.

Thanks again…sorry you didn’t get the memo… :)

I’ve already stated above I am not opposed to a park in this location, if an appropriate location is found for the tower. In fact, I think that the post very strongly indicates how much I advocate for open space. That said, I also believe this site is entirely appropriate to house a contemporary, landmark tower for Oakland, and given how underutilized Snow Park is, trading 12,000 square feet of space that almost no one had heard of before for a landmark tower and an additional bit of urban vitality does not seem like a bad deal. And, given all the additional park improvements which will be carried out around Lake Merritt (as you mentioned), will the birds really miss this 12,000 square foot patch of land that is wedged between other buildings?

I am certainly not opposed to open space; rather, I oppose wasted space. One purpose of this post was to put forth the idea that a great deal of the people who oppose this project are doing so for the wrong reasons. Last year, it was utterly ridiculous that people were willing to have the City finance what amounted to a private backyard — all in the name of not building a tower.

It seems that the reason you insist on calling me “short-sighted” is because I acknowledge there are multiple uses to this plot of land, and you happen to disagree with one of those uses. I didn’t realize that in order to be classified as forward-thinking, I had to think a certain way or agree with a certain group of people! I guess I missed that memo.

Park land previously proposed for use by commercial projects is often enhanced and improved after the immediate threat of loss or sale has passed. The public is often willing to expend considerable public resources toward improving or acquiring park land to an extent and in ways not previously anticipated by local officials. The following three items are evidence of this:

· Splash Pad Park: The attention on the park in 1999 brought new public and City of Oakland interest to Splash Pad Park. Nearly $900,000 worth improvements to the park were completed by 2003. In addition, Splash Pad Park now hosts one of the most popular and successful farmer’s markets in the Bay Area.

· Fire Alarm site: The Fire Alarm site, offered for condominiums in 2001, will be integrated into the new landscape design for 12th Street using Measure DD funds.

· 12th Street: The community’s proposal in response to the proposed sale at 12th Street provided the impetus for the City Council to adopt Measure DD and place it on the 2002 ballot. The successful bond measure will fund improvements to park areas and will reclaim degraded park land areas.

In 2001, no one dreamed that Oakland could raise money for parks. In 2002, it happened. Measure DD includes money for Snow Park, btw.

Dream bigger, guys.

And call me selfish, but I’d much rather have 60% of the space for public use in five years (when I can actually enjoy it), rather than 100% in 40 years.

Of course, it hasn’t been for a century, so there’s no rush, right?

John, for the land swap, what specific parcels are you considering? Something beyond 1640 Broadway, please, as that has repeatedly failed in the past as a site for residential development. Where do you propose that the City produce the money to finance that land swap? These things don’t pay for themselves.

The alternative plan you’ve suggested is very general, and more to the point, it has already been offered numerous times already, with far from assured success. If I heard the details of a plan that could be realistically executed, then I might agree with you that the tower could be relocated, and O’Keefe has been open to ideas, as well. I have yet to see an alternative plan that would, practically speaking, be viable in the real world. But I am all ears.

I stated my alternative plan in my posts.

The garden will not be public with this development. The garden is not now, and never has been, public. It is private property.

No particular timeline yet for when Schilling Garden might become public land.