BART joint development
Colin R. Leech
RicSilver (rics...@aol.com) writes:
> sh...@ccnet.com (Shon Sterling) posted:
>
> SS:Martin J. Bernard III (stn...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> MB> Headline: 'Transit Village' envisioned at MacArthur BART station
> MB> A similar "transit village" is in the planning stages for the
> MB> Fruitvale BART station.
>
> SS>I heard the same rumor for the Pleasant Hill Station
>
> And not while the same type of sitution, the area around the new Colma BART
> station has been rezoned by Daly City, Colma and San Mateo County so that
> anything that is buildt in the area will be tranist friendly. Most of the
> area has "mixed " development.
Does this mean no humungeous park&ride garage/lot at Colma? (And the
others?) I thought they had planned that Colma would intercept a lot of
drivers off the highway? Or will they take one corner for the p&r, leaving
other areas adjacent to the station for mixed development?
--
##### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag...@freenet.carleton.ca
##### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
##### > < If you can't return a favour, pass it on.
##### >_./|\._< Opinions are my own. Consider them shareware if you want.
Martin J. Bernard III
>
>Does this mean no humungeous park&ride garage/lot at Colma?
No, I've seen the artist's renditions. However, just changing the
zoning around a station is not joint development. Joint development
results from community-based planning with all stakeholders (the
transit agency, city, county, people, merchants, etc.) participating.
Marty Bernard
Cheng-Hung Lin
stn...@ix.netcom.com(Martin J. Bernard III ) wrote:
>No, I've seen the artist's renditions. However, just changing the
>zoning around a station is not joint development. Joint development
>results from community-based planning with all stakeholders (the
>transit agency, city, county, people, merchants, etc.) participating.
As a foreigner, I can't help to think that the participation of all parties
in joint development might be too much to be cost-effective. I hope you
don't mind that I ask the following basic questions.
How long would it usually take for the planning process?
How can different parties with differences in interests reach a consensus?
What kind of role a developer can play in a joint-devlopment project?
In my country, Taiwan, as I was working for Taipei Mass Transit Authority,
a joint development always caused serious delay because of public disputes.
Silas Warner
>
>How long would it usually take for the planning process?
Years and years. It will probably take longer to do something
like that in the US than in Taiwan. However, it's encouraging
that BART is even thinking about surrounding transit stations
with something other than gigantic parking lots. Very few transit
authorities in the US, and especially in California, want to
have anything around their stations that might interfere with parking.
>How can different parties with differences in interests reach a consensus?
A couple of years of public hearings and infighting, followed by a
consensus development plan decided in the backroom. The consensus
process is designed so that the final plan generates public relief
that something has already been done. Then there is another year
spent fighting neighborhood lawsuits. Sometimes that can be five or
ten years, and the plan has to be revised at the end. Once the
bulldozers start piling dirt, however, the development is very swift,
taking only a few months.
>What kind of role a developer can play in a joint-devlopment project?
Strongly depends on the developer. A "good-guy" developer with a
lot of contacts in the local political community can speed up the
process immensely, especially if the same guy has a reputation for
showplace projects elsewhere. James Rouse is a good example. On
the other hand, a ham-handed real-estate investment approach will
antagonize the politicians and the neighbors, as well as turning
away potential tenants. Catellus is a good example of that.
>
>In my country, Taiwan, as I was working for Taipei Mass Transit Authority,
>a joint development always caused serious delay because of public disputes.
>
>
Silas Warner
Pierre A Plauzoles
In a previous article, si...@velo.com (Silas Warner) says:
>ch...@tpts1.seed.net.tw (Cheng-Hung Lin) wrote:
[....]
>>What kind of role a developer can play in a joint-devlopment project?
>
>Strongly depends on the developer. A "good-guy" developer with a
>lot of contacts in the local political community can speed up the
>process immensely, especially if the same guy has a reputation for
>showplace projects elsewhere. James Rouse is a good example. On
>the other hand, a ham-handed real-estate investment approach will
>antagonize the politicians and the neighbors, as well as turning
>away potential tenants. Catellus is a good example of that.
>
>>In my country, Taiwan, as I was working for Taipei Mass Transit Authority,
>>a joint development always caused serious delay because of public disputes.
Silas, I agree that the possibility might be there that Catellus be a
hindrance in the proper development of LAUPT, but doesn't the outfit have
a term contract on the station? What is the term? When does it end?
Who makes the decision on its being awarded to someone else? Talk about
LAUPT, why is the old restaurant not occupied? Is Catellus to blame for
that too?
--
Pierre Plauzoles ae...@lafn.org
Canoga Park, California
Silas Warner
>
>Silas, I agree that the possibility might be there that Catellus be a
>hindrance in the proper development of LAUPT, but doesn't the outfit have
>a term contract on the station? What is the term? When does it end?
The long-term contract is WITH Catellus, not BY Catellus. Catellus
theoretically owns the station and all property under it. But an
easement requires it to allow passenger trains into the station as
long as there are such trains. At least in L.A, Catellus is trying to
live with this easement. In San Francisco, Catellus has been unstinting
in its effort to kill passenger train service and reclaim its land.
>Who makes the decision on its being awarded to someone else? Talk about
>LAUPT, why is the old restaurant not occupied? Is Catellus to blame for
>that too?
You better believe it. In fact, the status of the restaurant space in
LAUS (formerly LAUPT) is Exhibit A in my personal gallery of Catellus'
incompetence. The restaurant was originally a Harvey House, and an
investor group was all set to build a recreated Harvey House with a
license from Amfac, current owners of the Fred Harvey name. But
Catellus blocked the proposal because the restaurant wasn't enough of
a "stellar attraction" for them. Apparently, Catellus was looking for
a cross between Spago and Planet Hollywood, with a touch of Studio 54
at its height. This was only fitting for the World Commercial and
Financial Center that LAUS was supposed to become. Catellus seems to
suffer from megalomania on all of their development schemes.
Silas Warner