Features

Editor’s Note: Berkeley residents must feel lately like they are pawns in a giant game of Monopoly. Not only have buyers been feverishly bidding up prices on residential properties, it seems that anyone who has the wherewithal to purchase a city lot also wants to buy a building to put on the site. In the last couple of weeks, hotels in particular have been in play in Berkeley Monopoly. The ownership of the landmark Claremont Hotel, just over the Oakland border, will be transferred from Conglomerate A to Megacorp B. Downtown, the Shattuck Hotel will become a single room occupancy facility for international students. In the old days, international students used to stay at the UC hotel on University Avenue, but that’s become an SRO for people in need of help. With downtown’s last big hotel going, the University of California, which has been busy buying up most of the lots on the board in the last few years, now wants to buy itself a big new hotel. None of this action is necessarily bad, but it’s unsettling to many. The Planning Commission has created a task force to study the hotel scheme, which will hold a public forum tomorrow, Feb. 18, at 7 p.m. at the North Berkeley Senior Center. In preparation for the forum, there was a site tour last week led by a UC planner. The Daily Planet asked attendees to describe what they saw, and these are some responses. 

• 

As the Sierra Club representative on the UCB Hotel/Conference Center proposal, last Saturday I was part of a group of about 50 folks who went on a walking tour of the site (between Oxford Street and Shattuck Avenue, Addison and Center streets) with UCB Planner Kevin Hufferd, Planning Commission members and other interested parties. We started at the corner of Shattuck Avenue and Center Street about 10 a.m. At each stop of the tour I was struck by the tremendous potential for making this project an environmentally sound one that will not only meet the university’s needs for a hotel, conference and museum center but will also revitalize and enhance the downtown Berkeley environment. If designed well and as a public space, the project could attract world wide attention. 

The group listened as UCB Planner Kevin Hufferd talked about the project but had trouble hearing him due to the noise of buses traveling down Center. Because this intersection is one of the major transfer points in Berkeley, the design of the project will need to be coordinated closely with transit facilities. (It’s important to remember that buses of the future using new technologies like the fuel cell will be significantly cleaner and quieter than buses powered by currently available technologies.) Buses now run westbound only down Center Street, but automobile traffic is two-way. One alternative to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment is to restrict automobile traffic. In addition, a new Bus Rapid Transit stop is slated by AC Transit for Shattuck Avenue in front of the Bank of America building. Other transit coordination issues include the need for sheltered bus stops—now sorely lacking in the downtown—and bike racks. And a tunnel from the hotel/conference center to the Berkeley BART station should be explored. 

As the group moved past the Bank of America facility to the parking lot on Center Street, we stood in the sun and between passing buses enjoyed the nice spring-like weather. Because the sunlight came from the south (over the side of Center Street with all the shops and restaurants), the potential of using passive solar design to take advantage of the sun’s rays in the design of the building was clear. Furthermore, this southerly entrance to the project could be marked by a public plaza with trees, grass and other plantings, and pedestrian walkways. Furthermore, the creeks community has been working for more than 10 years to daylight Strawberry Creek which could be another natural focus for this entrance to the project. The creek currently runs in a culvert south of campus along Kittredge to its outfall on the Bay; it could be re-routed to run along Center Street. The proposed building itself offers great opportunities for using LID (low impact development) techniques such as a “green” roof (consisting of a thin layer of soil and ice plant) as well as innovative stormwater collection and discharge techniques. 

The bottom line for the Sierra Club is that the final design of the project not preclude the public environmental amenities outlined above that may take longer to realize. The Sierra Club looks forward to working with others to give meaningful and timely input to the city and university as this project develops.  

Helen Burke 

• 

Future Berkeley residents will look back on the Insane Building Boom of the Early 2000s and ask, “What were they thinking?”. 

UC (which staunchly refuses to give its staff cost-of-living raises) appears to have a limitless budget for real estate acquisition and construction, yet pays no taxes to support the town it consumes. 

During a tour of the proposed UC hotel and conference center site on Saturday, Feb. 7, I learned that UC has just purchased several charming, historic storefronts on University Avenue near Oxford Street, inhabited by small businesses which have been generating property, business and sales taxes for the City of Berkeley. UC’s intentions with respect to this site are unclear, but almost certainly involve demolition. We will lose history, charm and city revenue, and for what? So that university capital assets can continue to grow at a time of reduced enrollment and staff layoffs? 

A UC-owned hotel at Shattuck Avenue and Center Street would be yet another building off the property tax roles, while the city endures a budget crisis. If the university and other wealthy (but tax-free) entities do not begin to pay their fair share of fees for the city services they enjoy, this town cannot survive. 

Gale Garcia 

• 

A proposal to take a valuable chunk of real estate off the Berkeley property tax rolls so UC can buy it and build a 12-story hotel is being reviewed by a Planning Commission subcommittee. Despite lots of talk about bringing a museum and Pacific Film Archives downtown, the daylighting of Strawberry Creek, and the creation of a pedestrian mall, the only thing UC will commit to is a hotel that will forever change the face of downtown, and a parking facility to accommodate the hundreds of additional cars the hotel will attract. 

Relocating the UC museum downtown, we are told, will be part of a second phase, years after the hotel is completed. In other words, we are being asked to trust UC. The same UC that broke promises to sell People’s Park to the city for one dollar, the same UC that knowingly sold Berkeley a poisoned parcel of land at Harrison Street that they when knew was intended for sports recreation and housing. Let’s face it: UC can’t be trusted. 

To be fair, Kevin Hufferd, UC’s project manager, has been honest. Asked about daylighting of the creek, he says the “plan is not inconsistent with that goal,” promising neither daylighting, nor efforts to attain it. Asked about pedestrian open space he says “UC is thinking about this.” Asked about student housing, he says “it is not off the table.” Asked about preservation of existing mature trees, he says “no plans yet exist” to prevent removal. Asked if building designs would take advantage of passive solar, he makes no promises. And asked about the biggest selling point, the re-location of UC museum and the Pacific Film Archives, he says “UC is excited about the prospect,” but, we are cautioned, it will not happen until they raise the funds. When will this be? At a Feb. 10 breakfast Mayor Bates admitted this wouldn’t occur for at least two years, after the completion of the hotel. 

If we allow this development despite the very clear message that UC is promising nothing then we’ll get exactly what we are promised—nothing. 

And this time no one can say Berkeley is helpless to stop UC development. Building a hotel is so far outside the scope of UC’s “educational mission” that this project needs city approval. No question, the City of Berkeley has a lot of bargaining power. But the only way to be certain we get the goodies is if we insist on receiving them before the hotel goes up. One promising idea, suggested by the mayor, is to convert the interior of the existing UC print shop to a museum. If we move exhibits or Pacific Film Archives in before the hotel is built and enter legally binding agreements that UC continue to operate the facility in return for the UC hotel we could be assured that Berkeley gets something in return for taking the property off the tax rolls. Absent this type of quid pro-quo we can be certain the UC Hotel project will unfold in two phases. The first phase where we allow UC to build what they want, forever taking the land off Berkeley’s tax roles, the second phase, years later, when we realize we’ve been had.  

Elliot Cohen 

• 

The Feb. 7 tour, ably led by UC’s Kevin Hufferd and the Berkeley Planning Commission’s Rob Wrenn, opened my eyes to several features of this downtown crossroads. First was the UC Printing Plant building, an overlooked treasure at Oxford and Center streets. This building has an impressive Art Deco facade, but more important is the plaque pointing out that the original United Nations charter was printed there. That’s as big a chunk of history as our little city can claim—and we should not let this building be destroyed. 

The happy flip side is that the printing plant could form the basis of a wonderful museum structure, just as other converted industrial buildings have made very successful museums. London’s Tate Modern, a former power station, has won worldwide acclaim. My personal favorite is Los Angeles’ MOCA Temporary Contemporary. These adapted buildings never feel like “stuffy museums,” because they inherit virtues like vaulted ceilings and generous daylighting. 

Indeed, at the printing plant’s rear, Kevin pointed out a “sawtooth” roof that frames three high tiers of north-facing windows. These could provide gentle daylight to illuminate the artworks without damaging them. While the building needs at least cosmetic restoration, it could host a fine museum even in its current envelope.  

The second discovery was that a park or plaza might replace the Bank of America parking lot, on Center midway between Oxford Street and Shattuck Avenue. The lot is under-used, and UC may buy it (as part of the Bank of America property) and relocate the parking elsewhere. The lot would then become an ideal site for public open space—it’s south-facing and gets nice sunlight. 

A third discovery: Strawberry Creek has already been daylighted! I found it happily bubbling along above ground on the UC campus, when I walked just east of Oxford Street after the tour. I’m told the creek continues for at least a half-mile uphill, then flourishes (east of Gayley Road) in something called Strawberry Canyon. 

Why has this been kept secret from advocates of creek restoration? I suspect that the best place to enjoy the creek’s presence, to promote wider appreciation of it, and to promote better stewardship of it, is here on UC land. (Even with the university’s well-cultivated population, a discouraging amount of trash gets tossed in the creek.) 

While some Berkeley residents are enthusiastic about exposing a lower stretch of the creek along Center Street, and closing the block to traffic, I found several reasons to be skeptical of these proposals. We learned during the tour, for example, that AC Transit relies on Center Street as a place to park its buses. The city has always managed maintenance projects much better than large, expensive construction efforts—and unearthing the creek would be a whopper. Even if it didn’t bankrupt the city, it would cause years of disruption. 

If Center Street were permanently closed, this would block a major gateway to the campus, as well as make downtown traffic congestion worse. The city would lose its successful past investment in nurturing a viable restaurant row along Center Street. (Good luck keeping the restaurants open during excavation—or, without curbside automobile access, after the street’s closure). 

Most importantly, daylighting an extra block of Strawberry Creek might not be good for the creek itself. It would expose the creek to more litter from a larger and broader downtown population, and perhaps to toxic runoff from surrounding streets. 

So, my conclusions from this tour: Employ “green” building standards by preserving the printing plant structure, rather than losing it to history and consuming extra energy and materials to rebuild from scratch. Daylight the art, not the lower creek. And provide public open space on the Bank of America lot, not in the middle of the street. 

Michael Katz