How Much Wold Alcatraz Island (Developed) Be Worth?

[ralph124c]

I was watching a travel show, which featured a trip to Alcatraz. The old prison looks like its in bad shape, and I cannot nderstand why people are interested in touring it. It is jst an old jail, with peeling paint and rusting bars.
My question: sppose you razed the old dmp, and replaced it with trendy condos and seaside mansions-SF is a short ferry ride away, and the property would probably sell for megabcks.
Any idea what the place cold be worth? It would be a lot nicer than the crrent eyesore.

[moejoe]

Considering that so many other cultural landmarks in the Bay Area have been raised for the all mighty condo dollar these days, I vote no. :(

[Dewey Finn]

Does the U on your keyboard not work?

[kidchameleon]

There's a reason they built a prison there. It's pretty isolated, surrounded by a cold bay that few people go swimming in, even in the summer. Right now the housing market is pretty crappy in California as it is, I'm not sure if you could sell anything out there, with the inconvenience of relying on a ferry. The tried to revitalize Treasure Island, perhaps someone more knowledgeable about that can tell us how the housing market out there is.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

It has no water supply.

All water must be fetched in by barge.

[runner pat]

does the u on your keyboard not work?

--pebkac

[Foggy]

It would be a lot nicer than the crrent eyesore.

Most people around here wouldn't agree with you.

Also, the island is very windy & cold most of the time, even more so than the beaches.

Another also, no way for police, fire or paramedic to get to you.

[Kyla]

I was watching a travel show, which featured a trip to Alcatraz. The old prison looks like its in bad shape, and I cannot nderstand why people are interested in touring it. It is jst an old jail, with peeling paint and rusting bars.
My question: sppose you razed the old dmp, and replaced it with trendy condos and seaside mansions-SF is a short ferry ride away, and the property would probably sell for megabcks.
Any idea what the place cold be worth? It would be a lot nicer than the crrent eyesore.

I grew up in the Bay Area and never thought of going to Alcatraz - it was something tourists do. But a few years ago I had a friend visiting from out of town and she wanted to do it, so we went. I thought it would be really boring. But it turned out to be quite fascinating, and the views from the island were spectacular.

It's a historic landmark, so razing the prison and putting in condos is not going to happen, period. In a hypothetical situation, it's still unlikely. You actually can live on Treasure Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Island_(California)), and pretty much no one wants to, even though it has bridge access to the mainland. Alcatraz would be even less desirable a place to live. It's teensy and cold and isolated. Building something habitable there would be so expensive that it wouldn't be worth the cost.

[Omar Little]

Does the U on your keyboard not work?

I was watching a travel show, which featured a trip to Alcatraz. The old prison looks like its in bad shape, and I cannot nderstand why people are interested in touring it. It is jst an old jail, with peeling paint and rusting bars.
My question: sppose you razed the old dmp, and replaced it with trendy condos and seaside mansions-SF is a short ferry ride away, and the property would probably sell for megabcks.
Any idea what the place cold be worth? It would be a lot nicer than the crrent eyesore.

Apparently only some of the time.

[Duckster]

Well it is a national park and a nature conservancy. Seems to me you can have your way, provided an Act of Congress is granted. Even so, once the trendy condos and seaside mansions-SF are built, who would want to live in an isolated place that's haunted?

[LSLGuy]

Considering that so many other cultural landmarks in the Bay Area have been raised for the all mighty condo dollar these days, I vote no. :(That's "razed". It means destroy. In construction parlance "raised" means to build or erect.

[Shagnasty]

I was watching a travel show, which featured a trip to Alcatraz. The old prison looks like its in bad shape, and I cannot nderstand why people are interested in touring it. It is jst an old jail, with peeling paint and rusting bars.
My question: sppose you razed the old dmp, and replaced it with trendy condos and seaside mansions-SF is a short ferry ride away, and the property would probably sell for megabcks.
Any idea what the place cold be worth? It would be a lot nicer than the crrent eyesore.

Just a tip. Don't ever try break into the tourism pamphlet writing business with sample work like that.

Alcatraz is awesome to visit and very popular. Even if you could turn it into condos, it isn't clear that it would be economically sound to do such a thing. It is a real island and not an especially inhabitable one at that. There are thousands of other islands close to cities that people don't live on either. Boston is also very expensive and has the more inhabitable Boston Harbor islands that few people visit let alone live on. People love to visit Alcatraz because it is really unique and that has value historically and even economically. San Francisco is a popular tourist destination because of oddities like Alcatraz and that brings in cash. You can put condos anywhere. It isn't like the whole state of California let alone the U.S. has a shortage of land.

Next up: One developer's plan to rebuild the New Orleans French Quarter to a more modern design.

[Musicat]

But what a view! And what a location -- equidistant from either Oakland or San Francisco! Doesn't view and location count in real estate anymore?

I say make an offer.

[Kamrusepas]

I was watching a travel show, which featured a trip to Alcatraz. The old prison looks like its in bad shape, and I cannot nderstand why people are interested in touring it. It is jst an old jail, with peeling paint and rusting bars.


Well some people, like myself, absolutely love old buildings. The worse the shape it's in, the bigger the mental orgasms I get simply from looking at pictures of such building. Abandoned prisons and hospitals, oh my. And yes, I am planning to take a trip to Pripyat/Chernobyl :D

[BwanaBob]

But what a view! And what a location -- equidistant from either Oakland or San Francisco! Doesn't view and location count in real estate anymore?

I say make an offer.

I'm not so sure about that - look at a map - it is closer to San Francisco - or have I misread and you were actually referencing Treasure Island instead of Alcatraz?

[yabob]

BTW, should you WANT such development, note that Treasure Island is artificial - it's landfill, as is Foster City, the Marina, and part of Alameda. Much of SF Bay is very shallow, and an artificial island might provide better land for development, provided you can surmount the inevitable opposition to it. Personally, I don't want it.

And while you're looking at the map ... leave Angel Island alone, too. Maybe you could buy Red Rock Island, current asking price a mere $22 million. What, no takers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rock_Island

[t-bonham@scc.net]

It has no water supply.

All water must be fetched in by barge.And fetched out again, once used. The island has no sewage facilities, nor enough suitable ground to build them. (When the prison was operating, they just dumped their sewage into the bay. That wouldn't be allowed today, so your developer would have quite an expense here.)

[BlinkingDuck]

I hear Vickie is the best tour guide. Make sure you get him if you go on a tour.

[Acsenray]

Considering that so many other cultural landmarks in the Bay Area have been raised

Nitpick: razed

[Musicat]

Nitpick: razedNitNitpick: Post #11.

[Gray Ghost]

BTW, should you WANT such development, note that Treasure Island is artificial - it's landfill, as is Foster City, the Marina, and part of Alameda. Much of SF Bay is very shallow, and an artificial island might provide better land for development, provided you can surmount the inevitable opposition to it. Personally, I don't want it.

And while you're looking at the map ... leave Angel Island alone, too. Maybe you could buy Red Rock Island, current asking price a mere $22 million. What, no takers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rock_Island

One advantage of Alcatraz over Treasure Island and other landfill development is that Alcatraz is, IIRC, solid rock. This is beneficial in earthquake country, as solid rock is nowhere near as susceptible to liquefaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction) as landfill. As far as sewage and fresh water, while it wouldn't be inexpensive, I think it would be trivial engineering to lay pipelines to Alcatraz from San Francisco city proper for those purposes. Probably could run electrical conduits to Alcatraz too. The oil and gas industry does this sort of thing everyday, in much deeper water and worse weather. Or you could set up a windmill/whichever green power scheme you'd like. Land in the SF Bay Area is ridiculously expensive. MLS searching for towns like Tiburon yields price per acre in excess of 5 million dollars. Granted, some of that is for the house (assuming you aren't doing a tear down), and there would be very expensive demolition of the existing buildings and other site prep, but the views from Alcatraz are almost unique.

But your major problem with developing Alcatraz is going to be the multiple layers of city, county, multi-county, state, federal and non-governmental agencies that will all want a say.

[vandal]

And fetched out again, once used. The island has no sewage facilities, nor enough suitable ground to build them. (When the prison was operating, they just dumped their sewage into the bay. That wouldn't be allowed today, so your developer would have quite an expense here.)

Interesting. Is that still done today for the tourists and park rangers that are on the island?

[yabob]

One advantage of Alcatraz over Treasure Island and other landfill development is that Alcatraz is, IIRC, solid rock. This is beneficial in earthquake country, as solid rock is nowhere near as susceptible to liquefaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction) as landfill.

...
I was waiting to see if somebody made that point. Foster City officials point out that they went through the Loma Prieta with no serious damages, and claim that properly engineered landfill such as they are built on is much more seismically sound than older landfill development. They've engaged in a fight with the USGS to get their risk assessment downgraded for this. I'm not sure I'd believe them. Foster City is sort of an odd place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_City,_California

[Wogglebug]

Since it's been pointed out that it's a windy, cold, isolated, barren rock with no fresh water, the question might be: Why not blow it up, and regain some of the huge area that's been filled in over the centuries?

[Acsenray]

Well, for one, because it's a natural site of historic and cultural significance that serves as an icon and symbol for the local area.

and regain some of the huge area that's been filled in over the centuries?

What exactly would you be "regaining"?

[Hypno-Toad]

I would not be surprised if they had composting toilets for current rangers and visitors.

[Gray Ghost]

I was waiting to see if somebody made that point. Foster City officials point out that they went through the Loma Prieta with no serious damages, and claim that properly engineered landfill such as they are built on is much more seismically sound than older landfill development. They've engaged in a fight with the USGS to get their risk assessment downgraded for this. I'm not sure I'd believe them. Foster City is sort of an odd place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_City,_California

That's fascinating. I never would have guessed that. The authors of this text, Practical Lessons from the Loma Prieta Earthquake (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2269&page=34), agree with the statement that there was no significant liquefaction in Foster City, due to the use of compaction either during the fill, or shortly thereafter.

Though I experienced Loma Prieta personally, and remember the T.V. footage of the Nimitz Freeway pancakeing, and the Marina district, I didn't remember hearing anything about damage in Foster City. Interesting. Distance matters, though, and I don't know if they'll have similar luck if say, the Hayward Fault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayward_Fault_Zone)(s) three times closer, let go.

I naturally can't find the cite now, but I remember coming across a site that claimed that fresh water and sewage are currently barged to/from Alcatraz. One site made the unconfirmed statement that the ferries to/from Alcatraz handled the task. I don't know either way.

[Ludovic]

current rangers80's band name!

[Wogglebug]

Well, for one, because it's a natural site of historic and cultural significance that serves as an icon and symbol for the local area.

What exactly would you be "regaining"?

Wildlife before Americans in the Bay Area, as I understand, was based on a climate that was considerably wetter than it is now, since the bay was much larger. (I don't have a reference, but I remember hearing that it's 1/3 filled in now.) Removing the island -- just a thought, mind you -- would improve the current flow, flush out man-laid deposits from past mining, etc. The regained surface area might not be that great, but over the last decades the trend has been more and more fill.

Parenthetically, removing Alcatraz is just a thought in passing. However I definitely believe Treasure Island should be demolished. There's not much excuse of any kind for it.

I recognize Alcatraz is a tourist spot, and that some people imagine the culture of a concrete prison is more important than Spanish missions and native American culture, but I'm not one. To me, it's an ugly testimony to America's inability to handle social problems gracefully. I'd rather have a 10 story monument to the glory of the flush toilet. But I suppose that, at least, must be considered a minority opinion.

[Musicat]

Wildlife before Americans in the Bay Area, as I understand, was based on a climate that was considerably wetter than it is now, since the bay was much larger. (I don't have a reference, but I remember hearing that it's 1/3 filled in now.) Removing the island -- just a thought, mind you -- would improve the current flow, flush out man-laid deposits from past mining, etc. The regained surface area might not be that great, but over the last decades the trend has been more and more fill.And it would help to counter the ocean's rise due to global warming, by lowering just a little.

[Czarcasm]

80's band name!Another Saban children's series!