May 03 2008

Albany Bulb Removal of Safety Hazards

Published by at 5:34 pm under albany bulb

As posted on the Albany City website:

The removal of “Safety Hazards” is being done  “to create a safer environment, and increase the usable area of The Bulb through the removal of exposed concrete and rebar that are remnants of this former landfill, and through the removal of noxious weeds, planting of native species and habitat restoration.”

The Albany Bulb is included in the Eastshore State Park Plan, however, it  is till owned by the city of Albany. In the  Eastshore State Park Plan the Bulb is designated  “Conservation” and contains policies to protect and enhance upland habitat for wildlife. Policies related to the Bulb are as follows:

…”develop and implement a program for the removal of safety hazard associated with construction debris on the surface of the Neck and Bulb… Break up large concrete and construction debris to improve appearance, reduce safety hazards, etc. ”

Restoration Project Information Sheet :

Contact Name: Ann Chaney – achaney@albanyca.org
Project Partners, East Bay Regional Park District (contact info: Brad Olson – bolson@ebparks.org) and Citizens for an Eastshore State Park (contact info: Patricia Jones – eastshorepark@hotmail.com)
Estimate: $250,000 ($8,000/day over 30 working days)

Read full Project Description PDF: http://www.albanyca.org/archive/pdf/042108_8-1_A1AlbBulbSaftyHazRem.pdf

Share

6 responses so far

6 Responses to “Albany Bulb Removal of Safety Hazards”

  1. Jillon 12 Jun 2008 at 7:51 am

    Well, it has started – the destruction of what the city calls ‘safety hazards’ and what the rest of us call imagination, creativity, freedom of expression and more.
    The beautiful bridge which a group of people were building at the far end of the Bulb was taken down and every scrap of wood removed…to be taken to a… landfill perhaps?
    And then there is the horrible destruction of the skatepark, which had been providing hundreds of kids, teens and not so young kids with a place to go where they learned what it means to look after a place they had ‘invested’ time and energy in. And have a wild time.

    I dunno about you, but I keep hearing that we do not provide enough activities for youngsters – so they did it themselves, they built it and they looked after it, and no-one who fell and scratched themselves went home to mommy and cried.

    Social control takes many forms – it’s hard to hear people of my age who used to protest outside city hall in the 60’s and 70’s and now run those same cities, be so willing to crush individual forms of personal expression in our own backyard. Leave the friggin’ landfill alone!

  2. Mackenzie Sowerson 17 Jul 2008 at 1:21 pm

    I am hoping to convince the Waterfront commitee that safety is not necessary, but I suspect I wont succeed. I made the point that people take life at their own risk and suing over an ill maintained sidewalk is quite different than suing over a skate park one built himself, or some risky looking rebar that he realized was probably a bad idea to climb.

    I got a whole batch of funny looks for being anti safety. It isn’t something they are used to hearing.

  3. J. A.on 28 Jul 2008 at 2:54 pm

    I am in fierce opposition to the “removal of safety hazards.” All the rebar, the concrete, the rickety bridges and jagged metal sculptures are what make the bulb what it is. Tilden, Caesar Chavez park, and other places are for hikers and dog walkers who want to be in an environment that has no evidence of landfill, just trees, fields and hills. That’s not what the bulb is. It has the amazing feel of a post-apocalyptic city after a few years. There are chunks of walls and foundations, partly buried under earth. Weeds grow all over the place. The little bits of civilization constructed by survivors are scattered throughout the bulb, like the concrete house, the murals, and all the sculptures. You can find an object, huge, made of rusted-out steel and half-submerged in the rocky shore, and say “What the hell is that?”
    The bulb needs to remain the mix of rubble, wilderness, and art that it is. Just put an “enter at your own risk” sign or something. How many people impale themselves on rebar or bash their heads in on cement anyway? – a concerned youth, frequent visitor to the bulb

  4. Susan Kuchinskason 01 Nov 2008 at 10:46 am

    Don’t forget to vote NO on Measure WW. It’s sad to have to vote against parks and open space in general, but this measure includes $27 million to complete the destruction of the Bulb as we know and love it.

  5. adminon 02 Nov 2008 at 5:10 pm

    The $27 million referred to is listed in the
    Regional Parks Bond Extension Project List as
    #29 – Project: Park expansion, restoration and development
    Description: $27 million to expand and restore this eight-mile long urban shoreline park adjacent to the East Bay communities of Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, Albany, and Richmond. Consistent with the Eastshore State Park General Plan, develop access improvements, restore upland and wetland areas to enhance wildlife habitat, and to complete east shore segments of the Bay Trail.

    More about Measure WW – http://www.ebparks.org/node/672

  6. Dizzon 10 Sep 2010 at 11:47 pm

    Hello All,

    I had a question and was hoping that someone here might be able to answer : Is the Bulb a public domain in which citizens can exhibit/ demonstrate Art (eg: Aerosol painting? ) Is it accepted or frowned upon?

    Thanks in advance for your opinion/ answer 🙂

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply