It is indeed an ugly building.

I don’t know why Berkeley is against modern design. Sometimes I wonder if Berkeley would rather all its homes decay and fall down than incorporate any modern style upgrades when remodeling. They sure do seem to make it hard for people to remodel and bring homes up to date.

In several shopping forays I’ve noticed that a lot of people seem to be walking to the store. That’s a good thing and points to the importance of infill in areas where density is a plus. The apts are certainly better than the ugly strip mall they replaced and the “Foodland” store from long ago.

The building is a monstrosity and illegally tall. The entire backside (facing the neighborhood) looks almost exactly like a serving of Tripe. This is about as good as you can do with a building built to completely fill the 3D volume it was alotted – meaning not very good. At an architectural hearing for the building a model of the intersection was provided that showed the building completely overwhelming its surroundings to the point where I nicknamed it “the Rhinoceros building.”

There was deliberate misconsideration of the traffic the building would generate, as well. The surrounding neighborhood will pay for decades for this building having been shoved down our throats. Here is an instance of a building that should be condemned and removed despite being recently finished. The City of Berkeley, or more specifically, four feckless city councilors and the out-to-lunch mayor, dropped every ball there was to drop concerning the impact of the building and its Wal*Mart clone Big Box tenant (Trader Joe’s) on the city as a whole and particularly on about an acre’s worth of the surrounding neighborhood.

Any more of this nonsense and Berkeley will look like the Hilltop Mall.

I represent myself, although I work with neighbors in the area on projects that concern our neighborhood. I listed the website for the recent successful DAPAC referendum, greendowntownberkeley.org, as a reference site.

I believe in local businesses, for example, Fred’s Market, which is now subject to closure due to the encroachment on the area by Trader Joe’s. My focus is on restoring the healthy functioning of local businesses in our area. So my position may mirror that of some particular interest group, but I don’t consider myself to be a member of any such group. I’m either a lone wolf or a loose cannon, depending who you ask.

It’s just me and my mouth. :)

Actually, (a) the place was heavily used, considering it only had one tenant: Kragen Auto; (b) it was an eyesore because nobody wanted to spend money tearing off the old facade; on the first day of demolition, the old facade came into view and it was rather pretty, modern stylized blue letters against a white background saying “Meat Fish Poultry”. The question is not whether the current building looks better than what was there, because what was there was left to look sordid. The question is whether this was a reasonable use of the space, and several dozen nearby residents felt it was not, so as to oppose the project for eight years running. Using a Big-Box retailer (!) to sell an oversized project was the developer’s tactic, and that it was able to be pushed though (!) is the Council’s failure of leadership (to the detriment of all of Berkeley.)

Three cheers for the people productively discussing the architectural aspects of this building rather than querulously mourning a overwhelming supported development.

I tend to agree that the mustard yellow is a off-putting and that cream color might have been better. Perhaps the color was chosen so that it would fade into something that looked soft rather than washed out. Can anyone speak to this? (Of course the best option would be a nice paint color to begin with and repaints when needed.)

As far as the style of the building, I rather like it and I suspect the silent majority does too. Again though, beyond any impacts on functionality, form is mostly a matter of taste and generally not worthy of debate. My personal feeling is that I’d rather this a million times over than the corrugated steel boxes and lego-like blocks of Emeryville. (No offense to legos.)

As for John King’s reviews, I usually find them baffling: one line he loves it, the next he doesn’t, all of it suspended in an amber of confusion which I can neither escape nor agree/disagree with in any satisfying manner. Much like most recent SF architecture, John King’s reviews seem to err on the side of trying–with varying success–to give everyone something to like.

Hey, fellow Eric, if you want to beat a dead horse, go right ahead. I’m ready to move on from that portion of the debate and I was just showing my love for the like-minded.

One can discuss and even disagree over form without it turning into a debate.

If you would like to meet some of the silent majority, like you said, I’m more than happy to take you to coffee at Au Coquelet where I could introduce you to at least six or seven Berkeleyans who support this project. I’m sure you could likewise introduce me to that many or more of the loyal opposition. I don’t think this would really be that productive, and again, I’m really trying to leave the dead horse alone.

I object to the note of accusation in your final statement, but for the record I am not affiliated with Livable Berkeley in any way other than that I receive news from them, and a agree with/support what I’ve seen of their positions and goals. Nevertheless, my support for any project is my own; I found out about the New Californian from a big yellow sign. I repeat: I have never had any formal relationship with Livable Berkeley. That said, while I can’t really afford to become a paying member, I’d love to formally volunteer for or become involved with Livable Berkeley. It would be great to get in trouble with NIMBYs for my affiliations rather than just my opinions.

>Hey, fellow Eric, if you want to beat a dead horse, go right ahead.

“Dead Horse” is your characterization of it.

>One can discuss and even disagree over form without it turning into a debate.

Ah, but debates are good things, especially if they happen so as to inform decisions in advance as did not happen for 1885 University Avenue.

>If you would like to meet some of the silent majority, like you said, I’m more than happy to take you to coffee at Au Coquelet where I could introduce you to at least six or seven Berkeleyans who support this project.

I’ll take you up on Au Coquelet, but only to meet you. I know that “a large number of people wanted Trader Joe’s”; I seriously doubt that any of them who did, factored the cost to the neighborhood or local businesses into account, and that’s the problem with process in our City. The Council didn’t factor those things in either.

>I object to the note of accusation in your final statement, but for the record I am not affiliated with Livable Berkeley in any way other than that I receive news from them, and a agree with/support what I’ve seen of their positions and goals.Nevertheless, my support for any project is my own; [...] That said, while I can’t really afford to become a paying member, I’d love to formally volunteer for or become involved with Livable Berkeley. It would be great to get in trouble with NIMBYs for my affiliations rather than just my opinions.

Wow. “I take their news and views; I’m not affiliated with them but I want to be.” How much practical difference is there?

“Spoiling for a fight with NIMBYs” … those pesky citizens defending their community, how quaint and sad, I suppose. I was just reviewing the book “How Wal*Mart is Destroying America and what you can do about it”, for a summary of warnings that also apply to Trader Joe’s, for an article I hope to get published in the Planet, long though it will be.

Reach me at support at greendowntownberkeley.org for a time to meet at Au Coquelet. Not this week though, I have to file a protest at the ABC (again) for Trader Joe’s violating two State Statutes (again) in the pursuit of their license. You might have noticed there is no posting of their application to the public as required by law … or not noticed, which seems their intent.

Sorry for any confusion, I was indicating an email address, “support at greendowntownberkeley.org”, which for the sake of getting it spammed is support@greendowntownberkeley.org.

I seriously doubt that any of them who did, factored the cost to the neighborhood or local businesses into account…
I will have to do some serious soul searching if the overall health of University Ave. or the neighborhood degrades because of this project. More feet on (and above the) street (University Ave.) should be good for businesses located there. That said, I don’t doubt that at least one business will be shuttered because of competition from TJs (but I anticipate a net gain). Also, I’m no fan of the city’s per acre(?) calculations that are used for maximum allowable densities; I’d like to see more multi-family type units.

*sigh* try support@communityfiber.org … support@berkeleypta.org … support@transpacific.net … support@transbay.net … support@sfbraodband.com. One of them will work (they all should.)

People generally like Wal*Mart, too, but Berkeley has resisted Wal*Mart for the same reasons that Berkeley should have resisted Trader Joe’s. Trader Joe’s is based in Germany; at least Kragen’s is a U.S. owned and operated company that won’t export its profits. The notion of “people who don’t want to go there don’t have to go there” … I don’t; but when unfair competition closes Fred’s Market, I won’t have that choice any longer (instead, a car trip to Whole Foods Market will be Created for me when none had been necessary.) Hudson McDonald depended a great deal on people’s specific selfishness to get this project approved. There were already three Trader Joe’s in the area, in Albany, Emeryville, and on College Avenue in Oakland. “Berkeley” was //sold a Big Box Retailer// for the convenience of mere handfuls of shoppers not wanting the extra 6 minute commute … we have expressed the desire to trade the health and existence of our Local businesses for the sake of simple convenience – because we are only asked (by those who intended to profit) to think about ourselves, and not others.

I would go get a chicken sandwich at Fred’s before they (possibly) go out of business on University Avenue; absolutely excellent food, including shawarmas (even better than the chicken, I think) and hamburgers (best I’ve ever had.) I am committed to saving Fred’s, and if necessary, at the expense of Trader Joe’s; because Trader Joe’s is a dime-a-dozen and Fred’s is priceless.

I recuse myself from here for now, as I am writing an article to explain all this in much greater detail. I’d rather the full story stand, than piecemeal stuff as I’m doing here.

Just so I can say I was on topic, actually I like the yellow color; it should just be on a 3-story building, not a 5-story one. The “evidently unfinished” backside should be painted in Cal Yellow and Blue; that would be fun.

Personally I have no problem with the scale of the project. Of course, I live biking distance away, not right behind it, so maybe I’d feel differently otherwise. But overall I support the idea of a taller, denser university ave… and I specifically support replacing the awful strip mall that was there earlier.

That said, I agree the building is awful in terms of design. And it pains me to say it, because I know the architect slightly socially, but the architect seems to be a specialist in ‘functional but ugly pastiche’. The Gaia and Bachenheimer buildings in Berkeley, the il Piemonte on the corner of Pleasant Valley and Piedmont in Oakland – they all exhibit the same characteristics: retro touches inappropriately splashes over a form designed to maximize space.

I didn’t take it personally – no worries. I support many local businesses. Heck, I am a local business. But I think TJ’s will actually be a draw, bringing more people into the area. I don’t think that’s a bad thing for downtown Berkeley, and will be a multiplier for growth.

I really like Udipi’s thalis myself, but could be persuaded in favor of a good chicken sandwich!

As re: architecture, we see the same “style” emerging all around the area: sometimes the buildings are of some interest, but usually they are linear and non-ergonomic and (from Pete Seeger) all made of ticky-tacky and all look just the same. Think the apartments down Hollis.

Their “coup” is to have found a pretty good-looking “color texture”, a particular “flat” appearance in strong (“western themed”) colors.

Lest we be fooled, though, just redraw the buildings in 3D without those color schemes, and see what’s really underneath.

What an outstanding addition to my town and the neighborhood I work in. The new TJ’s is, as other posters have noted, drawing me to that particular area and I am enjoying the walk and patronizing other businesses I hadn’t visited previously. Kudos to the people who persevered and saw this project to completion. Good riddance to the hideous auto parts store.

I like it, when it is compared to what it one would have been: a box. Yeah it’s bulky. But rather than the box structure, at least a little whimsy, which is apparently what drives people who hate the jukebox marriot and the transamerica building mad. Odd, how the new ethic seems to favor four walls with no definition. Clearly, folks, it is not the finest architecture, but tell me, outside the realm of thick wallet buildings (the Guggenheim museum, for example), who has the money to establish cornices and doodads. I do not believe progressivism should obliterate ANY attempt to do anything different. The left wing has become the right wing. I suggest you read “From Bauhaus to Our House” and take a look at what “ticky tacky” really looks like. As for the color, pour it on. What are you afraid of? White is not as bright, but red and blue and green are in the cosmos of stars. By the way, am I wrong, or weren’t a number of Berkeley buildings deemed “deconstructionist” given awards, and isn’t there some similarity. As for mixing of architectural styles, I say let diversity reign, as long as the earthquake that is to come doesn’t put it on our heads. And as for Freds or the blacktop of Kragens and the German’s owning the grocery store, well, that’s cool. The war’s been over for 65 years. I think we can let them out of the dog house. Funny, how we blame them for doing what we did economically from 1945-to 1980 to the rest of the world, and now its our turn to stop all this quibbling and start something like a real progressive movement that worries less about what color a building is, than it does the kind of values that live in our midst. Free the university and we will free ourselves. Down with the regents.