Photo Friday: Industrial Underutilization

So last night, as I was rereading the Trib story about the industrial land-use policy, I realized that what bothered me about it wasn’t so much that what it said was wrong or misleading (there was some of that, but relatively little), but that it didn’t mention any of the interesting things that happened, and failed to provide any context for understanding the issue.

Anyway, I’d like to provide some of that context, but I’m not going to get to it today. Please come back next week, when I plan to be just as one-note about industrial preservation as I’ve been recently about Measure Y. It’ll be more interesting, I promise. You’ll get to learn all about the East Bay industrial real estate market, what the real barriers are to industrial business attraction in Oakland (hint: it isn’t fear of developers), and how the Council finally stood up to staff/the Mayor on something (resulting in a little spat between De La Fuente and Lindheim at the meeting). Best of all, you will be treated to a very sad story about a little place called subarea 8. It’s going to be so much fun! But for today, I just want to share a few pictures I took during a recent walk along Oakland’s grand industrial boulevard, Mandela Parkway. Click through to view.




And now back to the Trib:

The council’s action came two weeks after Mayor Ron Dellums’ office backed a policy to preserve all of Oakland’s remaining industrial zones, which have been declining in size as residential developers buy up large, inexpensive parcels and obtain general plan amendments to build housing on the sites.

So…reading that, how many times would you guess this has happened? A lot, right? In the next paragraph, they refer to this as a “trend.” Seriously, take a wild guess. Since, say, 2003, how many residential developers do you think have bought up large, inexpensive parcels and obtained general plan amendments to build housing?

One thought on “Photo Friday: Industrial Underutilization

  1. dto510

    Wow, these buildings sure need to be preserved!

    Not.

    So, the Trib says General Plan Amendments from industrial to residential is a “trend.” I think a trend would mean at least twice a year. So, since 2003, basically four years: eight General Plan amendments? That would be a trend.