Post by bennyp81 on Jun 23, 2005 9:32:50 GMT -8
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Apr 14th 12:06 PM
San Francisco Chronicle: Saturday, April 12, 2003
Up against the wall: Sound barriers don't keep citizenry quiet
By Laura Thomas
Chronicle Staff Writer
Sound walls are ubiquitous in California. Developed as a way to temper noise during the state's big freeway-building years, they appear to have taken on a life of their own as they pop up around new housing subdivisions even when a freeway is nowhere in sight.
But walled developments, whether gated or not, draw criticism from planners and citizens who see them as social dividers.
"There's a heck of a lot of unnecessary walls masquerading as sound walls," said Jim Chappell, president of San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association.
"This idea of walled communities really started gaining popularity during the Reagan years, and it's not surprising. It's all a part of me, me, mine, mine, bigger, more expensive, that kind of thing."
"The purpose of a wall is to signal that we are important people," said Edward Blakely, former UC Berkeley urban planning professor. "People will tell you it's there for physical protection. It's not going to protect you from anything."
He acknowledged that walls are built around homes for several purposes such as protecting adjacent areas from runoff and domestic pets or serving as a barrier to a major roadway.
"There are some legitimate purposes. I don't want to make a sweeping statement that all walls are bad," he said.
While suburbanites might shrug at another walled-in set of houses going up in their area, those living in older towns see red.
Alameda residents, long used to traditional neighborhoods based on a grid street pattern, are sour about the California Heritage Bay development built at the site of an old drive-in.
Surrounded by a high wood wall, it has two entrances, both posted with signs prohibiting entrance by nonresidents or through traffic.
"The only thing missing is a moat and a wall of fire," said David Thruston, an architect and member of a city design review committee.
"It doesn't fit into the urban fabric. It becomes its own little fortress in a way. It's visually repelling. It says, 'Stay away, we don't want you anywhere near us.'"
Residents were on the alert when developer Kaufman and Broad presented plans for a 150-unit subdivision at an old warehouse site along nearby Buena Vista Avenue in 2000.
"They (the developers) did have a very substantial wall planned, and there was a fair amount of noise about how the neighbors didn't want it to be cut off and its own separate entity," said neighbor David Landau.
The wall was scratched and the streets from the old neighborhood were extended into the new one, retaining their original names.
Thus, older residents on the peripheral streets gaze directly out their windows to the front doors of their new neighbors rather than at a walled city.
That's something that doesn't happen enough, according to Chappell, because most developers assume that walls will be required for one
reason or another, and most cities just go along with the plans set in front of them.
He said Alameda, like many cities with
developable land in Northern California, "can afford to be choosy" in determining what design and developers they want.
Hercules has ambitious plans for developing 400 acres and up to 3,000 units in the next few years. It decided after a lengthy hearing process to reject the "flung apart" pattern of suburban
development in favor of the civic center and walkable streets of the New Urbanist model.
The next developer that brought plans for a walled subdivision along San Pablo Avenue was told "to go back to the drawing board," said
Steve Lawton, community development director.
"It was the moral equivalent of turning your back on the gateway to town and pulling your pants down. All you could see was the backs of the houses," he said.
"We said, 'Show us a plan that has fronts of the buildings on the public street, showing their happy dignified face to the big dignified public street. There will be noise issues, so go solve
them.'"
E-mail Laura Thomas at lthomas@sfchronicle.com
Þ--Þ--Þ
John
User ID: 9510053 Apr 14th 12:43 PM
Hee hee. I would say that in a militant car culture, "sound walls" around subdivisions are as inevitable as wars for oil, nonstop noise, pandemic homelessness/panhandling, gridlock, carjackings, and an almost total absence of police walking a beat! Ha HA!
Andrew S
User ID: 0269124 Apr 14th 2:22 PM
For once I nearly agree with John! I don't think that "sound walls" are inevitable, but they do seem to go quite naturally with the other phenomena that John lists.
It is encouraging from the article to hear that the city of Hercules has rejected sprawl development in favor of something more intelligent and friendly.
Art G
User ID: 9454293 Apr 14th 2:44 PM
I find it ironic that they use Alameda as an example. The reason so many people moved there was White flight from Oakland. Basically alameda was enticing because it has a big moat between them and oakland. I had a class at cal where this was an example. Now these people are up in arms when they get a taste of their own medicine, but at least the residents will have to spend their money in alameda, oakland didnt even have that silver lining.
PS, Im against soundwalls too.
User ID: 1606604 Apr 14th 12:06 PM
San Francisco Chronicle: Saturday, April 12, 2003
Up against the wall: Sound barriers don't keep citizenry quiet
By Laura Thomas
Chronicle Staff Writer
Sound walls are ubiquitous in California. Developed as a way to temper noise during the state's big freeway-building years, they appear to have taken on a life of their own as they pop up around new housing subdivisions even when a freeway is nowhere in sight.
But walled developments, whether gated or not, draw criticism from planners and citizens who see them as social dividers.
"There's a heck of a lot of unnecessary walls masquerading as sound walls," said Jim Chappell, president of San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association.
"This idea of walled communities really started gaining popularity during the Reagan years, and it's not surprising. It's all a part of me, me, mine, mine, bigger, more expensive, that kind of thing."
"The purpose of a wall is to signal that we are important people," said Edward Blakely, former UC Berkeley urban planning professor. "People will tell you it's there for physical protection. It's not going to protect you from anything."
He acknowledged that walls are built around homes for several purposes such as protecting adjacent areas from runoff and domestic pets or serving as a barrier to a major roadway.
"There are some legitimate purposes. I don't want to make a sweeping statement that all walls are bad," he said.
While suburbanites might shrug at another walled-in set of houses going up in their area, those living in older towns see red.
Alameda residents, long used to traditional neighborhoods based on a grid street pattern, are sour about the California Heritage Bay development built at the site of an old drive-in.
Surrounded by a high wood wall, it has two entrances, both posted with signs prohibiting entrance by nonresidents or through traffic.
"The only thing missing is a moat and a wall of fire," said David Thruston, an architect and member of a city design review committee.
"It doesn't fit into the urban fabric. It becomes its own little fortress in a way. It's visually repelling. It says, 'Stay away, we don't want you anywhere near us.'"
Residents were on the alert when developer Kaufman and Broad presented plans for a 150-unit subdivision at an old warehouse site along nearby Buena Vista Avenue in 2000.
"They (the developers) did have a very substantial wall planned, and there was a fair amount of noise about how the neighbors didn't want it to be cut off and its own separate entity," said neighbor David Landau.
The wall was scratched and the streets from the old neighborhood were extended into the new one, retaining their original names.
Thus, older residents on the peripheral streets gaze directly out their windows to the front doors of their new neighbors rather than at a walled city.
That's something that doesn't happen enough, according to Chappell, because most developers assume that walls will be required for one
reason or another, and most cities just go along with the plans set in front of them.
He said Alameda, like many cities with
developable land in Northern California, "can afford to be choosy" in determining what design and developers they want.
Hercules has ambitious plans for developing 400 acres and up to 3,000 units in the next few years. It decided after a lengthy hearing process to reject the "flung apart" pattern of suburban
development in favor of the civic center and walkable streets of the New Urbanist model.
The next developer that brought plans for a walled subdivision along San Pablo Avenue was told "to go back to the drawing board," said
Steve Lawton, community development director.
"It was the moral equivalent of turning your back on the gateway to town and pulling your pants down. All you could see was the backs of the houses," he said.
"We said, 'Show us a plan that has fronts of the buildings on the public street, showing their happy dignified face to the big dignified public street. There will be noise issues, so go solve
them.'"
E-mail Laura Thomas at lthomas@sfchronicle.com
Þ--Þ--Þ
John
User ID: 9510053 Apr 14th 12:43 PM
Hee hee. I would say that in a militant car culture, "sound walls" around subdivisions are as inevitable as wars for oil, nonstop noise, pandemic homelessness/panhandling, gridlock, carjackings, and an almost total absence of police walking a beat! Ha HA!
Andrew S
User ID: 0269124 Apr 14th 2:22 PM
For once I nearly agree with John! I don't think that "sound walls" are inevitable, but they do seem to go quite naturally with the other phenomena that John lists.
It is encouraging from the article to hear that the city of Hercules has rejected sprawl development in favor of something more intelligent and friendly.
Art G
User ID: 9454293 Apr 14th 2:44 PM
I find it ironic that they use Alameda as an example. The reason so many people moved there was White flight from Oakland. Basically alameda was enticing because it has a big moat between them and oakland. I had a class at cal where this was an example. Now these people are up in arms when they get a taste of their own medicine, but at least the residents will have to spend their money in alameda, oakland didnt even have that silver lining.
PS, Im against soundwalls too.