I wish I understood what the hangup over this proposed building is. The location is on the Lake, yes, but it's also *downtown*. In other words, this location is ideal for dense development. If we don't do it here, where then? It's also worth noting that there are, in fact, already skyscrapers on Lake Merritt, in the very near vicinity of this proposd tower. This new one will fit in just fine. Rather than fighting this tower tooth and nail, the public should be demanding a robust design process, so that the new tower will be a shining new addition to the skyline.

yeahhh, no. It's not soi much preservation that i smy concern hee, but a 40 story skyscrpaer (twice the height of the Essex) right on the lake, takes too much away from the openess required to make Lake Merritt park the beautiful park experience that it is. Building this size will cast large shadows over the park (let's remember, the lake is a park, set aside for us urban citizens to be able to have close and easy access to a natural setting) . Sun and expansive horizons are much of the natural setting we have in the park and taking those away takes away what the park was intended to be, and what we taxpayers pay for. Agreed, a bldg this size is suitable for downtown, btu get it off the lake side. There are plenty of spaces to build this in more proper downtown, many, many underutilized locations. The developer wants the lake view in order to increase his bottom line at the expense of the taxpaying public's view within their park. I only hoep that our hapless local governement can, for once, make a stand for the people they represent. We can keep our park and add to our downtown housing and he can have his profit - all if he builds in downtown.

Eric, I'll tell you what the hang up is: if we don't preserve aspects of our heritage and history, we are destined to become yet another soulness community amongst an ever growing sprawl of such development. Lake Merritt was once surrounded by villas once owned by Schilling, which eventually gave way to apartments and the greater density that you mention. The historic Schilling spice gardens, once of highlight of joggers and stroller trolling the lake, should be preserved -- especially when developers are given sweet heart deals to acquire the land. The proposed development of this site is depressing, both for what it says about our ability to preserve historical sites and open spaces, as well as the cynicism with which land deals are made that defy the public interest. I stongly urge you do read more about the proposed project before rushing to judgement based on the developers over-generous assessment of what is being proposed (and at what cost).

After reading the staff report (link in Naomi Schiff's article), I am appalled that O'Keefe could be given a discount of $6 million on an $8 million property because it was considered unbuildable, and then two years later be asking to build an enormous high-rise on the site. Why are the same factors that made the property unbuildable in 2005 no longer applicable?

As mentioned by others in previous articles-paving the way for towering buildings such as this one would forever ruin the feeling of the Lake Merritt area. If you enjoy tall Skyscrapers move to SOMA in SF, Chicago or New York. Leave Oakland alone!! I am appalled that Oakland government representatives seem to sell out to Developers at every turn. Please tell me if there is a community action group out there willing to work to stop this type of development and I will join!! Thanks.

According to the Chronicle report, the developer asserts his project would "provide more eyes on the street to help fight crime." (reporter's summary)
We have the eyes, but we do not have the hands (the police) to do anything about what the eyes see. The developer proposes to bring in many new residents without ensuring more police -- in one of the most underpoliced cities in the country. See www.orpn.org

I really don't understand these comments at all.

To Linda Forde: You say "paving the way for towering buildings such as this one would forever ruin the feeling of the Lake Merritt area." Are you unaware that the current tallest building, only 5 feet shorter that the one proposed, sits directly on Lake Merritt just blocks from this site. The difference is that this building would not be directly on the Lake - there is already an historic high rise apartment building between this lot and the Lake

.

To Deborah Cowder and Rod: What on earth are you talking about when you say "sweetheart deals" and that the developer was given a discount? The sale of this land was a private transaction, the city never owned the property. Who are you to decide what prices people should be selling their own property for?

If anyone is interested in the actual facts about the project and the garden, I have written about the building both on Novometro, and on my blog, Great Expectations.

One of the things that has bothered me as I see all the condo developments going up in Oakland is that hardly any of them have sizable terraces or green spaces. We live in one of the most beautiful climates in the world and yet most of these condo developments have no way for their occupants to experience the "outdoors" from their own apartments. Look at condo developments in Seattle for contrast. I don't see any city trees being planted around the perimeters. of these buildings, either. Oakland has the potential to be a great little city, given its unsurpassed geographical features. Let's not lose our connection with the natural world. I fear that this high rise will look like all the rest- a monolith without a nod to the outside world. Also, I agree that funding is a problem in Oakland, but we need to preserve and add to our urban parks. Lake Merritt is a jewel indeed. I am not sure a high rise on its edge is the right solution, but at the very least the planning commission needs to get lots of imput from the community before proceeding.

K. - If you're concerned about issues like this, it would be a good idea to attend tonight's meeting so you can find out how the developer is trying to address your concerns. If you can't make it, check out Novometro tomorrow, where I will have a report on what went on.

Re: your concerns about green space. As I noted in my story about the project, one of the things the developer is doing as a community benefit is to renovate and relandscape the poorly cared for and underutilized Snow Park next door. Currently, there is a large fence dividing the park from the lot. The building proposal involves removing the wall so that the tower's landscaping extends into Snow Park. The project also includes a ground floor garden cafe.

I am also disappointed by the boring condos all over downtown, although I have no problem with bringing more people into the neighborhood. Rather than get all worked up over shadows and that walled-off garden, we should focus on whether the building is well-designed and will be something that adds to the community. I'm very interested to see their proposal for Snow Park. One nice park is better than two empty parks, in my view.

I agree that we should focus on the design of these proposals rather than knee-jerk opposition to every development project that comes along. Besides, this building wouldn't be on the lake, it's behind an existing apartment building--and it's clearly downtown. Lake Merritt is an urban park, much like Central Park or the Boston Commons, and should be appreciated for the vibrant culture around it as much as its natural beauty. Personally, Im much more concerned with the greatly delayed improvements along 12th Street and Lakeshore Ave.

The arguments against yet another plan to bring homeowners (i.e., customers for local businesses, citizens to bring life to local streets) are as pathetic as they are predictable. We absolutely should save our energies to making sure we get a beautiful building, but let's be clear, the antiquarians like Naomi Schiff are congenitally opposed to any development and it wouldn't matter what was proposed. The ideas about land swaps and the city buying the park are just a smoke screen. The antiquarians know they can't happen, so they can hide their opposition to development, per se, by claiming they would favor building housing if only.... And of course, what follows is a set of conditions impossible to meet in the real world. And so they go on, blathering about the wonders of 'the last remaining break bulk cargo depot on the West Coast', about gardens that few have ever heard of, let alone seen, all in the name of 'reasonable' demands.

Hi Deckin: it will be greatly appreciated if you will kindly refrain from personal attacks on specific individuals who may have an opinion which is different than yours. Your comments will carry more credibility, as well. It is important that we stay friends and build closeness. Otherwise, no matter how grand a city we design, if we lose our hearts and each other, the effort is wasted.

John, Just to be clear, I called the arguments against the development predictable and pathetic, not their proponents. I did refer to Naomi Schiff as an 'antiquarian', but first, I think that's pretty mild as these things go, and second, I did impute some motives for the opposition to this (and other) developments, but I wasn't aware that that was verboten. But, OK, if calling people antiquarians is out of bounds, and questioning why someone holds the position they do is a personal affront, no problem. Closeness and friendship are superb virtues, but so is the truth and so is the long term good of the city. I'll try to make sure I don't completely ignore the former for the sake of the latter if you'll promise not to do the converse.

With regard to comments about the so-called “historic garden”, I invite folks to read the brochure we were given at last night’s meeting. Mr. Schilling himself had so little regard for this garden that he, himself, chose to subdivide the property so it could be sold. Now, what is historic about that. Furthermore, the suggestions that the property owners simply “annex the garden to the park” is too funny for words. Have you no understanding of a business transaction? These developers – in my estimation – were amazing in their vision and generosity to the community. I cannot wait to see this gorgeous structure built, and the sooner the better. Never have I seen a building plan with such open space. I look forward to the day I can have a copy of coffee before my regular walk around the lake.

I also thought the developers presented a well-thoughout plan that will only enhance the neighborhood--and they plan to rehab and maintain neglected Snow Park! If the City somehow manages to take on Schilling Garden it'll end up in the same sad shape that most of our other parks are in, and it most likely wouldn't even be open to the public.

i'm very glad to see both sides of the debate represented here. when i read the first few posts i thought maybe oakland would be doomed to implode like berkeley, where gridlock prevents ANY development, even positive development. i'm looking out at the lake right now and IMHO a building of that proportion, in THAT location will not adversely effect the charm of lake merritt or cast gastly shadows. that location is unused and fenced up, snow park is HARDLY bustling with people and in need of expansion, so i think a building with good design and plentiful parking would be a welcome addition.

I am the person who spoke at the July 31st Emerald View meeting and claiming to be speaking “on behalf of the great majority of Oakland residents.” I said that the great majority of Oakland residents want Shilling Gardens to be retained as parkland. While this may offend a certain traditional sense of democracy and “one person, one vote,” mindset, my statement was, and is, quite true. I backed up this rather brash statement by reminding the group that in both 1907 and 2004, Oakland residents voted for bonds to purchase and improve parkland near Lake Merritt. In both elections, the park bonds won by margins of 80% - 20% – this is most certainly a great majority of Oakland residents. Coupled with this is the fact that three recent attempts by the City of Oakland to sell parkland near the Lake were soundly rejected by the public. These were at Splash Pad Park (Trader Joe’s), the Fire Alarm site (condominiums), and at 12th Street near Henry J. Kaiser Center (the cathedral). The fact that Oakland resident have for so long shown this strong preference toward parks makes it abundantly clear that a great majority Oakland residents want to keep and acquire parkland at Lake Merritt. To this end, I will continue to advocate that Shilling Garden be dedicated back to the City so that it may be daylighted and reconnected to Snow Park as part of the park system surrounding Lake Merritt. The reason this perspective is important to emphasize is because there appears to be a lot of support for high rise development at the lake. However, 20, 30, or even 100 people speaking in favor of a high rise development is a truly small number when compared to all those Oakland residents who have voted for and preserved parks at Lake Merritt over the past 100 years. Developers and project supporters may feel some comfort and strength in their apparent numbers, but it is fair to say they are a small minority when considering the history of parks in Oakland. If the owner of Shilling Gardens and the developer of Emerald View want to leave a legacy at this property, they can do this by allowing this property to go back to the City as public land. Or, at least by moving the Emerald View project elsewhere and leave Shilling Gardens intact. If they take this relatively simple step, they will leave a legacy which will be fondly remembered by the great majority of Oakland residents for many years to come.

I am so puzzled by John Klein's comments. Schilling Gardens is a private space; nobody has, or ever had, access to it. It is not a public park; and a donation of this space was rejected for multiple reasons. That is simply off the table so your advocacy would be better directed toward something else. The building's plans to create lovely landscaping for ALL to enjoy AND to improve Snow Park is as good as it's going to get. I encourage you to open your mind and recognize that reality. When City governments cannot even maintain the public parks they have, a public-private partnership makes a great deal of sense to me.

My point is that those who wish to eradicate Shilling Gardens and use the site for private development actually represent a very small minority of Oakland residents. I will continue to advocate that this property be dedicated back to the City as public park, daylighted, and reconnected to Snow Park as part of the park system surrounding Lake Merritt

John Klein's wish that Schilling Park be 'dedicated back to the City' hides an assumption that the park was ever the City's to begin with. One can't give back what one never took. What is now Snow Park was originally the Zoo and it has never been connected as a park with Schilling Gardens, hence it can't be reconnected to it, as a park. Even prior to Spanish conquest, these two plots of land were no more specially connected than any two other plots in the area. If I may tread on Mr. Klein's sensibilities (yet again) this is a common theme. Assume some antecedent idyllic state that we're supposed to restore that never, in fact, obtained. The question is about the future of the area and what is best for that. Snow Park is massively underused at present; Schilling Park is virtually unknown and unseen. We have a plan on the table that would do much to increase the use of Snow Park and bring much needed money, vitality, and activity to the area, not to mention provide housing for people who will be willing to commit their lives to living in Oakland.

John Klein again presumes to speak for the majority of us, but let's point out the obvious--voters didn't even know Schilling Gardens existed when we approved Measure DD (and where did that money go again??). And to compare previous disputes over public parks to this debate over private property (Schilling Garden) is misleading. I suspect many Oaklanders have some respect for private property rights.

For those who were unable to attend the meeting, it should be noted that Mr. Klein was booed and hissed by the crowd when he claimed at the meeting to speak for a "great majority of Oaklanders." He was also interrupted repeatedly with cries of "No! You don't!"

Hi V Smoothe: thank you for making the point regarding how rude many of the meeting's participants were to me while I was making my comments. Presumably, they acted like that because they didn't like what they were hearing and/or they didn't want anyone else to hear my point of view.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of down side to this project. If you're a big picture environmentalist you should absolutely be in favour of this project. Smart growth puts people in city centers near public transportation. More people creates more vitality, more idea's, more culture, more tax revenue and improved quality of life for all. I agree with the idea that the public should have input with the architecture of any development, especially near the jewel of Oakland (Lake Merritt). As far as I'm concerned this building is totally to scale with that part of the lake. Build it! As a matter of fact anything that would bring decent jobs and more revenue would go a long way to addressing Oakland three priorities: Decreasing poverty, safer streets and better schools.

Mr. Klein I suppose I'm not alone in waiting for some kind of response to the points we made about your claims regarding the 'reconnection' of Schilling Gardens to Snow Park. When friends are involved in a search for the best solution, they argue for their positions in good faith and respond in kind. So, like Diogenes, we wait.

Let me restate my position in order to get rid of some prepositions which seem to be so bothersome. To restate: the current owner of Shilling Gardens should donate it, sell it (at a nominal amount) to the City of Oakland, or swap it for land further from the borders of Lake Merritt. Then, the City should daylight the property by removing walls, connect it to Snow Park, at which time it will become part of the system of parks surrounding Lake Merritt. I am not anti-development and nothing in my comments indicates otherwise. I support many of the large projects in the downtown. Rather, I am trying save a park. Or, more precisely, I am trying to save land near the Lake which has the potential to become public park land. I disagree that the drive to improve Shilling Gardens or Snow Park invariably leads to a condominium project as only solution possible for the garden. I see no inconsistency between the fact that a great majority of Oakland residents have voted for and supported acquiring and expanding park land at Lake Merritt and the fact that polls consistently show a majority of Oakland residents favor development. The reason this project is controversial is because it lies at the “intersection” of these to urban planning principles. That is, this property is close enough to Lake Merritt to have the potential for being reclaimed as park land and become part of the park system surrounding the Lake. At the same time, the property lies within the range of the development core for downtown Oakland. One certainty to come from all of this is that one of these two development principles will prevail over the other. Preserving Shilling Garden as public park would not be the death knell for development downtown. In fact, it could assist economic development is ways no one can currently foresee. I provide are several recent examples of how preserving parks has enhanced economic and cultural viability near the Lake. First, Splash Pad Park, which, like Snow Park, was under-utilized when the City attempted to sell it to Trader Joe’s recently. The public disapproved of the loss of this historic park and stopped the sale. What was the outcome? Trader Joe’s moved to an infinitely more appropriate site within one block of the park and Splash Pad Park was greatly improved and now hosts one of the most popular Farmer’s Markets in the Bay Area. Who, at the time of the proposed sale to Trader Joe’s, could have foreseen the stunning and wildly successful outcome of saving that park? Similarly, when the City attempted to sell park land at 12th Street for a cathedral and the Fire Alarm site for housing in 2003, the community again rejected both ideas. Did the Diocese leave Oakland? Did housing development stop in downtown? Of course not. To the contrary, the cathedral remained in the Lake area while once-and-for-all solving the eye-sore dilemma of the huge vacant parking lot where the cathedral now sits. As well, housing projects continue to come forward downtown. Equally importantly was that Measure DD, as an outgrowth out of the 12th Street controversies, was passed in 2004 by 80% of Oakland voters and will fund major park land reclamations at the Lake. I am trying to preserve land which, with enough vision, can be transformed into a park. I reject the notion that the drive to improve Shilling Gardens invariably leads to a condominium project as the only solution for the garden. As inconvenient as the facts may be, it is true that a great majority of Oakland residents have voted for and supported retaining and acquiring park land by the Lake – I will continue to remind the community these facts and truths for as long as this discussion continues.

One "truth" not mentioned in the above comment - the owners of the lot attempted to donate it to the city in 2005, and the city rejected to donation due to maintenance costs and issues relating to the difficulty of access. The city has already said that they do not want and cannot afford the property.

The current proposal increases public open space in the area and also funds maintenance of the currently underutilized Snow Park.

I believe the defective process the City used when it considered the donation proposal have been discussed ad nauseam.

John,

You said:

[T]he current owner of Shilling Gardens should donate it, sell it (at a nominal amount) to the City of Oakland, or swap it for land further from the borders of Lake Merritt.

Just to make sure that everyone understands precisely what you’re advocating, it might help if you explicated a couple of things:

• When you say that the current owner should donate it, in what sense of “should” do you mean this? As a moral should? Or as in “it would make business sense for the current owner, who recently bought it, to then turn around and give it away”? Or should in the sense “it would please me if he were to do so”?

  If moral, what is the basis of the owner’s moral obligation to do so?

• When you say “sell it (at a nominal amount),” do you mean a small amount (like $1)? Or some other price less than what he paid for the land? Some other price?

Mr. Klein: I don't know what could be more clear than V. Smoothe's elegant response to your main suggestion. The land was offered to the city, but the city wisely rejected that. Why? Because the city already is strapped just barely maintaining the parks it has. You say the process by which the city rejected the park was flawed. How was it flawed? Is your standard for being flawed coming up with an answer you dont' like? Heads you win, tails we lose? Is that your idea of a fair process? And following up on the point by Mr. Ratliff: Your sense of 'should' is no mere idle expression of preference. You want to use the levers of municipal authority to coerce a property owner to give something they paid for over to the city. You say you're pro-development, but what kind of developer would, in their right mind, invest in a city where this kind of coercion is the accepted norm? I don't know what your views of private property are, but I'm sure the land your home is on would make a wonderful park; care to support a donation there?

An antiquarian is one who collects antiques. I do not collect antiques. I have a thick skin, and if anyone wants to call me an antiquarian, do go ahead. I am interested in affordable housing, open space, liveable walkable cities, and historic preservation. I do not oppose all dense buildings. I do believe that the city staff's unilateral decision not to work out a donation deal for Schilling Garden was a sad mistake. They did not bring the issue to anyone on the city council, and did not discuss the idea with park supporters or the public. Some of us would have been eager to put together a public-private fundraising plan to make it work. I still believe that such a scheme could succeed, and am interested in finding opportunities for a land swap so that Mr. O'Keefe can build something. Thoughtful discussion is great, especially when informed with useful information. Vituperation is less productive.

I am trying to preserve property that has the potential to be reclaimed as park land and to become part of the park system surrounding Lake Merritt. I merely suggested a number of methods by which this might happen. Of course, suggesting that it be donated or sold to the City for $10 is unrealistic. A land swap, however, is not. All of my suggestions, realistic or not, are bona fide methods by which the City could acquire the property – stranger things have happened. Further, I suggest that I have provided very real and concrete examples of instances when retaining land at the Lake as park land rather than selling it for private development has been the right choice and resulted in the best use. I am still unwavering in my conviction that a great majority of Oakland residents agree with me (see my previous citations the 1907 park bond and to Measure DD (passed in 2002 instead of 2004), along saving Splash Pad Park, the Fire Alarm site, and 12th Street from private development). The reason I will not be deterred from espousing these indisputable facts in because, frankly, it is the pro-development supporters who are over-represented in this debate. That is, on this blog, there are approximately 20 contributors of which about 2/3 favor developing Shilling Park with condos – by my count that is 12-13 people. If one were to use this group solely to measure public support, then one might fairly conclude that a majority support the Emerald Views project. But this is just not the case because. And, yes, I will say it again: a great majority of Oakland residents (by that I mean tens of thousands) have consistently voted for and supported acquiring and retaining land at Lake Merritt for park land rather than for private development.

To Mr. Klein and Ms. Schiff, What the public mood is or isn't is really not something that we can productively argue here. But the merits of the proposal are different. Of course, open, beautiful space is desirable to all. But the question we have here, as in most of life, is one of trade offs. Your position is that you're willing to trade off millions of dollars in tax revenues alone (not to mention spending in local businesses, etc.) to preserve a piece of land not one in 10,000 Oaklanders have ever seen. Is it your position that this park is so precious, such a rare gem, that it outweighs both the good that new residents bring to a city and the obligation the city of Oakland has to the ABAGS goal of generating over 14,000 new housing units? There is already a park in the area and voters, with their feet, are roundly ignoring it, so is the addition of more space going to make it that much more attractive?

Deckin, you are fundmentally under-valuing the parcel if you measure it's worth to the people of Oakland by how many of us have actually seen the parcel in the past and present. Just as it is valuable to the developers, it is also valuable to Oakland in a similar way. Its real value to the people of our city lies not in it's past and how few of us -have- seen it, but in it's future and how many of us -could- see it. It's value lies in its potential...the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, who will be able to enjoy the park in the future, for hundreds of years to come, --hundreds-- of years. We really should give more thought to the future and the value of preserving existing, cultivated green spaces as Oakland becomes more dense. Just as a tall building can reduce carbon footprints, admit that we will also breath easier with the oxygen that mature trees produce. There are other suitible locations around downtown for erecting buildings, much taller than 42 stories ! This parcel is not one of them. To Smart Growth advocates, whatever shade of green that represents to you, realize that the same thing that makes this parcel valuable to developers also makes it valuable as a Smart Growth Park to the people of Oakland: that it is on the Lakeside and transit-proximate, 4 blocks from BART/BRT. As a city, we should consider that, down the road, much more so than today, folks will value Parks and Rec, near transit. Have you seen crude oil futures, we are bumping our heads on $100 a barell ! Peak Oil is here ! What kind of transit-proximate and transit-oriented city parks will you leave for your children's children ?

Just how "historic" is Schilling Garden? Our city is only about 150 years old. I've heard people complain about losing "historic" victorians that are only 80 years old. My grandmother is 96. If you called her "historic" she'd slap you upside the head. I don't know if this building is proposed in the right place necessarily. Still, expecting a city to not change and grow is flat out silly. Its a recipe for disappointment.

Why not move it a few blocks to Broadway and 17th? That blighted block would certainly benefit, upper floor residents would still have a view of the Lake, and this already lovely part of the neighborhood would be preserved.