The total area of the former Naval Air Station (NAS) is 2,527 acres (stated differently, this is one-third the size of the entire island!). The shaded areas in the above figure show the areas currently being considered for redevelopment.
Golf course: 215 acres have been designated for an 18-hole golf course, a 300-room hotel and a 300,000 sq ft conference center. The development plan states that these facilties will be developed “when the Bay Area hospitality industry can support hotel construction”.
National Wildlife Refuge: 565 acres of land and 413 acres of water are to be designated as a Wildlife Refuge for the protection of migratory birds (California least tern, Caspian tern and California brown pelican). The Navy has not yet transferred the land to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Sports Complex: Spanning 40-acres, the site will include soccer and baseball fields, swimming facilities and a gymnasium. The sports complex will be implemented and maintained by the city.
FISC/East Housing: The first property to be redeveloped is the 87-acre East Housing/Fleet Industrial Supply Center. This includes the 485 homes being developed as part of the Bayport residential community. For an update on the current Bayport events, see Blogging Bayport Alameda.
An additional 93-acres on the northern edge of the FISC/East Housing property is being developed as Alameda Landing.
US Coast Guard Housing: USCG provides 525 housing units for Coast Guard personnel. No changes are envisioned for this property.
Alameda Point: Stretching across 700-acres, some of the biggest changes are envisioned at the Alameda Point. Some highlights from the preliminary development plan:
- New neighborhoods (up to 1,800 new homes) with parks, pedestrian pathways and neighborhood centers. Approximately 150 acres of public parks and open space; 3 miles of waterfront promenades.
- In keeping with Alameda’s historic ties to the Navy, nearly two-thirds of the existing (86) buildings will be preserved and adapted for reuse.
- 3.4m sq ft of employment generating opportunities (9,000 potential jobs).
- A transit center providing ferry connections to SF, bus connections to downtown Oakland and BART, car share and bicycle facilities.
If you are curious to explore the NAS in person, check out the self-guided tour.
Alameda Musings 
August 13, 2006 at 9:36 pm |
Personally, I don’t agree with a lot of this plan. Most of the buildings look as if they are 1960’s and it would be nice if they kept a few but most are not old enough to be historic landmarks are not worth keeping and the land can be used in better ways. I was in the military and Alameda is one of the ugliest (non personallity) bases I have seen (execpt for the view). It was built for functionallity and purpose, not for design. Keep some of it, but not 2/3rd’s of those ugly buldings which will cost more to convert than to rebuild. I see most of them as square boxes with windows and once in a while they throw in a curve (such as a roof). Is there anything on the former base which makes you say wow? The old Officer Club which is one of the nicest buildings on the base, but it is just okay on the outside but inside is just skanky panelling, musty smell and nothing worth taking a second look at.
A few places on the base I do like is the old camping/Rv site with incredible views and very peaceful but they haven’t watered it is years and all the plants are dying… another place it by the big ships where you can see what Alameda was to the Navy and the views of the bay. Another part I like and is worth keeping is the probably old officer housing with the 1960 look and blue tiles on the porchs which need a lot of work to bring them back to what they were. Also the soccer fields which have mostly been maintained and Lastly I like the Pan Am hanger but why keep all of them. Hangers are not insulated, costly and not practical for commercial use.
I like the golf course but if you are building something for everyone in Alameda, they take a lot of land and only offer something for a few, I would perfer to see more housing or retail. Although I don’t want to see the point built into a lot of Apartments and Condos it would serve the community better to see more housing as it is close to SF and other major Employment Centers. Sooner or later we will have to address urban sprawl, and our continued growth into farmland and wilderness and limit development in these areas.
As far as the National Wildlife Refuge…I would perfer it be small and more space be small and the resourse for such areas to be around the mountains and outside of urban areas which continure to take over. WIldlife is wild and really don’t belong in a City where it is going to be tamed, exploited or then hunted because it doesn’t know its boundries.
I know my reply is really negitive but it is just my opinion and that it is just that my opinion so don’t attact me personally.
We have potential for the Point but what should it be?
What do you think is not only best for Alameda, but for our area?
November 3, 2006 at 3:33 pm |
Who can I contact about the Sports facilities?
The hangers would make a great venue for a indoor Velodrome (cycling track), similar to the ADT Center in the LA area.
Thanks,
Tom
October 2, 2009 at 10:36 am |
Are you Tom who was stationed at Camp Lejeune in 2001?
November 29, 2006 at 8:29 am |
I am moving from NY back home to Oakland and I am a frame builder and track racer, I have recently contacted a velodrome contractor for a price quote, ($325,000 no labor in door 250m)I am looking to form an organization to raise the money and acquire the land. We should talk. I am moving in mid December.
October 20, 2018 at 5:57 am |
I have noticed you don’t monetize your blog, don’t waste your traffic, you can earn additional bucks every month.
You can use the best adsense alternative for any type of website (they
approve all websites), for more info simply search in gooogle: boorfe’s tips
monetize your website