Skyscraper City Forum banner
9901 - 9920 of 30720 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,268 Posts
http://abc7news.com/society/sj-community-outraged-over-homeless-housing-proposal/1288764/



NIMBYs disapprove San Jose plan for manufactured homes for the homeless
http://www.ktvu.com/news/114703868-story



Now you know why DTSJ is about the only place where the city can house the homeless without NIMBY eruptions.
If we are perfectly honest The lot is basically squeezed between 87 and Almaden Expy, with the only thing around there being storage service, the Evan's Lane Wellness & Recovery Center, a small mobile home park, and one apartment building. The article calls it Willow Glen as if it were pricey Willow Glen area, but it really isn't.
Of course people that don't already have a bunch of homeless people around are going to complain, it doesn't mean the city is not better off, at the end of the day having less homeless on the streets downtown helps the entire city as we get more sales tax if more people come downtown. if people avoid the metal health clinic because of homeless, we could see some negative things, mental health is important though, I don't think people will avoid the storage place, and I don't think the apartments will go empty. There really is no retail there. I think the city is better off putting the mobile homes, there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
The article calls it Willow Glen as if it were pricey Willow Glen area, but it really isn't.
Right? Even Conklin Brothers was complaining. A carpet store.

Isn't this site going to be for the homeless who actually want to get out of their situation? Like with mental health care and substance abuse treatment? I question the moral values of anyone opposing this.

If they did this in The Jungle, I don't think I would oppose it (close enough for me to consider "my backyard).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Wow. Just wow. Because wealthier people complained, let's put it on the east side, where the poor people are, the brown people, the Asian immigrants. Can we, in San Jose, at least leave that kind of mentality in the 20th century?

The reality is that every time SJ announces any kind of affordable housing or homeless development or recovery or treatment center, nearby residents rise up screaming bloody murder. "Fix the problem...just don't fix it over here!"
I was raised in the East Side, spare me the lecture. I'm just being honest. The East Side is the place where land is plenty, affordable, and less likely to engender opposition. Why not put it there?

Why do we insist on putting these types of housing near areas where we're trying to revive (Downtown) or where we know there are heavy opposition (Wilow Glen, Almaden, Evergreen, SSJ, WSJ, etc) from wealthier folks?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Roger that. If you want to make downtown living enticing in California, you need a downtown mall. One of them Westfield places should do nicely.
We have too many malls, though. Honestly, if I live in Downtown and had no car and can spend half a day at the mall, I can just hop onto lightrail and head south to Oakridge Mall or north to Great Mall.

And if they ever build lightrail/BART to ValleyFair, that'll render any mall in Downtown redundant. Heck, even a BRT that actually works would do just fine.

For retail to do well in Downtown, the stores would have to be unique and differentiate itself from the mega malls that San Jose already has.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Right? Even Conklin Brothers was complaining. A carpet store.

Isn't this site going to be for the homeless who actually want to get out of their situation? Like with mental health care and substance abuse treatment? I question the moral values of anyone opposing this.

If they did this in The Jungle, I don't think I would oppose it (close enough for me to consider "my backyard).
Nobody is opposing it nerdy. They just don't want it around their particular neighborhoods, and I don't blame them. It's human nature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
We have too many malls, though. Honestly, if I live in Downtown and had no car and can spend half a day at the mall, I can just hop onto lightrail and head south to Oakridge Mall or north to Great Mall.

And if they ever build lightrail/BART to ValleyFair, that'll render any mall in Downtown redundant. Heck, even a BRT that actually works would do just fine.

For retail to do well in Downtown, the stores would have to be unique and differentiate itself from the mega malls that San Jose already has.
The reason that malls work is not because they are cheesy and plastic or anything like that. The small, unique shops can't live long by themselves. That's why they need "anchor stores" - like department stores and grocery stores. These chain stores can weather economic storms and attract shoppers to the small unique shops that you apparently like to visit. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
The reason that malls work is not because they are cheesy and plastic or anything like that. The small, unique shops can't live long by themselves. That's why they need "anchor stores" - like department stores and grocery stores. These chain stores can weather economic storms and attract shoppers to the small unique shops that you apparently like to visit. :lol:
I actually visit chain stores more so than boutique shops. That said, it'll be hard to justify another Macy's when you can drive 10 minutes to one west of Downtown.

Westgate Mall, though it's now doing better than before, suffered from being in close proximity to ValleyFair/The Row.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,228 Posts
I don't get it, they(Core) already said they're going save the facade, what more is there that needs to happen, does the city want the inside of the buildings preserved?
If I were the city, I'd destroy these cheap historic buildings that I think has absolutely no value once so ever and just a ploy to make developer so miserable that he would give up on the high rise. Let's face it: the city doesn't want high rises anymore quietly since it thinks the downtown already has way too many high rises anyway. That's the quiet thinking of the city leaders, not really Sam Liccardo- just most everyone else.:eek:hno::eek:hno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
San Jose should spend zero effort/money chasing formula chain retail to come downtown. Valley Fair & Santana Row are here to stay, get over it already. The Great Mall does huge business, and will probably do even better once BART is finished next year. The retail business is cutthroat, and chains will only open in a location that makes fiscal sense. If a national chain decides opening up a store downtown is a good idea, then they'll do it. There's nothing preventing them now. There are plenty of empty store fronts along 1st and 2nd.

As I've said before, SJ should concentrate on bringing as many residents and jobs downtown as possible. Retail will naturally follow that, assuming is makes sense. Cultural institutions, civic events, cool restaurants, and nightlife are what should be focused on. Those are the types of things that will get people to come out of the suburbs, not another Urban Outfitters branch.

That being said, as a downtown/SoFA resident I wouldn't mind seeing a small format Walmart Express downtown. That could possibly work. I was hoping for a City Target, but with a full-size Target so close to downtown that probably won't happen.

Speaking of events, the SoFA Street Fair is starting a new spring edition this year! It will be this month on 4/24. Listen to free music and support local retail:
https://www.facebook.com/events/510078469185560/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,228 Posts
San Jose should spend zero effort/money chasing formula chain retail to come downtown. Valley Fair & Santana Row are here to stay, get over it already. The Great Mall does huge business, and will probably do even better once BART is finished next year. The retail business is cutthroat, and chains will only open in a location that makes fiscal sense. If a national chain decides opening up a store downtown is a good idea, then they'll do it. There's nothing preventing them now. There are plenty of empty store fronts along 1st and 2nd.

As I've said before, SJ should concentrate on bringing as many residents and jobs downtown as possible. Retail will naturally follow that, assuming is makes sense. Cultural institutions, civic events, cool restaurants, and nightlife are what should be focused on. Those are the types of things that will get people to come out of the suburbs, not another Urban Outfitters branch.

That being said, as a downtown/SoFA resident I wouldn't mind seeing a small format Walmart Express downtown. That could possibly work. I was hoping for a City Target, but with a full-size Target so close to downtown that probably won't happen.

Speaking of events, the SoFA Street Fair is starting a new spring edition this year! It will be this month on 4/24. Listen to free music and support local retail:
https://www.facebook.com/events/510078469185560/
It is useless to bring in more residents since nothing will change realistically!:bash: Downtown is already awash with a lot of housing(11,000) and many residents with disposable incomes(60,000 from census covering area from 280 north to Taylor st and west from 87 to 11 street east) and still rising with Silvery Towers on the fast track now and Marshall Sq beginning in May. Downtown is already at the point of these changes, if this were to happen but not happening, even if they build 10,000 more housing units. It'll just lead to more grocery stores, cafe's and restaurants. We don't need them anymore than what we have already(325 restaurants now downtown)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,228 Posts
Then the city should solely subsidize Euro/asian unique stores downtown in a little glassy outdoor mall attached to new tower somewhere in downtown, preferable at First/San Fernando by reviving that beautifully proposed original 21 story AboveNet headquarter tower with a little specialized upscale unique mall. I don't mind if the city heavily subsidize the heck out of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,228 Posts
Update: Sobrato's Second Street tower is still on and looking for fast groundbreaking in late spring, if the city gives them approval. It's in the approval process, according to project manager of Second Street Apt. I believe it when I see(must get pass over 12 story in height in concrete plate which I feel it's the point of no return) it before I'm convinced this is for real. Sobratos are saying it's for real and serious about it. Don't take my words for it, take the project manager words in case if this project doesn't happen or stalls in the middle of the construction, leaving a big hole.
 

·
Downtown San Jose
Joined
·
1,459 Posts
If I were the city, I'd destroy these cheap historic buildings that I think has absolutely no value once so ever and just a ploy to make developer so miserable that he would give up on the high rise. Let's face it: the city doesn't want high rises anymore quietly since it thinks the downtown already has way too many high rises anyway. That's the quiet thinking of the city leaders, not really Sam Liccardo- just most everyone else.:eek:hno::eek:hno:
This type of short-sighted thinking is what destroyed downtown in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. They tore down "cheap historic buildings" in order to build things that never materialized. Every single surface lot used to be an historic building that attracted foot traffic and contributed to the architectural fabric of the city. There is enough open space downtown to not need to tear down a single historic building.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
This type of short-sighted thinking is what destroyed downtown in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. They tore down "cheap historic buildings" in order to build things that never materialized. Every single surface lot used to be an historic building that attracted foot traffic and contributed to the architectural fabric of the city. There is enough open space downtown to not need to tear down a single historic building.
I don't see any architectural quality whatsoever in these particular buildings, or the one at Stockton Avenue that temporarily held up the apartment project there, or that crap box next to Marshall Square project.

It is regrettable that the City went on a binge and bulldoze many great looking historic buildings back in the yonder days, but this is almost feeling like they're going all out to preserve ANYTHING "historic" for the sole sake of making up for what was done in the 60's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Nobody is opposing it nerdy. They just don't want it around their particular neighborhoods, and I don't blame them. It's human nature.
It's also human nature to help others. Our council members need to take the right position on this. This one property would only address 10% of the homeless population. I hope it's a success and a model for more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
It's also human nature to help others. Our council members need to take the right position on this. This one property would only address 10% of the homeless population. I hope it's a success and a model for more.
Until it's in your neighborhood :)

Why force it into an area where there are heavy opposition and risk the ire of an entire neighborhood, when there are easier places? We're going to need Willow Glen's cooperation on many bigger projects in the future, such as the Three Creeks Trail and the motherload that is the High Speed Rail alignment, why do we need to antagonize this particular neighborhood over something so insignificant as this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,482 Posts
I was raised in the East Side, spare me the lecture. I'm just being honest. The East Side is the place where land is plenty, affordable, and less likely to engender opposition. Why not put it there?

Why do we insist on putting these types of housing near areas where we're trying to revive (Downtown) or where we know there are heavy opposition (Wilow Glen, Almaden, Evergreen, SSJ, WSJ, etc) from wealthier folks?
I get why you said it. It was the presentation was terrible. Put the bad stuff where land is more plentiful and voters are less vocal. Yes, there are reasons to go that direction, but it also has shades of "urban renewal" and "urban freeways." We've been down that road.

Why insist on putting it elsewhere than the East side? There isn't one reason as to why it should be in any given location: where land is owned by the city; available jobs; available transportation options to jobs.

Look, if we want these individuals to, ultimately, move upward out of this housing, they need easy access to jobs. That's proximity and/or frequent transit in multiple directions to maximize opportunity coverage. So, while it may be politically convenient to shove them to the edges, doing so may be self-defeating.
 
9901 - 9920 of 30720 Posts
Top