Auto Row: Vision that looks Good

Don't miss the Chron, (Bay Area: Chip Johnson) today, "Auto Row: Vision that Looks Good" about the future of Oakland's Auto Row. City Planners will be assessing future land use where there are currently a dozen or so auto dealers, that have been on Broadway since the mid 50's. The city would like to create a new auto row on a former Army base, south of the Bay Bridge, and along interstate 880, where there is more room than on Broadway. The idea would be akin to Fremont's Auto Mall and give dealers greater visibility. A potential issue could be the huge signage necessary to draw shoppers from the freeway. However, freeing up valuable land on Broadway is seen as a great benefit by Oakland Planners and residents, who would like to see more shopping opportunities along Broadway.

- Written by Jen

Comments

[fred]

"The city has promoted the development of Broadway Auto Row in recent years and even featured the mayor in print and TV ads for it. As a combined industry, Auto Row has traditionally been the city's golden goose, generating nearly $3 million in sales tax revenue in fiscal year 2005. That is revenue the city cannot afford to lose. "

Jenn Said, "freeing up valuable land on Broadway is seen as a great benefit by Oakland Planners and residents, who would like to see more shopping opportunities along Broadway"

Nothing like that in the article, the closest quote is, "I've heard two things over and over again: Schools and shopping". I think her intent (and the author's) was that she means to focus on keeping the auto dealers (that is shopping, too) in town.

They are afraid to lose their car dealers (who generate less revenue than the Burlingame dealers BTW) and are looking for spaces for them to lease. This is driven by the auto dealers need for less expensive leases with larger lots. It is not driven by residents want for more 'valuable' 'shopping opportunities'.

This all doesn't seem to be the issue in Burlingame, but if you do want to move all the car dealers to the north end some will not be able to go there. Franchise rights will not allow some of Burlingame's current dealers to move that close to San Bruno. But they can move to San Mateo or Foster City becuase the next auto row (Redwood City) is farther away.

Toyota and Honda (two of Burlingame's larger dealerships) could not move that close to competitors in San Bruno.

The article also ends with a cautionary sentence about their golden goose (yes, as Fred quotes above, those magic words are in the article!):

"The city should take care to step lightly in its latest boogaloo down Broadway because -- in addition to redevelopment -- some of the city's most vital existing businesses are on the line".

I guess I've read the intent different than you have. The city planner mentions a survey of residents, and what they'd like to see in the city. They mention better schools (something out of her realm) and shopping. I thought they were referring to more retail on Broadway (non-auto), but perhaps I've misunderstood. Certainly it acknowledges the income generated by their auto industry. The point is that they want to combine several dealers and have them in an area where they can spread out, (unlike Broadway, I'm presuming) and where a consumer can go to see several brands. I'm not familiar with Oakland, but is that army base on Broadway? Maybe the article is simply a bit jumbled.

[fred]

There isn't one mention in the article about a survey. But the city planners are mentioned, "city planners' primary focus now is on how to retain some of the dozen or so auto dealerships that have lined the street north of downtown since the mid-1950s."

Your points are far off base from what the article is actually stating. I have come to the conclusion that everyone who contributes to this site has their own unyeilding beliefs or agendas and I am not sure it is worth discussing anything.

I may have read it the way you did, Fred, (perhaps a first!) and that is why I included the last sentence of the article, as above.

[fred]

Thank you Fiona, I appreciate it.

'During her door-to-door campaigning last spring, Kernighan, Oakland's newest council member, heard voters sound a common theme.

"I heard two things over and over again: Schools and shopping,'' she said. "Well, I'm not going to be able to fix the schools, so I decided to work on the shopping."'

(I stand corrected, it wasn't a city planner, but a councilwoman.)
Then it goes on:

The confluence of property owners looking to turn a profit, developers willing to pay triple what the same space leased for less than a decade ago and auto dealers who need larger lots to compete with mega-sized auto malls will reshape Broadway, one way or another.

This article (not so clearly) states that they want the Broadway area cleared of auto sales so that it can be open for redevelopment. The autos would be part of a "Auto Mall", similar to Fremonts, located on an old base.

It isn't well written, but I believe my first interpretation to be the correct one. The last sentence simply refers to the concern (by the author) that if done improperly, the vital businesses (ie. auto retail) could falter.

There's an interesting article (2004) from the City of Oakland, Business and Economic Development Commission, talking about the anticipated retail renaissance in downtown Oakland.

By the way, the new Whole Foods developement that we wrote about here a few months ago, is part of this renewal. It will open in an old Cadillac dealership. (see link)