Page One

For anyone living in Berkeley in the fifties and sixties, the “ticky tackys” of that time today seem luxurious apartments when compared to the cramped, high-density living quarters built by developers of late. 

Indeed, some plans even offer a two-bedroom apartment crammed into 600 square feet. 

As though such congestion were not enough, the most recent housing developments in Berkeley call for an alarming increase in huge, overscaled buildings. With the blessing of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), City Hall has shown little interest in stopping gigantic, five-story, Kennedy-style cracker boxes on transit corridors that have already appeared.  

Many others are in the approval pipeline for the flatlands exclusively. 

With a goodly amount of old fashioned wizardry, EcoCity planners and advocates of “Smart Growth” have been urging residents to live the really “smart” life of the future. For example, to quote from Richard Register’s latest publication, “EcoCity 2002”:  

“Good examples and policies will build up and capture the imagination ... We’ll get over the threshold of sufficient votes to pass important policies and launch projects, and the latent energy of the whole community will release a cascade of creativity.” 

Thus saith Register, having grasped the grand directions of future urban development. You will pass out in amazement, wonder and disbelief at how such incredible statements could be made, commandeering nothing less than the future of mankind with such a masterful sweep. With the eyes of a visionary peering beyond the horizon deep into a land of unbearable enchantment, he seems utterly oblivious of the precarious, seismic nature of the seemingly solid ground on which he stands. 

Read further, for another example in the same vein written by the author 15 years earlier: 

“The city owns most of the land there, and outrageously enough from the ecological point of view, most of it is parking — in spite of good public transit. And so, a land trade with substantial development rights to Santa Fe would be well within the realm of possibility. The marina already has enough visitors, along with some houseboat dwellers, that neighborhood stores and some jobs could be built into new offices and housing on the site. Venice-like canals could be dredged at this location, and buildings constructed at densities comparable to Venice’s.” 

In superimposing this vision of the Renaissance onto Berkeley, the author was clearly unaware that most structures on the land-fill of the marina are likely to sink or collapse in a liquefied mush during a seismic catastrophe. In a recent forum on the height of buildings, even the Sierra Club completely ignored the relevance of this latent, but very real, seismic hazard. 

Enough said. The more one reads of Register’s exuberant stream-of-consciousness about rooftop gardens, bridges between high-rises and the plowing up of neighborhoods, the less one can endure. How embarrassing to have gone on and on with such adventurous innocence about over-arching bridges spanning the wide spaces between ... yea, reaching unto “the cloud-capped towers and gorgeous palaces” (Shakespeare). Indeed, attention needs to be given to EcoCity writings, if only to publicize their slick wizardry in the manipulation of ideas. 

It has been said that “the mistakes of lawyers hang in the air, while the mistakes of doctors are oft interred with their bones.” It can be conceded that by ignoring Berkeley’s “fault line,” the faults of EcoCity Planners may be catastrophic.  

Alex Nicoloff is a Berkeley resident. 

Alex Nicoloff