There are plenty of proposals for poorly planned, wanton residential developments in the city. Coyote Valley and Evergreen come to mind, but now there are cracks beginning to show in the showpiece North San Jose development. Namely, the lack of proper planning has resulted in insufficient schools for the children of new residents, necessitating going quite a distance to get to one, and the area’s existing schools are rapidly becoming overcrowded, especially in the crucial lower grades. There has even been a spillover into nearby Santa Clara which is upsetting their educational apple cart.
There is more to the problem than that. I have also heard rumblings that there is insufficient emergency service coverage in the area—fire, police and ambulance—and that means that services are thinned out for the rest of us. So, what the hell was our city council thinking when they let this development go through without sufficient planning for the obvious services? I know that Mayor Reed and Councilman Kansen Chu are aware of the situation, but why are we such a long way down the path to a great deal more residential development in North San Jose—32,000 additional homes to be exact—when we have not fully addressed the burning issues already before us with regard to the residents who have recently bought into the area? A similar concern for lack of proper infrastructure is one of the sustaining objections to the Coyote Valley development and the same needs to be applied to North San Jose.
I do see some good news in the way the historic preservation issues have been handled at the old Del Monte cannery site, and perhaps this could provide a basic model for other such developments on sites of historic interest. The Del Monte site has been developed by industry giant KB Homes, which demolished some of the old building but has incorporated some walls and the old water tower into the new design in a way that seems reasonable. However, the model for the future is to be found in the requirement that KB funds a $100,000 audio archive containing an oral history of the site under the auspices of History San Jose. In addition, they have paid for the production of an eight-minute video explaining the history of the site and promoting downtown San Jose living. OK, that sounds like it could be an infomercial too, but the idea is on the right track.
With some improvements, the Del Monte/KB Homes model could be applied to all developments on historic sites. Developers should be required to incorporate as much of a building’s historic value as possible into new plans and fund History San Jose projects that will preserve all the available historical information with regard to the site. This could be along the lines of the above, audio archives and videos (without the propaganda), but should also include documents, photographic and film archives, and a permanent website created with an in-depth virtual tour of the historic site online.
Where there is an historic building of true architectural interest, aesthetically speaking, then it should be preserved in situ so it can be celebrated by future generations. Also, a site where something of great overriding historical significance took place should fall into the same category. Other in-between cases, such as Del Monte, should continue to be decided on an individual basis, and demolition of truly ugly buildings—no matter what happened there—to make way for modern developments may be unstoppable. IBM Building 25 seems to fall into this category, although I know that there are a few bloggers here who have a sentimental attachment to it, which I can understand. However, it is obvious that the building will go to make way for Lowe’s or whatever national chain monstrosity moves in there. So why not apply the above Del Monte model and require the developer to fund a comprehensive History San Jose project? It seems a good compromise solution and perhaps even IBM—who obviously have no such sentimental attachment to their old building or they could certainly afford to buy and preserve it—could be persuaded to pony up a few shekels for such a project.
As we mourn the loss of the Donner House this morning, something that could have been prevented if the city dealt properly with its historic treasures, we now read that Jack thinks that it is OK to take down historic buildings as long as we have pictures and displays of them.
While the Del Monte project is certainly better than completely demolishing the historic buildings, it is not a good answer to reusing and adapting our dwindling historic buildings.
As for IBM 25, it is not a sentimental attachment. It is the fact that the building is a high scoring historic structure and qualifies for numerous local, state and national historic designations. I won’t repeat the many arguments that have been made on this site and the ones that the Council ignored when voting to demolish it, but the building still stands and the fight is not over.
Remember the Donner House and the loss of this irreplaceable historic home. RIP.
I wouldn’t worry too much about North San Jose, Kansen Chu and Chuck Reed are capable people, and remember:
When the moon is in the Seventh House
and Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
and love will steer the stars
As far as I know, NSJ has been the area targeted for mid-to-high-rise developments. This intensifies the region so cops and firefighters are not spread so thin and attracts fewer families which necessitate schools. I think the city should continue this pattern of condos over houses. Sprawl is doing the killing here. Build a school to fix the current problems and build smarter from now on. It’s not hard. Who wants more stucco monstrosities anyway?
Wow. “Native”, the anonymous preservation guy (or gal) is back, with Del Monte and Bldg 25 on Jack’s blog, promising more expensive lawsuits for the city to fund over that junky Bldg 25 that even IBM says should be gone. As PO pointed out, no preservation people paid attention to it in its abandoned entropy until someone came up with a use for it that would produce income for the city to fund resident needs. THEN, with limitless funds for their hobby, the preservation crazies, sue the city to include it in the paint aisle of Lowe’s. I think Jack’s idea of laying heavy fiscal burdens on anyone who wants to move forward in San Jose with some needed project, in this case, a video that NO ONE will every look at, even the preservationists, is just a way of the powerless inflicting damage on Goliath (to the point where David becomes powerful in his courage and ability, and they go after him). George Green
From what I have seen of the North SJ development proposal from a public transit perspective, planning for it was (justifiably) built around light rail. However, I was only one of two people to bring up other transit issues left out at a VTA Board back in June where the Board voted to approve the development. (Interestingly, Reed was absent at this particular meeting.)
I personally brought up the fact that while it was nice that the development is being built around the existing light rail line, no consideration was planned for bus service to and from the area. As part of its bus service restructuring proposal, VTA plans on axing the only direct service (the 58 bus) from Alviso to the North SJ area. So Alviso residents – who live miles away from light rail and the NSJ development – get cut off from the development unless they have access to a car. It appears that anyone wanting to use the North SJ development must have their own car or have light rail access. Anyone not meeting these requirements won’t count.
Another who spoke on the proposal wanted to see more bike paths in the North SJ area. He was concerned that bike path planning and implementation should not take over 20 years and not be done as an afterthought.
It was tauted in the presentations at that VTA Board meeting on how the North SJ development has “easy access to BART.” I also brought out the fact that the North SJ development is not directly accessible from the proposed BART line. One would have to transfer to light rail at the proposed Montague/Great Mall BART station to access the North SJ development.
The KB Home project at Del Monte is on the WInchester light rail line. From what I understand, VTA is proposing a station at San Carlos Street for this site.
I always felt that such lack of planning for the development in Silicon Valley ultimately creates the NIMBYism often seen with these projects. Everything I have read and seen with North SJ and Coyote Valley so far justifies such concerns.
San Jose has sufficient housing for our city’s jobs but builds excess housing for Silicon Valley’s excess job & tax cities which restrict housing New housing without new jobs tax revenue does not pay enough taxes to pay for new city services or full cost of new infrastructure making San Jose’s budget deficit worst Building new housing in North San Jose, Edenvale and downtown redevelopment areas generate new redevelopment taxes for new infrastructure costs Coyote Valley and Evergreen housing without new job taxes makes our city budget deficit worst
1) Do we need more San Jose housing without new jobs taxes since our budget deficit gets worst?
2) Should we restrict all new housing without new jobs to North San Jose, Edenvale and downtown?
3 ) Should San Jose stop or restrict building new houses without new job taxes to pay for city services like Silicon Valley’s excess job & tax cities do?
Mr. Green (wow is that ever a misnomer), I hereby demand a retraction of your reference to “preservation crazies.” If anyone is crazed, it is YOU, foaming at the mouth with desire to push over every square inch of historical architecture on the valley floor and beyond. Why don’t you hightail it to Vegas where there’s no such thing as historical anything and the housing tracts are sprouting up like weeds? Seems to be right up your alley and you might be able to quit the Xanax and Prilosec.
Jack, or whoever is at the controls;
Are Mark T and George Green the same person?
Are Jack Van Zandt and Karl Rove the same person?
5 – Good to have you weigh-in on this , George, even if you are misinformed as usual. Your ridiculous comment about “preservation crazies” is so far from reality that it does not merit further comment.
Your reference to the “junky IBM building” just further makes the case that you don’t know what you are talking about. Learn about the history of the building, its significance to the development of Silicon Valley, its importance as an example of modern architecture, and its ranking as a historical structure—then what you have to say might be taken seriously. Until then, your ravings come across only as an angry, uninformed guy who presumably uses his real name.
BTW, I sure would like to know where these preservationists are who have “limitless funds for their hobby.” They don’t exist except in your mind. Scraping up dollars for this “hobby” is nearly impossible, so once again you show you don’t know what you are talking about.
Another problem not so far mentioned about the North San Jose development is the lack of parks. Children need schools, of course, but they also need green places to run around in.
And discussing parks and historic locations, what is happening to Pellier Park, in the heart of San Jose’s historic district? The developers next door were given permission to destroy the park as long as they restored it afterwards.
As the last remaining unpaved part of Louis Pellier’s original orchard, the park once contained prune trees and historical displays about the prune industry in SJ. It was also surrounded by a nice wrought iron fence.
At present the plans for restoring the park appear to consist of putting down some sod.
Who is going to hold the developers to their promise to restore the park to its original state?
Has any thought been given, to serve all the planned new residential development areas in North SJ, that new elementary, middle or high schools should be located adjacent to the VTA light rail stations on North 1st St?
Back in the day, I rode my bike to elementary & jr high school, another 4 years to the Calif Ave train station (from which I rode the luxurious SP cattle cars to the historic College Park “station”), and another 4 years all around college in Davis.
I still ride VTA to work from time to time.
It would be downright healthy for students to walk or ride their bikes to school. What a concept.
Jack, your comments about the “KB Home Model” seem well intended but misinformed.
Despite plenty of information about the irreplacable historic value of the cannery complex, and inclusion of several project alternatives that could have achieved meaningful historic preservation while accommodating density, the City Council of San Jose approved demolition of the complex.
Saving a few walls and contributing 100K to History San Jose don’t begin to cut it.
Centex’s project at the Del Monte Plant 51 (visible from the Caltrain Station, currently under construction) is a much better example of the marriage between historic preservation and density, even after that beautiful historic warehouse building was vandalized and gutted by Castle Group under the auspices of building maintanance long before Centex came onto the scene.
Future generations will be able to see and understand San Jose history much better at Plant 51 than at KB Home’s Plant 3 site, where a few remnant masonry walls, some cookie-cutter, off-the-shelf architecture, and a few plaques will greet the public.
Jack,
Agreed, North San Jose will exhaust our resources – schools, safety, roads, etc.
But more and more, we need to be mindful of that precious commodity, water. Politicians can no longer speak out of both sides of their mouths.
Take Concord for example; the city council and planning commission have agreed to replace the old Naval Depot with 30,000 new homes. Simultaneously, the mayor and council are asking that their residents conserve water.
My gosh, how much further can we erode our quality of life in terms of water and clean air? Our local politicians just don’t get it!
Listen up folks: does anybody give a crap where they’ll get their next glass of water?!?! Gee, it’s great that the density per acre will not overly strain police and fire, and how wonderful it is that the housing will be adjacent to light rail. But where, oh where will the water be for the residents of 30,000 new homes?
I believe the only answer to ever-increasing residential development is to impose a massive Mello-Roos tax on the developers who will, in turn, pass it on to the new homeowners. Run those numbers and I’ll bet all of the builder’s profit will evaporate… as it should. Are City Council members so dense that they don’t understand that water is becoming a rarified and precious commodity?
14 – The answer to your question at the end of your comment is “yes.”
#1 Greg
Thank you for bringing up the water issue. You are so right. This is a very serious problem that needs to be solved BEFORE any further large-scale development.
We should be planning according to a worst-case scenario. We have pretty much maxed out the system already. What if there is a 3-4 year drought, or even longer? It has happened before and it will happen again. We are only a few months into a drought year now all over the state, and in some places there are mandatory restrictions already (Santa Cruz), and other places, here in SC County and down in LA County, have a so-far voluntary conservation effort. Is anyone out there making an effort to conserve water right now? It might prove to be crucial in the coming year or two.
Jack,
Having History San Jose put pictures on the web about our heritage is a nice idea. But thinking that it is any way to mitigate the impact of losing a valuable historic resource is a joke. If you took any time to investigate the matter, you would find out why the City is encouraging developers to give funds to History San Jose in exchange for rights to demolish our historic resources.
1- History San Jose manages the Fallon- Peralta and the History Park. All City property.
2- When History San Jose was created, they entered into a contract that would wean them off of City funding over a ten year period. They started off with a very large subsidy which decreased yearly.
3-History San Jose’s membership has decreased not increased over the years. If Histoty San Jose goes out of business, the City will be responsible once again for the maintenance of the sites.
4-Politicians sell off our historic resources to the highest bidder, yet they think they can look like they care about our heritage by playing the shell game with History San Jose.
5-Hisory San Jose “sells out” because they need the money to pay their salaries.
JVZ,
Go take a look at Ghiradelli Square in SF and Cannery Row in Monterey and then get back to us if you think that San Jose has the vision that they have, not to mention the tourism. Then go to the Del Monte Plant #51 in San Jose, then tell us if you think that KB Homes is doing as good of a job. How many tourists do you think would be interested in looking at HSJ’s video on the web? For that matter, how many San Joseans? I love local history and find many of HSJ’s changing exhibts, like Speed City and Leonard Mc Kay’s Gallery, outstanding. But I find their exhibits on the net lacking and definitely no replacement for the loss of our historic buildings.
Just to be clear, I am a preservationist where there is a clear architectural or historic reason. I do not support the way that KB Homes developed the Del Monte cannery site; but since it is already a done deal, I was trying to find a sliver of good in it. I think that preserving at least a small part of the old building in the new design and the History San Jose project are very small steps in the right direction, but far from perfect. At least it’s something. I am suggesting that no matter what happens in future developments of this sort, preserving as much oral and documentary history as possible should be part of the deal, and that comprehensive History San Jose projects funded by developers should be required in all cases, especially where, otherwise, there would be nothing preserved at all. Of course it would have been great to preserve the cannery as a whole in some way for the greater public good, but why didn’t someone step up and do such a thing? Who has the vision and the money? Where are these people? Is it something the taxpayers should take on? There has to be a powerful public will for that.
The same thing goes for IBM Bldg. 25. Is there a nonprofit preservation group out there raising money to buy it and turn it into a museum or something? Why is it that IBM has no interest in it? It’s all well and good to give vocal support to the concept of preservation, but who has the vision for such a project, who will take on the responsibility and where will the funds come from? I would much rather have a museum than another Lowe’s or shopping mall any day, but in order to make it happen, there has to be a real, viable project to support. Is there one?
JVZ,
First, let me answer why IBM does not want to save the building. It is all about money. That is ok for them because this is a capitalistic society and that is how it works. They get more for the land if it doesn’t have a building on it. That does not mean that the finished project will be of greater value to the community, it only means that they get more money. They are only accountable to their share- holders. However our City leaders are accountable to the public and to use the excuse that IBM doesn’t care about the building, therefore it must not be historic or important is naive and misleading. Either way, IBM #25 and Del Monte Plant #3 are vaulable historic and cultural resources to our community. Both buildings should have been preserved and adaptively reused thus bringing money and culture to this community.
Jack,
First let me start by saying that I usually find your writting insightful and on the mark, but not in this case. You state “I am a preservationist where there is a clear architectural or historic reason.” I agree! But who decides on the historic and architectural rankings, you and me? I hope not. Let’s leave it to the pros. Not only have the City and State pros found it to be historic, the Feds and the court system have also ruled it historic. They all use a different rating system. They all have come to the same conclusion, it is historic and worth saving. I hope you will rethink your position on the matter.
Respectfully,
20/20 Vision
#14
Are City Council members so dense that they don’t understand that water is becoming a rarified and precious commodity?
Agriculture is the biggest user of water in this state. Maybe if we quit growing rice in the desert there might be sufficient water for the cities.
#19 Jack
In most cases, I don’t feel that the City should not have to pay for restoration of privately owned historic buildings. This should be the role of the owner. There are some exceptions, i.e. redevelopment zones. However, I do feel that they should not allow them to be demolished. The loss of the Donner House, the Victorian City Hall, United Artists Theater and IBM #25 are all good examples of our City’s lack of vision and leadership.
Yes, water is a huge consideration. However, not building here due to water issues simply moves the water deficit problem elsewhere.
Mello-Roos will not erode developer profits; the price will simply be passed on to the buyer.
Development issues at the core get down to birth rate vs. death rate. As long as population continues to have a net increase, development pressures will not abate. What would you prefer, to slip into the legions of undeveloped nations?
Look at birth rates by education level/income level/national origin level, and the real impending crisis is revealed. The poor, the less educated, and those from the third world continue to have more children than they can support. So, either the children grow up with little hope of success, or they enter the multi-generational loop of welfare.
The educated, the wealthy, and first world folks tend to be much close to zero population growth.
I expect responsive cries of “racist” from the limousine liberal crowd, but the numbers really don’t lie. Everyone deserves an equal opportunity to succeed. Unfortunately, too many are doomed from the git-go by being brought into the world by parents who are unable to assist them to do so.