Blog » oakland

  • April 26, 2011

    Which Transportation Projects Will We Give up on to Help Reduce Emissions?

    BY STEPHEN TU
    Event image

    Tomorrow, April 27, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) will vote on a final Committed Funds and Projects Policy for Plan Bay Area. This policy mouthful is an important step in defining which regional transportation projects will receive funding and which ones must undergo more thorough analysis. The vote will determine how many transportation projects will be scrutinized for their impact on greenhouse gases, driving, economic growth and other factors. Affected projects in could include highway widening, the Oakland Airport Connector and BART to San Jose.

    The issue before the MTC: deciding which projects are so far along that they shouldn’t be analyzed yet again under new criteria. The projects that are not further analyzed are considered “committed” and will be automatically included in the next Regional Transportation Plan. These committed projects will be included in all scenarios projecting the Bay Area’s future growth.

    What’s different this year: the next Regional Transportation Plan will be the first one finalized since the passage of Senate Bill 375. That means this plan is supposed to help meet our region’s goal of reducing greenhouse gases from driving by 15 percent per capita. That’s harder to achieve if we don’t evaluate whether or not our investments encourage people to drive.

    Wednesday’s vote will set a final policy for how to count a project as committed. In the last Regional Transportation Plan — done in 2009 — 70 projects were designated as committed. This year, if the MTC adopts the recommendation of its Planning Committee, only 14 projects will be considered committed and not analyzed further. Even though the committee made this recommendation in a 5-3 vote, the full Commission has the final say and can select a different approach, which means this is still a very live and important issue.

    There are several major options up for consideration. Option 1 (36 projects committed) says projects are committed after they certify their Environmental Impact Report. Option 2 (14 projects committed) says a project is committed only after construction has started. In general, transit advocates like our friends at TransForm favor the later date (i.e., Option 2).

    SPUR has endorsed a slightly different — and we think more nuanced — approach to this policy debate. We argued that using just the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) cutoff is inappropriate because many EIRs are old and project cost often skyrocket after they are approved. As the MTC notes in its analysis, after the environmental phase, transit projects typically rise 50 percent in cost and highway projects rise 30 percent.

    In a letter to the MTC, we proposed that a project be considered committed if it is either:

    1.    already under construction or
    2.    has a certified EIR less than 5 years old and the estimated project costs have not grown by more than 5 percent per year since EIR certification.

    We didn’t support Option 2 because it would cast too much uncertainty over projects that have spent many years in preparation and are nearly under construction. This is important to project stakeholders — especially agencies who might otherwise not take on the risk of conducting an EIR without certainty in a project’s funding potential.

    If MTC commissioners tomorrow reject the Planning Committee’s recommendation, we hope they will adopt the SPUR proposal. Our approach leaves fewer projects in uncertain status but retains some objective standards to re-evaluate out-of-date and over-budget projects.

     

  • March 22, 2011

    View From the Kaiser Center: Oakland's Original Roof Garden

    URBAN FIELD NOTES, POSTED BY MITCHELL SCHWARZER

    In the 1920s, European architects proposed a new city. The chaos of industrial civilization would be redeemed by a stupendous landscape of skyscraper towers rising out of a park-like setting. Nature would ameliorate the tall buildings, adorning their abrupt and jarring artificiality with dewy grass and leafy canopies. Alas, in American cities, crisscrossed by grids and streets and their streams of vehicles and pedestrians, this dream of architecture rising directly from nature was all but impossible.

    Then, in 1959, the new Kaiser Center complex at the edge of downtown Oakland came up with a solution. Atop a five-story parking garage that abutted a 28-story office tower, landscape architects Osmundson & Staley erected a bucolic perch for skyscraper observation.

    Visitors originally entered the garden from the top floor of the White House department store. Now, they walk through the parking garage and ascend an elevator to experience the startling sight of trees rooted in building; trees rising atop the concrete slab that underlies the breadth of the three-and-a-half-acre garden. Six inches of soil are all that separate the garden from a four-inch layer of aggregate rock, and then the slab. Here and there mounds extend the soil a few precious feet to allow for shrubs, and trees like olives, magnolias, and holly oaks.

    On gray walkways, I lope around green lawns and a dark amoeboid pool. Raising my eyes, I see the rectilinear towers, but I read them not as volumes containing innumerable, invisible worker drones. My sight today is painterly, and so the Kaiser Tower and the later Ordway Building (1970) flatten into framed pictures in the sky that track its atmospheres and luminosities.

    Photo courtesy Kaiser Corporation

    Aerial view. The biomorphic shapes of the pool and lawns follow the precedent of Thomas Church’s groundbreaking Donnell Garden (1948) in Sonoma. Here, five stories in the air, the landscape architects massed vegetation along the perimeter in order to encourage garden-level views up toward the office towers. To the right of the garden is the roof of the former White House department store.

    Pool. Looking east toward the hills, the pool’s dark waters pretend great depths. Looking closely, though, one can discern the black painted bottom sixteen inches down. Three fountains function as vertical focal points, much like the garden’s mounds of flax and 42 specimen trees.


    Walkway. A path winds through the shade of bamboo and groupings of birds of paradise.


    Kaiser Tower. The principal volume of the 390-foot tower, designed by Welton Beckett, gently curves in harmony with the lake beyond. Its solid ends are clad in pre-cast panels of dolomite. The tower is enlivened here by a gingko tree in autumnal glory.


    Kaiser Tower (detail). In concert with a projecting wing, the bent curtain wall oscillates in and out of its frame — what amounts to a skyscraper self-portrait. The façade composition is enhanced by the variety of materials — black steel lines, gray glass, rectangles of anodized gold and naturally colored aluminum.


    Ordway Building. Designed by Chuck Bassett of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, the 28-story tower is sheathed in anodized aluminum and features an H-shaped plan that doubles the number of corner offices. At 404 feet in height, it is Oakland’s tallest building.


    Ordway Building (detail). Spandrel panels bend and reflect shadows. A grid of windows captures clouds gliding through the sky. And like the garden’s tree canopy, those panels and windows flutter in flashes of sunlight.

     

    Mitchell Schwarzer is Professor of Visual Studies at California College of the Arts. He is the author of Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Area: History and Guide (2007), among other writings on the architectural and urban history of California, the United States, and beyond.



    All photos by Pad McLaughlin, except where noted.