Comments on: Berkeley to gain new bioscience lab at Aquatic Park

By: Lance Knobel

Lance Knobel — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:39:55 +0000

I agree this isn’t the place. I’ve visited JBEI and was thrilled by what’s going on there. We’re not likely to agree on that, it seems. I agree that if you want to pursue this discussion, let’s take it off the InBerkeley site.

By: Thomas Lord

Thomas Lord — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:35:59 +0000

Lance, JBEI looks just fantastic on paper but if you (as I did) actually go talk to the scientists, tour the facility, and evaluate the science — It Does Not Belong In This Urban Environment And May Not Be Rational In Any Location. It’s a bubble thing and a socially irresponsible one, at that. At the very least, they should be making new life forms out in the desert surrounded by bombs to blow themselves up in case they screw up. More likely, there are far better ways to invest in sustainable energy. The comment section here is the wrong kind of forum for me to make my case fully but I’m happy to take it up with you via email, put up cites for any scientific claim I make, and so forth. These guys are bad news both scientifically, social-responsibility-wise, and even under cynical approaches to the city’s economy. It’s a lot of dangerous puffery they have going there and not much more.

-t

By: Diane

Diane — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:07:23 +0000

I’m thrilled to see more development of this kind in West Berkeley, and would love to see mixed use develop near it in the neighborhood. And as an architect (responding to BDP’s comment), I can say that renovation is often waaaaaaaay more expensive than building new. I strongly support retrofit and urban infill, but it’s not always the right choice, nor is it always sensible financially.

By: Lance Knobel

Lance Knobel — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:54:00 +0000

I’d like to see more businesses get a welcome in Berkeley. Maybe this is the first of a wave. It’s sad that fantastic projects like JBEI — the Joint Bioenergy Institute — locate in Emeryville, rather than Berkeley.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:48:15 +0000

Thomas is right, the EIR (50MB PDF linked from http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=24562) is totally inadequate… It doesn’t even *consider* the impact of Chiron-style bombings by animal rights activists.

By: Thomas Lord

Thomas Lord — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:33:13 +0000

Hopefully the financing won’t come through. That’s an idiotic thing to build on that location and I’m certain the EIR was inadequate.

I love this quote from the BDP article: “Renovating would not make financial sense to anyone except a multimillionaire who wants a toy,” said Bob Allen. “We are putting the property owner in jeopardy of selling the property.”

Now, of what business to the taxpayers is that, exactly? The “who wants a toy” characterization is (suspect) opinion, not fact. An owner is upside down in his investment in this property so…. so what? Of what concern is that to the taxpayers, as a class? At least the bioscience inc. bubble is looking close to bursting so probably financing doesn’t come through and fawning action of the zoning board here is moot. At least one can hope so.

-t

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:58:52 +0000

The final design is much nicer (http://www.warehamproperties.com/properties/life_science/740_heinz_garr.htm) than the hideous proposal which was being [made] last year to preserve the facade (http://www.berkeleydaily.org/issue/2008-07-10/article/30513?headline=Landmarks-Preservation-Commission-Criticizes-Copra-Warehouse-Demolition).