Laura Hout: Building-Height Blues
If tall buildings destroy ambiance, it's news to Europe's great cities.
Imagine Santa Barbara without the Courthouse, the Mission, the Granada or the Arlington Theatre. Hard to do, right? But that’s exactly what certain citizens and elected officials envision for our future. They want to amend Santa Barbara’s General Plan through 2030 and limit city building heights to 40 or 45 feet.
It occurs to me that it’s only young cultures that cling to nostalgia as a style criterion. Sure, pueblos and presidios are charming and atmospheric. But it’s the Queen of the Missions that puts Santa Barbara on the map. And that queen stands head and shoulders above humble adobe predecessors, bell tower and all.
“Why come to Santa Barbara if it looks just like everyplace else?” ask members of Save El Pueblo Viejo. But their data contradicts their argument. Their list of building heights in the city (not inclusive by any means) shows the Courthouse tower at 100 feet, the Granada at 116 feet and the Canary Hotel — not including roof garden elements — at 62 feet high.
And what do most tourists visiting Santa Barbara want to see? The Mission and the Courthouse. Exactly. Members of Save El Pueblo Viejo and the League of Women Voters should take a page from history. According to Santa Barbara — A Guide to El Pueblo Viejo, the Courthouse, along with the Lobero and Arlington theaters are “impressive case studies of how larger volumes can be maneuvered so that they add to — rather than destroy — the provincial Andalusian scale of Santa Barbara.”
I first realized the importance of planning policies when I walked Santa Barbara in the mid-1990s with a European architect. Through his eyes I learned we could not build the Arlington today, the Courthouse would never happen. And why, he asked, as we stood at the intersection of State and Carrillo streets, don’t people live above these commercial buildings? What’s with the mock-window facades on the Saks Fifth Avenue building and the then-Pier One building?
I confess, I’d never even thought about it.
Fortunately, our city has taken major strides in fostering mixed-used developments. But if detractors have their way, that progress will be halted. According to certain factions, the only way to keep our city charming is to squash it flat. Building heights should be limited to 40 or 45 feet. They want to preserve “El Pueblo Viejo” — never mind that Santa Barbara touts itself as the “American Riviera.” Perhaps these leaders and concerned citizens should tour some of the European locales that our city boosters so blithely claim we resemble. Maybe then they’ll realize the folly of mythologizing the “Pueblo” and reverting us to a dusty Spanish garrison.
Either we’re the American Pueblo or we’re the American Riviera. By all means, we should preserve our historic buildings and honor Santa Barbara’s heritage and Hispanic/Mediterranean-inspired design. But we live in the 21st century. It makes no sense to emulate building methods of the 1800s. Why would any enlightened city ignore sustainable living practices, shun smart growth and forgo green-building? To sprawl into the suburbs, waste more land, require more car trips, gobble more gas and cripple our downtown? That’s progress?
I don’t think so.
Julie Bischoff, a member of the Santa Barbara Contractors Association and Built Green Santa Barbara, expresses bewilderment at downsizing building heights. Over the years Bischoff’s company, J.W. Bailey Construction, has built mixed-use projects on Chapala, Garden and Santa Barbara streets.
“Building up reduces the footprint on the land, uses less water, reduces automobile trips, revitalizes neighborhoods and makes them safer.”
Bischoff notes there are ways to soften building masses, by stepping them up in tiers like wedding cakes, and creating interior courtyards that allow light into building cores.
In Munich, I lived in a five-story mixed-use building with a center courtyard and lively street scene below. I didn’t need a car (think of the cost savings!) unless I rented one for a weekend drive. The city was vital, the Bavarian countryside preserved. To be sure, this is not a lifestyle for everyone — right now I have three big dogs and I like my suburban yard. But it’s a wonderful lifestyle choice: I walked more, I kept fit without trying, used public transit and saved money on auto expenses.
“Most Americans agree we will never see cheap gas again,” says David Goldberg, spokesman for Smart Growth America, referring to a recent Harris poll. Mortimer Zuckerman, editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report is more blunt. Decrying gasoline prices that have risen above $4 a gallon, he asks, “And where is the wealth going? To enemies of America, to some of the world’s worst leaders, such as the oil autocrats of Iran, Venezuela and Russia.”
Enlightened visionaries in Santa Barbara’s past argued for “smart growth” before the term was coined. Simon Eisner, who prepared the General Plan for the city of Santa Barbara in 1964 stated, “"There is growing awareness that the automobile is getting out of hand: that its influence on the urban scene is becoming dictatorial rather than beneficent. It is the instrument whereby free rein was given to urban sprawl …” In fact, these early leaders envisioned several blocks of State Street as a car-free pedestrian zone, much like the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica.
That is vitality! But none of this can ever happen if we lower building heights.
“What we will miss — if we lower building heights — is the chance to revitalize our neighborhoods, create a vibrant city core, and build a truly sustainable city,” says Detlev Peikert of Peikert Group Architects.
Peikert, whose firm designed Paseo Chapala, adds, “Dynamic city cores support businesses and services, even in tough economic times.”
“The arguments for lowering building heights are not valid,” he says. “The planning process is already responding to community concerns about building heights. What we hear people saying is the city doesn’t need more high-priced condos, it needs more workforce housing.”
He points out that in order to be more sustainable, San Luis Obispo just raised its height limits to 75 feet.
A proposal to enact “interim building height limits” of 40 to 45 feet is scheduled for a Santa Barbara City Council vote in September. An initiative to enact 40- to 45-foot height limits in the city core is slated for the November 2009 ballot.
Citizens wishing to help shape Santa Barbara’s General Plan through 2030 — including height limit parameters — are urged to attend a community workshop at the Central Library Faulkner Gallery, 40 E. Anapamu St., from 6-9 p.m. Wednesday. Click here for the Plan Santa Barbara Policy Options Report. Comments can be submitted no later than 5 p.m. Aug. 1 to PlanSB Team Planning Division, Community Development Department, P.O. Box 1990, Santa Barbara 93102.
For national information on smart growth, sustainable living and green building, click here or click here.
Locally, SB4ALL, a coalition of engaged citizens participating in the General Plan process, can be reached by contacting Andrulaitis at 805.963.8077 x211. For additional information, contact Built Green Santa Barbara for Built Green Santa Barbara or the Santa Barbara Contractors Association.
Laura Hout is a freelance writer and Realtor affiliated with Prudential California Realty.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 08:10 AM
Despite the cries by realtors, as Hout, builders and architects, like Andrulaitis, all of whom have a financial interest in building up, up, up, an overwhelmingly large number of Santa Barbara residents favor retaining SB’s small town qualities and atmosphere.
More than 8,500, having little to no faith in the C. Council or the staff-driven process, have signed the petition asking to change the charter and lower building heights. Many more would do so if they could, if they were City residents.
Many of us like tall buildings. We appreciate European cities. We are excited by New York skyscrapers. AND we love our Santa Barbara that is not like everyplace else. Soon enough, if it were, these same realtors and builders would be screaming more, more, more - or moving on to “develop” more small cities, if any were to be found.
And that’s the point: Santa Barbara is rare and special. The County Courthouse has fields of lawn and wide setbacks. The Granada and Arlington Theatre are isolated commercial buildings --- do we want tall apartment buildings downtown of the type that typify the outskirts of Paris and Moscow? Do we want our streetscapes to be Chapala-Oneicated? I think not.
Young and old are signing enthusiastically the heights limit petition. Those many signatures of registered voters speak loudly and clearly. The City Council should listen and hear what they’re saying. It’s too bad we have to go to this effort to be heard, but we do.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 09:26 AM
While collecting signatures on the height limit petition I have noticed that for every 10 residents who eagerly sign it there is only 1 person who says they oppose it and wants more tall buildings to be built.
Save El Pueblo Viejo has already exceeded the number of signatures required to put this on the ballot.
From all indications this initiative will easily pass, and by a huge margin.
The smart growth advocates are in the minority, and the vast majority of the voters desire to control growth to a slow 1/4 % per year increase, preserve our low density small town character and quality of life, and prefer the less traffic that low density development provides.
It is a fact that a lower population is more sustainable than a larger population.
Does a town of 25,000 have to grow to 35,000 in order to be sustainable--of course not!
Since a 60 feet building houses more people than a 45 feet high building It is a fact that 45 feet, from the height limit), is more sustainable than a 60 feet building.
Towers like on the Arlington and Court house)are exempt from the height limit.
And tall buildings and high density development cause more population which in turn will cause more traffic. Only 15% of the new units ( 600 over 20 years) are affordable to the workforce and 85% (3400 over 20 years) are high end units selling for over $1,000,000. These new 10,000 high end people cause the need for 10,000 more workforce service workers to service them and this will cause the number of commuters to increase by 10,000. It is a fact that high density smart growth in tall buildings will actually make our commuting problem much worse instead of better as smart growth will result in 30,000 commuters in 20 years instead of the 20,000 now.
And we have no undeveloped land in the city of Santa Barbara where more sprawl could occur so how is tall buildings preventing sprawl.
The city of Santa Monica, which is the same size as Santa Barbara, just had 10,000 residents ( only 14000 voted in their last election)eagerly sigh a petition to reduce the amount of commercial buildings because they implemented smart growth there and were promised by their council and planning staff that smart growth would reduce traffic but the tall dense mixed use projects actually caused a huge increase in traffic just like it did in every other city where smart growth has been implemented.
The Smart growth advocates claim people who live in the tall dense building near transit corridors will take the bus to work and will give up their cars. A recent study has shown that the average resident in a high density tall project near a transit corridor still drives a car and still puts on an average 10,000 miles a year on it as compared to 12,000 by those living in the suburbs. This is why such projects actually increase traffic congestion in the cities that implement such ‘smart growth’. Remember “high density smart growth” is just a fancy name for a lot of population growth by increasing the population density in the city.
A study just completed shows that 80% ofd people prefer to live in detached houses and only 20% prefer want live in tall buildings in the urban commercial core. It is social engineering to force people to live densely like chickens in a chicken farm, where each chicken is given 1 sq. ft. in the interest of high density in order to make the efficient use of the land. But what about the quality of life?
I’m sure glad that majority rules!
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 10:24 AM
First, let’s stop assuming that Realtors (with a capital “R"), builders and architects all have a financial interest in the city building up, or that all members of these groups are crying out for change. Assumptions like that create hostility toward groups that are actually concerned with protecting our city. They are the groups that protect your property values (by fighting ridiculous ideas like painting a blue line around the town to show a projected tide line, an idea that would have single-handedly tanked property values in much of our city), or working with the city to incorporate restrictions on tearing down older homes without going through a strict process, or fighting for people’s property rights, so that one person with an “agenda”, who paid $20,000 for their home, can’t tell another, who paid $1.5 Million for their’s, how they can remodel it. There is a balance that works for everyone, and that involves some compromise. Those that aren’t willing to compromise are missing out on the big picture (like the folks who keep fighting the Miramar project...you could put ANYTHING on that site right now, and it would be better than what’s currently there). Allowing a building to be raised by a few feet is NOT going to make Santa Barbara look like Paris, Los Angeles, or even Santa Monica. It just won’t happen. Those of you that are so concerned about a few extra feet on a building should really redirect your efforts toward a much more serious & pressing issue: Gang activity and grafitti are doing much more to hurt the quaintness of our fair city than the new construction on Chapala is. If you really care about the city, focus your efforts there…
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 10:33 AM
GREAT ARTICLE and right on track!
The nearly dead and/or retired contingent who are behind this short sighted measure are living in the past and refuse to see the positive opportunity that the future holds.
Maintaining and even raising building heights in certain appropriate areas of the downtown core will allow for more interesting architecture. Buildings can be varied in height, stepped back from the street allowing open circulation corridors to preserve mountain views, higher portions of structures in the center of buildings can step up to provide much needed efficient / affordable by design housing which is close to work places and mass transit and which provides new opportunities for young professionals to live. Most of the retired people I’ve heard from have said “forget about it, they can’t afford to live here anymore and your kids can’t live here either, they are going to have to move somewhere else”. We don’t buy this limited / defeatest attitude nor this short sighted vision for the status quo as our community’s future.
NOW is the time for those who actually derive a living from and contribute to the future of this beautiful community to speak out before the older, retired, and often visionless try to limit our community’s future. Unfortunately it seems the old folks just don’t get it. They claim to be progressive and interested in preserving the historical character of this town, however in the bigger picture they are elitist, exclusionary, regressive and promoting a “newly wed and nearly dead vision” that they have become part of.
Let’s try to make sure that the City Planning Department and City Leaders don’t become victims of the continuous rantings of the vocal NO GROWTH minority!
This is a Great Article, well written and substantiated bu someone who is employed and contributing to the future of this community. Just because many of people work for a living and derive their livelihood from planning, designing, building or selling the best of Santa Barbara does not make them second class citizens with credible no voice. To the contrary, look at those who are promoting this height reduction measure and it’s mostly the elderly, the retired from LA (or elsewhere) and those who want to shut down opportunities for future generations to have to have their motives questioned.
Let’s hope that there is ample dialog and discussion regarding this important issue in the weeks and months to come. Let’s also hope that the City does not take it upon themselves to pursue an interim height reduction ordinance which is not only untimely and but flies in the face of sound planning and public participation in the planning process.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 10:51 AM
Thank you Laura!
Why can’t we have a city of neigborhoods, something for everyone? If the residents, workers and property owners of El Pueblo Viejo want to live and work in a charming, people scaled city like any spanish city of comparable size, why can’t they. The centuries old tradition of 3,4 and 5 story walk-up buildings developed naturally due to people’s climbing ability. Some of us prefer the vitality and sense of place that comes with these human scaled buildings. I don’t want to live in a spread out city like Bakersfield or Simi Valley. I want to have at least one neighborhood in Santa Barbara that reflects my values. Let those who prefer low rise boredom live in the outlying neighborhoods. Variety is the spice of life!
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 11:12 AM
I wholeheartedly agree with every point Laura Hout made in this morning’s Noozhawk treatise. I hope we all have the wisdom and energy to encourage future decision makers with her sensible observations. We are already missing a great opportunity to capitalize on a new building height benchmark. With the millions being spent on retrofitting buildings, it’s time to have the architects and engineers make their case for safely adding vertical living space at the same time to these new masses of reinforced concrete and steel designed to protect us during a statistically unlikely catastrophic event. I say let’s live safer and cleaner in the future by maximizing the best use of the air rights we already have. 75 to 100 feet is not an unreasonable goal for building height guidelines in our core city.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 11:24 AM
You call 45 feet flat?
Do you even know how tall 45 feet is? It’s way up there.
What makes a building charming is human scale. A building over 45 feet does not have human scale. A building over 45 feet looks like a monster and blocks sunlight to our paseos and courtyards and blocks mountain and ocean views.
And with a 40 feet height limit towers are exempt so a 45 feet building can have a 60 feet or even 80 feet tower. So the fact is that we still can get buildings like the Mission, Arlington and Courthouse.
Santa Barbara has a height limit of 4 stories. Under the new lower height limits there still can be affordable housing projects built with four floors with 8 feet ceilings.
What it dopes is prevent the luxury high end $2,000,000 units from having 15 feet ceilings. That does not hurt the workforce housing one bit!
lastly, Santa Barbara is a very beautiful and livable town just the way it is. It is beautiful and livable because of the low density and the low building heights. It does not need to implement high density smart growth and grow vertically to become beautiful! In fact growing vertical and implementing high density smart growth will transform out town into just another LA or orange County, and make it much less beautiful and charming.
Santa Barbara is beautiful and livable the way it is ---lets keep it that way.
Just say no to high density vertical growth.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 11:53 AM
Growth happens, and is mainly limited by environmental issues in California such as water availability.
Still, growth happens, and the alternative to building affordable places to live right downtown is to build them on the edge, spoiling your expensive mountain views and throwing more cars on the road lengthening your commute.
Sure it’s easy to collect signatures for this sort of thing, it’s the magical thinking that led to narrowing Highway 101 to 2 lanes just south of San Jose “to limit growth.” Price differentials eventually won out, creating awful awful traffic for everyone and wasting untold amounts of fuel in traffic-jammed vehicles (at 0 mpg).
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 12:33 PM
I’m not sure how this building height discussion will ultimately play out, but I AM sure that comparing Santa Barbara to cities like “London, Milan, Vienna, Prague, Florence, Verona, Munich, Rome, Cologne, Venice, Bellagio, Berlin” as was done in this article is an invalid comparison. SB will NEVER be as large as those cities. Consequently the social dynamics and public infrastructure capacity will be different.
Rather than comparing ourselves to other locations and copying their solutions, perhaps we should stay unique and devise our own unique solutions…
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 01:23 PM
You say “Growth happens”.
We say: keep our low density and vote to lower building heights and we can, and will, prevent growth from occurring on the South Coast.
Why in the world would anyone vote to increase the population on the south coast?
Why in the world would anyone vote to increase density on the south coast, the purpose and result of which is to accommodate population growth.
Just say No to population Growth and increased traffic on the South Coast and vote to lower building heights. Say no to high density smart growth. Never forget: Smart growth is really another word for population growth. And the purpose of Smart Growth is to accommodate a LOT of population growth. The smart growth advocates don’t like our current system because it limits growth and they want a whole lot more of it.
Together we do have the voting power to STOP POPULATION GROWTH FROM HAPPENING. And the smart growth advocates know it --thats why they are so afraid of the height initiative. They are afraid it’s going to pass and control growth.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 01:25 PM
Well Said!
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 01:40 PM
Less is More.
Who said buildings under 45 feet can’t be built green? They can be built as green as 60 feet buildings!
Who says a 45 feet high building needs to be 60 feet high in order to be sustainable.
By this same faulty reasoning, a 60 feet high building would have to 75 feet high in order to be sustainable......RIDICULOUS.
The bigger a building is the less green it is because it uses more materials and natural resources and more energy. Tall building cost more to construct so are less affordable than smaller buildings. Downtown land is much more expensive so causes units to be much less affordable than building away from downtown.
A bigger building has more people and thus causes much more traffic congestion.
Tall buildings downtown do not solve our affordable housing for the workforce problem but with their high end luxury units all costing over $1,000,000 make it far worse.
Less is More.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 01:47 PM
I’d always understood that the better portion of the ‘height paranoia’ was as a result of the huge earthquake in the early 20th century? I do agree with planned development. I heartily support mixed usage, as I once also lived in Europe and found the community it fostered to be exceptional. However,I don’t want to see the buildings of Flower Street in LA in Santa Barbara. I believe we can loosen the stranglehold on height limitations without destroying the skyline or flavor of this city. I’ve noted over the years that people who are out to ‘preserve’ anything, myself included at one time, are notoriously loathe to compromise, but compromise is what this community needs, if we are to continue to stay abreast of the needs of our diverse population and the desires/needs of the tourist industry that does fuel a large part of our local economy.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 02:46 PM
She cited all the great Santa Barbara buildings that height limits would preclude. She didn’t list all the other 60’ buildings that have been built that most of us would deem inappropriate and would sooner had never been built. Lets name a few:
She cited great European cities that feature tall buildings, implying that any city that would voluntarily preclude itself the option of following suit was somehow perverse. She didn’t, however, mention any number of great low profile cities (let’s name a few) or cities of tall buildings that are simply detestable. (Tall buildings sure did a lot for Oxnard!)
She intimated that that building heights limits would preclude us the possibility of another gem like the Courthouse, the Mission, etc. O.K., fair enough. Maybe we should consider exceptions for buildings that provide such community benefit that they justify greater heights.
But wait a minute. That is not the kind of building that precipitated the huge outpouring of sentiment for building heights. The big, tall buildings that have gone up – and are waiting in the pipeline – pin their justification on another “community benefit”: housing affordability.
Now there might be a fair argument there: that the heights were justifiable and that the contribution toward a solution to the housing affordability crisis is a fair price – a reasonable sacrifice - for those of us who cherish our traditionally low profile skyline to pay.
But that is a question nobody is willing to pose and address: Can the tall buildings in fact deliver on the many promises their promoters put forth to secure their approval? Do they make a perceptible dent in workforce affordability, getting commuters of the freeway, weaning people from car-dependence?
Because if the answer is no – or even that it is too speculative on which to base a departure in community development policy – then there is no justification for the tall buildings. And we are likely to simply get more of the types of undesirable tall buildings we have gotten in recent times – along with more population, density, traffic, and all the other effects that impact the “small city” ambience most of us seem to cherish.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 03:03 PM
The high density smart growth advocates just love those two new 4 story 60 feet monstrosities on Chapala. They want 100 more just like them, on arterial streets like Upper State Street, Milpas, and all over town...........
Thousands and thousands of city residents are signing the petition to lower building heights to 45 feet, because they don’t want any more of those monstrosities anywhere in town. 45 feet is still allows a pretty darn tall building, and can provide a lot of housing, but it is not a monstrosity like those two on Chapala, that result from the current 60 feet height limit.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 04:19 PM
The advocates for less building would help themselves a lot more if they stopped using the phrase “smart growth” like an epithet.
Nowhere in this opinion essay does the author recognize that huge buildings like the Courthouse or Mission also have huger lots that provide surrounding open space and gardens.
Also, besides Mickey Flacks, show me one advocate for tall buildings who also does not gain financially by more and bigger building in Santa Barbara. The real estate sales industry and the construction and architecture industry will make truckloads of cash from their proposals wrapped in the sentiment of Community sharing, sustainability, blah blah blah.
Funny now none of those advocates for more massive and taller buildings every support hard rules to assure the building stays compatible with the sites. Nor do they support hard rules to make the new, extra tall dwellings really affordable to actual Santa Barbara residents where the condos, with all the monthly fees, sell to people who “only” earn 100% of the local median income.
The building industry, with all their new “sustainability” policy statements, has no shred of credibility until those advocates also promise true affordability for actual long-term residents of Santa Barbara. Funny how that key possible benefit and commitment that more and huger buildings always gets left out.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 05:31 PM
The article implies Santa Barbara is a barren world because we are essentially 1 and 2 stories. If thats her definition of a barren world then I’d gladly live in such a barren place. Gee, I wonder how we ever got by without high density smart growth?
The article implies implies great cities of Europe have great architecture and we don’t, supposedly because of tall buildings. I’ve got news for her...... I’ve traveled Europe, seen those cities, and Santa Barbara is the most beautiful place in the entire world, and is a much more unique and desirable place to live than those cities. And this is primarily due to the low density and charming character of the low buildings with human scale. We truly are blessed with something very special. Lets not throw all that away on the pipe dream experiment of high density smart growth that never works as promised.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 05:41 PM
A recent University study concluded that only 10% of the people in the country desire to live in a big city, 10% desire to live on a farm, but 80% desire to live in a small town.
The main characteristic of a small town is low density with one and two story buildings.
No wonder the vast majority of the residents of Santa Barbara cherish our small town character, low density lifestyle, and high quality of life and choose to preserve it.
Therefore Santa Barbara is just fine the way it is, and sure does not need to be transformed into a big city with tall buildings just to satisfy the wishes of the architects, developers and realtors to make more money.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 05:44 PM
I’ve been asking for signatures for the petition drive and, indeed, more of the signers are older, 40’s and 50’s, than younger. Certainly, some older people, appreciating Santa Barbara for a longer period of time than a 20-year-old, and perhaps having travelled more, want Santa Barbara to grow slowly. But also younger people, 20’s and 30’s have been enthusiastically signing their support. So, NO to the agism of “John”.
Santa Barbara, as Art wrote, will never be as the European cities. In part, because of our geography. Set on a narrow coastal plain, blocked by mountains, with a limited amount of water Santa Barbara by Charter is duty-bound to live within our resources. (Heard that phrase before?!)
We are unique. That’s what we are looking to remain, with slow growth, putting residents first. It is OUR city, remember? True, it is also that of those with financial interests in building and growth, “offended”, r/Realtors, construction people and so forth. As one building guy said on Saturday, “I am not going to sign the petition because I am in the building trade!” Nothing wrong with that. We all or most of us put self-interest first. For some it is financial; for others, not.
Where we disagree is how we want our city to look and be: Orange County density?high rise downtown? Major increase of population with an inevitable increase in crime, petty and otherwise? Or try to retain the spirit of what we have and work to solve the problems we have now?
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 06:03 PM
Laura.....you are right on. At 65-100+ ft charm still exists & when designed correctly will be a thing of beauty and community pride.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 06:29 PM
Signature Collector wrote: “...prefer the less traffic that low density development provides.”
It is patently illogical that low density leads to low traffic. Low density development causes traffic by forcing people to commute. The premise of the American experiment in suburban living is that we can somehow have all the charm of country living alongside all the amenities of city living...a contradiction made possible only by the miracle of the personal automobile, and a dream shortly about to fall flat on its face as gas prices continue to rise and resources dwindle. What do I love most about Santa Barbara? Not the sprawl of Goleta or San Roque or the Mesa. It’s that I can live downtown and get all my errands done on foot or bicycle in a four block radius of my house. Not many cities remain that are as compact and “human-sized” as downtown Santa Barbara. Instead of encouraging this compactness, why try to squash the city and make it take up more land? Low density development ensures that the luxury of compact, walkable, commute-less cities are available to only a privileged few, forcing everybody else to live on the outskirts and drive to get to the amenities of the city (which then forces us to pave half the city for multi-lane roads and parking lots and clogs our highways and streets). You need only compare the low density development of Upper State to the high density of lower State to see how ugly and useless low density is. (Which one attracts the tourists?)
Signature Collector: “It is a fact that a lower population is more sustainable than a larger population...” Of course. But unless you’re proposing euthanasia, then you’re just abdicating responsibility for that larger population, which has to go somewhere. Why not make Santa Barbara into a model of how to house a rising population with charm, style and good sense rather than just claiming that there’s no room at the inn, we got here first, and you’re have to go find some other sprawling community to live in? America was not built on such elitist, exclusionary ideas. I’d far prefer Santa Barbara to be known as one of the most progressive, intelligently-planned, environmentally-sensitive, resource-conscious and livable cities in the country rather than a contrived replica of some bygone past era that has little to do with present day needs.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 07:41 PM
I have been an environmentalist for 35 years. It makes me sick to hear this new generation somehow think that building big tall buildings in downtown Santa Barbara is somehow saving the environment.
The environment consists of both the rural environment and the urban environment. Since we live in the urban environment and spend 99% of our time in the urban environment the urban environment is just as important as the rural environment. Both need to be protected equally. This new breed of so called environmentalists are ready to sacrifice the quality our urban environment by identifying it to the point at which it is no longer sustainable and where the quality of life is ruined all in the name of protecting the rural environment.
But what they don’t realize is that the rural environment is going to be developed, or not, regardless of what happens in downtown Santa Barbara.
Also, this new generation of environmentalists (or should I say pro development advocates in the sheep’s clothing of the environmentalists) somehow mistakenly thinks that more population in any given ecosystem is more sustainable than less population. Any Biologist can set them straight on this. The fact is that high density in any given area is less sustainable than lower density. Since low buildings have a lower population density than tall buildings they are more sustainable. It is absurd for anyone to think that increasing the population growth in any town will somehow make it more sustainable. The reality is that anyone who says that taller buildings are more sustainable than lower buildings is simply trying to get more growth to occur in the “name” of sustainability.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 08:03 PM
Reply to Cameron Clark:
I have bad news for you. High density tall development ALWAYS substantially increases the traffic in the area where such dense tall development takes place. It always also spills over into other surrounding areas and the whole city. Even with many using alternate transportation it can not be otherwise.
Yes population growth by sprawl increases traffic but population growth by high density also increases traffic.
Many cities have put into place high density smart growth over the last 10 years. In each cars the city planners promised the people that putting in place high density smart growth would reduce traffic in their city. It is a fact that in each and every case the traffic got much worse than it was before. This fact is proof that high density smart growth does not perform as advertised. Sure it sounds real good but it just doesn’t work.
There is only one way to preserve the high quality of life of our small beach town for ourselves and our children and that is to grow very very slow and not implement high density smart growth with its big buildings here.
We have no responsibility to provide for every person who would like to live here. it is a fact that there are 20,000,000 people living within a 100 mile radius of Santa Barbara. just how many of them would like to live in Santa Barbara? I’ll tell you how many....ALL OF THEM. So its a fact that a line has to be drawn somewhere, so why not draw it at the 100,000 people that can live here within our resources in a sustainable manner and preserve a high quality of life and preserve this special place for future generations. It would be faulty thinking to ruin it in the name of sustainability, or some false sense of responsibility to provide for “our fair share” of world population growth.
» wrote on 07/22/08 @ 09:00 PM
Wow! Bravo Laura! I was riveted by her engaging writing style and in general the alarming awareness of what members of ‘Save El Pueblo Viejo & The League of Women Voters are proposing!! During these times of energy crisis, it is utterly ridiculous and thoroughly counter productive, to instigate a city plan to restrict building heights to 40 or 45.’ At a time when everything we do now is crucial to saving energy, passing a restriction that has a 21 year shelf life may have very disturbing consequences on our precious city. With regards to aesthetics, I too have lived in Europe as well as Santa Fe, NM., and surely the brilliance of the European architects through the ages is evident. The Pueblo look is appropriate in Santa fe but prey not here! We are afterall the American Riviera!! This amendment cannot be allowed to pass! Citizens wake up!!
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 06:33 AM
Laura,
Thank you for a well written, very informative article. With this information I could not agree with you more.
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 08:19 AM
Laura: Thank you for a great article! I agree with everything you said and I read with concern the vitriolic arguments posted by El Pueblo Viejo petitioners.
The low density, sprawling environment that they advocate for makes driving cars an absolute necessity. Go no further than Goleta, San Roque or the Mesa to see the consequences of automobile-based planning at work.
The argument that Architects, Planners and Realtors benefit from taller buildings is disengeneous: the petition drive was started by an Architect, a real estate Appraiser and a Designer. The elephant share of design work and commercial activity is in the small structures.
Thank you, again!
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 08:58 AM
I live in Santa Monica.
Several years ago Santa Monica put in place a high density smart growth plan exactly like is proposed here. The construction of a lot of tall buildings resulted in a lot of growth. The planners promised us that tall buildings would reduce traffic.
Just ask ANY resident what tall buildings did to Santa Monica.
It ruined it by causing total gridlock congestion.
It added to the number of commuters and made their commuting problem worse. Much worse. The planners lied to us.
At 3 p.m. I can’t even get from one side of the town to the other.
If it didn’t work for us why would anyone think it would work for Santa Barbara.
There is no reason to vote for tall buildings unless you want a lot of population growth and a lot more commuters and a lot more congestion. Unless of course your an architect, developer or Realtor and benefit from the growth. If the shoe fits wear it. Learn from Santa Monica’s mistake.
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 09:39 AM
Amusing flurry here of the friends of the author writing comments in support. The basic questions still remain unanswered about what community benefit taller buildings would yield without simultaneous commitment to true housing affordability.
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 09:40 AM
I see a harsh duality here. We need to understand the other point of view, first LISTEN what other people have to say, think about the implications of what you want, then ask questions. Remeber, this will be around for awhile. Everyone, please attend the Plan Santa Barbara workshops and let your voice be herd. Listen, THINK, speak…
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 10:46 AM
Thank you Laura for making some excellent points in favor of not reducing allowable building heights in Santa Barbara!
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 11:40 AM
So why doesn’t everyone who was not born in Santa Barbara, please leave, including all the bloggers.
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 12:24 PM
Great article, Laura. I, too, consider myself a lover of the environment, which means I think we need to reduce our impact on our natural resources (open space, water, energy, oil...to name a few), not reduce our mixed use as “In Name of the Environment” suggests.
The elitist view of “close the door...after me” is just absurd. Santa Barbara is experiencing negative growth and we still can’t deal with housing our workforce and middle class. All you “no growth” folks: what are you going to do when there’s no one to pump your gas, mow your lawn, whip up your over priced coffee or cook and serve you your fancy dinner? Of course, more people means more resources, but it also means more services provided in our community and the diversity of people and services is what makes this place great.
We need to consider how to keep our working class and also our young working professionals in town, like me, who are also getting squeezed out.
Santa Barbara is in desperate need of those extra feet of height so that we can continue to maintain a vibrant, higher density core for those of us that love to live, work and shop by walking, biking and busing.
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 12:52 PM
In name of the Environment: “this new generation of environmentalists (or should I say pro development advocates in the sheep’s clothing of the environmentalists)” How dare you claim to be the authority on who or what is “environmental”. How conceited. You may disagree with me and others who prefer a clear delineation between our human environment and the rest of the environment, but nothing gives you the right to say that your preference for a blurrier line between the two is the correct interpretation of environmentalism.
Personally, I’m doing just about everything I can think of to reduce my footprint. I dislike development, believe me. I hate rampant growth. It makes me sick that our population in California continues to grow by leaps and bounds. And Peter, by no means do I think we should open the floodgates and welcome in a few hundred thousand of the teeming masses that cram the Los Angeles basin to our little coastal shelf. But Santa Barbara will continue to grow at some rate, and I would prefer that growth happen in the most compact, efficient, sustainable way possible, rather than sprawling out on the edges, eating up our open space and creeping up our mountains. (Which homes were the hardest and most expensive to protect during the recent Gap fire?)
I think we need to clarify the terms we’re using here. I don’t think anybody is proposing that we turn downtown into high-density development. Nobody’s proposing 10 story glass-clad highrises or massive 100-unit apartment blocks. We’re talking merely about the difference between a 40’ or 60’ height restriction. We’re talking about low density vs. at most *medium* density. We’re talking about an extra 20’ on a few new buildings that would permit a few hundred more people to live in downtown. If properly designed, this extra 20’ feet isn’t going to drastically change the feel of our city, nor will it cast dark shadows over our streets and historical landmarks. What it can do is give us an opportunity to create a model for compact development that allow more people to live and work in a smaller space, ideally allowing a few more people to do what I do, and ditch their cars and do everything they need to on foot.
Peter, you’re right...what’s to stop these people from driving? Right now...very little. Just like there’s very few disincentives for our current population to drive (except relatively inexpensive parking rates and a few mild traffic snarls here and there). I think rising gas prices are going to provide a new incentive for people to stop driving. But if your goal is actually about preventing traffic, then don’t beat around the bush with building height restrictions. Penalize people who drive. Lower the free parking time limit in downtown. Double or triple the parking rates. That would simultaneously provide a whole lot of new revenue for the city and directly discourage a lot of people from driving that don’t really need to. If you want to deal with traffic, deal with it directly.
Case in point: my girlfriend lives 8 blocks from work, a downtown law firm. Most days she rides to work on her bike. She still drives occasionally--driving will always be easier than biking or walking--but the high parking rates in the public lot she uses ensures that she keeps this to a minimum. Double the parking rates and you can just about guarantee that she and a whole lot of other people who don’t need to drive won’t. Meanwhile, tourists who only stay here for a few hours or days will hardly be affected and certainly won’t be scared away. Everybody wins.
Out of curiosity...of those who are for lower height limits, how many of you actually live in downtown? How many drive more than 1-2 times per week? Who’s to blame for the traffic we already have--the denizens of downtown, or the people living on the fringe? I’d be curious to see some numbers on that.
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 01:16 PM
Now hear this: Apparently all friends of the author, all business owners, all real estate people, all architects, all interior designers, all contractors, all chamber of commerce people and all others deemed inappropriate by Perle shall hereby be barred from commenting on an opinion column about the height initiative.
Perle, you or one of your cronies was just bragging yesterday about the “thousands and thousands” of people that have signed your petition. With that kind of alleged support, are you THAT scared of those of us who disagree with you and are offering our own opinions on the debate? Thank goodness Noozhawk doesn’t have those same restrictions.
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 02:40 PM
reply to Pearle’s Wisdom:
Nice try in your attempt to “spin” pearls comment that architects, developers and Realtors favor tall buildings in part because it helps them financially.
No one ever said they were wrong because they benefit financially. It’s o.k. to have a desire to make a good living. No one ever said their opinions don’t count or that they do not have an equal right to comment. And nobody ever said that they were worried about the outcome of the voter to lower building heights.
I did hear two different people who had been collecting signatures say that it appears as if there is overwhelming support in the community for slow growth, preserving the small town character and quality of life and low building heights.
Compared to many other blogs in many other forums, the comments on both sides of this one has been extremely respectful of each other and with no name calling. Each person cares very much about our city, thinks that they are right, and has the best interest of the city at heart.
There needs to be some reconciliation, compromise and some balance between the two main, yet conflicting, community goals of preserving the small town character and quality of life and the goal of providing housing for our workforce. Both goals are worthy of our consideration.
But “spinning” will get us nowhere.
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 03:03 PM
We are not Europe (by the way I love Europe and it’s architecture). We are overcrowded with never enough parking as it is. I have worked for developers/builders for years and I know their focus--basically to make money. The original beautiful old buildings that you mention are not surrounded along a street that is bursting with other similar sized buildings that take away light, oxygen and openness. As a Broker and Designer, I cherish our small and unique city and I respectfully disagree with your vision.
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 03:07 PM
I think that if you lower the height limit and slow (even further) any development possibilities the only people that will be able to enjoy Santa Barbara will be the wealthy few you live here now or are moving up from LA. By limiting the housing that can be built, it forces developers to go for the highest value and that is high end condos. By taking land away from commercial purposes and putting residential on it you remove businesses from town and force them to relocate to Goleta, Carpinteria or further. It may seem like only million dollar condos are being built but that is because developers aren’t allowed to take advantage of economies of scale. More units equals a lower per unit cost and that translates to lower prices. Building residential above commercial reduces traffic and increases profit for the businesses located in these areas. Without this growth, our economy becomes more and more dependent on tourism. Stopping growth just means that Santa Barbara is destined to be an old, rich folks home and a tourist trap.
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 04:56 PM
reply to Cameron Clark:
Dear Cameron,
You make some good points, but what you may not have considered is that those who favor lowering the building heights have no problem at all with some modest 3 story mixed use projects along transit corridors where those workers who want to can live downtown. The big issue here is just how much population growth do we want. The smart growth advocates say they only want to accommodate a small increase in population.
In that case the issue becomes: Do we really need more than 3 stories to accommodate such a small amount of growth. The answer is no. If there are 200 possible sites why put all the population growth in, say 50 monster 4 story 60 feet buildings like those on Chapala that the vast majority of residents despise. why not spread it our on the transit corridors and give more landowners a chance to build a project and say have 100 3 story projects which better blend into our beloved small town character.
lastly, It would be one thing if the high density smart growth solution actually worked as hoped. Numerous cities around the country have implemented such smart growth plans over the last 10 years because it sounds good but the reality is that smart growth simply does not work as advertised. Every single city that has put in place high density smart growth has experienced significantly greater traffic congestion in the neighborhoods where the dense mixed use projects are located. Studies have shown that the residents of the high density smart growth project located near transit do not give up their cars. Even thought they occasionally ride the mass transit, they still drive their cars a substantial amount. Studies have shown that the commercial component creates new jobs and a significant number of the employees commute to these jobs from outside the area.
Therefore why not spread out the compact mixed use development throughout the south coast into more smaller and lower projects in order to spread out the traffic impacts and not cause total gridlock downtown. This also has the benefit of preserving a lower density small town character that makes Santa Barbara so very special.
Massive 4 story 60 feet buildings are only necessary if we were going to double in population and nobody wants that.
there are other things we can do to provide affordable housing other than tall buildings. For example we can build the kind of units we need for the workforce and stop building high end luxury units. We can preserve our existing middle class housing base. We can stop converting rental to condos. We can implement dual density to lower the land cost for apartments. We can install light rail to accommodate our commuters, many of which live out of town by choice. Lets all work together to create a sustainable and green community, live within our resources and preserve our quality of life for our children and their children. We easily do it without tall buildings.
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 05:28 PM
The California I grew up in during the 1950 and ‘60’s was destroyed by sprawl. The future is vertical, not horizontal. The only way to protect our remaining open spaces such as the Gaviota Coast is to cluster our population in the cities, just like they did in Europe. Great article.
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 06:58 PM
Dear Readers,
Rest assured I intend to write another article! Mine, however, will have facts and provable cites, not unproven assumptions and fear-mongering chatter.
A “recent university study?” Where? What study? And who is the expert who claims to know all about construction costs? Have you conveniently forgotten about operating costs, energy usage, carbon footprints, and all that?
As Dr. Laura says, don’t tell me how you “feel,” tell me the “facts.” Look forward to your facts--and an ongoing debate.
Oh and PS, I’ve never made a dime selling any of these mixed-use units. I write this because I lived in a mixed-use city and it was WONDERFUL!
» wrote on 07/23/08 @ 07:50 PM
To “I’ve got mine so who cares about yours” - like it or not, SB is part of the USA, a country in which there are no birthrights, so the fact that you were born here is your great good fortune but gives you no special rights as far as living here goes. To “Cameron Clarke”: data from the State indicates that, politically incorrect as it may be to say so, current population growth in CA is virtually all due to illegal immigration (check the facts at ca.gov) so there may well be a better way to deal with population growth than building buildings. The economic fact is that SB is a uniquely beautiful place with uniquely beautiful weather and there are many, many people in the world who will cheerfully pay a ridiculous price for housing to live here. They will drive housing prices up and those who cannot afford the prices will leave. Government regulation is helpless against market forces - it’s been tried over and over and over and failed or exhibited massive unexpected consequences every time. In fact, Prop 13 is a perfect example - under the admirable goal of not allowing the taxing authorities to drive people out of their homes, Prop 13 has created a whole class of citizens who pay far below “market rates” in property taxes, which allows them to live in homes they could not otherwise afford, and complain about the newcomers, who are actually paying most of the taxes. So, back to “I’ve got mine “, yes you do have yours, and the newbies are paying for your government services.
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 12:24 AM
I think it is so amazing that some people want to limit building heights. It is a great way to encourage people to live in the downtown area. Especially now that we are finally getting the picture that not everyone can or should own a car.
Since land is so very expensive, the cheapest way to gain new housing units is to build up. Of coarse maybe we don’t really want more affordable housing here....
As a land owner I win either way. Don’t allow me to build up and the value of my land soars...let me build up and I can add more units to what I have and it also makes my land worth more as well.
As with every issue, it is never black or white...I think the current restriction are plenty!!
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 12:38 AM
“Lets get to the big issues”: good points. Just came from the planning meeting at the library tonight on this very subject and there were lots more great ideas there...perhaps you made it out. Apparently the growth rate in SB is approximately 1% per annum. I s’pose that translates to something like 800 people more each year. That’s really not all that much, though still a considerable number to house in our small town (and the point is not how they got here, but that we nonetheless have to absorb this growth somehow, if only by state mandate). I don’t know all the answers, but I agree with Greg Tice that the future is up, not out, especially when we don’t have much “out” on our coastal shelf. When it comes to traffic and parking, everything said below is likely true...when you work off existing paradigms. But I think we need to acknowledge there’s a big paradigm shift in the pipe as gas prices continue to climb. Traffic and parking may very well become a moot point, while transit becomes a much more relevant one. (Honestly, I could care less about traffic...since I walk/bike everywhere, I’m never in it. Anybody concerned about traffic is most likely so because they’re contributing to it. I personally hope gas prices hit $15/gallon, which will solve a whole bunch of problems in one fell swoop, including your traffic woes.) Somebody at the meeting tonight suggested we close State Street (at least as far as Sola, but perhaps the whole thing) to all cars, and only allow pedestrians and buses that run every couple of minutes up the entire length of State, with free fare, as many other cities have done. Wow. These are the sort of big ideas that will simultaneously make our city a better place to live in AND help solve housing, transit and traffic issues. For everybody else stuck in the status quo and resistant to change, you’re not helping solve SB’s problems, just perpetuating them. Last but not least, here’s my tongue-in-cheek response to the Save El Pueblo Viejo campaign. They claim to want to limit height of buildings to 40’ in downtown to perpetuate our “small town feel” and preserve the historic character of our little mission town But just limiting building height seems unambitious. Why not go further? So I drafted my own more aggressive initiative for them for preserving the authentic mission-era character of our city. Enjoy! http://s39011.gridserver.com/El_Peublo_Viejo.pdf
[Editor’s note: LOL]
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 01:39 AM
Cameron - thanks for the belly-laugh! That PDF is a riot!
For those who missed tonight’s meeting I’m told it’s going to air on Channel 18.
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 06:56 AM
Betsy and SaveElPueblo.org, your illustration is nowhere near to scale. More misleading fear-mongering! Since we know the Courthouse tower is 100 feet high, how the heck do you get skyscrapers (depicted at right) out of “three and four story buildings” currently in the pipeline?
At least Cameron admits he was being tongue-in-cheek. Uh, perhaps your artist should go back to art school?
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 09:29 AM
Funny pdf, “Cameron”. It’s a companion piece, opposites attracting, maybe, to the heading drawing that we used in our Web site for the page of what’s now in the pipeline: http://saveelpuebloviejo.org/pipeline.html. Choices, choices, what beguiling choices we Santa Barbarans have!!!
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 09:40 AM
Honda is now shipping their new hydrogen car to southern California where hydrogen fueling stations are being installed as we speak.
It gets 80 m.p.g.
So it does not matter how much the price of gas goes up as cars will simply be replaced with hydrogen. And since they get 80 m.p.g. the cost of gasoline will not curb living in the suburbs, commuting, car ownership, or driving, or the demand for parking.
The bottom line is we better plan around the car as it is going to be the mobility mode of transit of choice for 80% of all trips for the next 50 years. Walking, biking, rail, and the bus will account for the other 20%, with about 5% each of those alternate modes.
Don’t provide for transit and parking and the voters will overwhelmingly vote for an initiative to remove high density smart growth just like they are now doing in Santa Monica. Traffic congestion will cause the end of smart growth. The writing is on the wall.
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 12:31 PM
I am an agent and have lived in Santa Barbara since 1982. I do not believe in higher heights. Lower heights gives the city its charm. I support lower heights.
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 12:57 PM
Maryanne Brillhart wrote “As a Broker and Designer, I cherish our small and unique city and I respectfully disagree with your vision.” Strange, since she is one of the supporters of Caruso’s mega-sized Mira Mar resort project.
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 01:23 PM
THIS IS A GREAT ARTICLE!
At Earthday I was approached by a young woman asking for my signature on the Building Height Reduction Initiative being circulated around town. I spoke with this nice lady for about 15 minutes and found out that she was being PAID PER SIGNATURE, so her motivation was for me (and as many others as possible) to sign the petition.
When I explained to her that forever reducing downtown building heights would not only impact downtown property owners and developers, but also would limit our city’s ability to plan housing for our future… she then became intrigued. When I further explained that reducing the carrying capacity of our core community by 30% would eliminate many opportunities for young people, middle / lower income and working folks like me (and her), from ever owning a small studio or 1 br unit on the upper levels of a mixed use building. As we spoke she began to see my point. These new units could be located above lower level parking, commercial and more expensive housing below and would still be located close to markets, shopping, mass transit, and where one could walk or bike to work. She even commented… wow, you’ve got a great point, I never thought about it that way. If anything I believe the City they should study increasing building heights in certain appropriate areas of the downtown to have a more flexible and progressive General Plan.
The unintended consequences of those seeking to forever limit Santa Barbara’s future by reducing building heights is much more far reaching and impactful that those promoting the measure care to discuss. They have got their housing, they just want to limit the next generation from getting the same opportunity. In short this article does a good job pointing out the fallacy of reducing building heights in SB. The whole idea is very short sighted thinking and definitely not in the best interest of our community.
I’ve only lived and worked in Santa Barbara for 25 years, but something tells me this building height reduction proposal is a BAD IDEA for everyone!!! The one except might be those who already have their housing and are desiring to increase their property values (and retirement nest egg) by limiting future generations to have a home as well, thereby limiting supply and increasing value. It is true that Santa Barbara is a beautiful place and will always have a housing shortage, why exacerbate it by further reducing downtown building heights...this is insane thinking!
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 01:41 PM
The future of the world is toward sustainability and zero population growth. Many countries, such as Europe, are already at zero population growth and the trend in every country is in that direction. Studies have shown that as women become more educated and as birth control becomes readily available that women only have an average of 2 children during their lifetime. The U.S. is at zero population growth if it were not for illegal immigration. It is only a matter of time before our country finds a solution to illegal immigration because our countries resources are fixed we can’t be sustainable and keep on accepting more and more new people to share our limited housing and traffic capacity and water, etc. At some point there simply won’t be enough to go around and people will then say no more.
This will be the end of the State mandate to accept more people.
This means in the future our cities need to find a way to be economically healthy without growth.
Santa Barbara could and should be the first city in the U.S. to put in place a general plan based on being sustainable and having a healthy economy with zero population growth. We can do it because the population has been constant here since 2000 yet our economy has been healthy and our city has been vibrant. There is no need for buildings over 45 feet as buildings under 45 feet can accommodate our carrying capacity population very nicely.
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 02:48 PM
Great Article Laura. You now have the wonderful distinction of being labeled an “evil developer”. I posted many similar articles on various blogs and though I have no vested interest in real-estate, developers, architects, etc… I still proudly wear the “evil developer” badge of honor.
A town of 90,000 people in a metro area of 220,000 is not small. When that same town was small at 25,000 it built what is now its tallest structures. That was the precedent that was set. The use of terms like ”canyonizing” to describe 40 – 60 foot tall buildings along an 80 foot wide street are not logical. These are facts. They fly in the face of the anti-everything crowd here. Further, blanket ordinances governing building size and shape are at best lazy, shallow and thoughtless. They are done because they are easy not because they are right. So much of the comment from the limits people is illustrative of very self centered, self absorbed and intellectually narcissistic thinking and this town has been binging on that thought pattern for 40 years now.
Unfortunately, you can be as logical, factual, passionate and visionary as you want, you will still never change the Stalinist, narrow minded culture here. But we will keep trying.
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 04:23 PM
Personally, I don’t think we’re going to transition to a hydrogen fleet and fueling infrastructure anytime soon. Everything I’ve read indicates that it’s a pipe dream, mostly perpetuated by those who have incentives to keep us driving. The cost of this transition alone is prohibitive, and who is this economy is going to pay the tab? Regardless, we should plan for both scenarios: a future with lots of cars and one with much fewer. Right now, all I hear is the former. But let’s cut to the chase here: traffic is not caused by taller buildings, denser development, or more people. It’s caused by people driving. If we want to discourage traffic, let’s discourage driving, and encourage alternatives. Wouldn’t you *prefer* to live in a city where 80% of all trips are made without cars? I would. (In fact, I did...London. It was wonderful to live without one for a year.) Not having our streets clogged with cars would certainly contribute to the small town feel, historic charm, peacefulness and cleanliness of this city, much more so than the height of our buildings. So instead of telling me how it is, let’s talk about how it can be. Agitating for lower building heights isn’t a solution or even much of an improvement on anything--it’s a stubborn insistence that we can maintain SB in a bubble of some imagined bygone era (see my poster below) while neglecting to address any real present or future issues. Lower building heights *may* lead to more traffic and higher prices *if* everything else stays the same as it is now. But what it absolutely guarantees in any scenario is low density. And the one thing low density absolutely guarantees is that people will be more spread out, transportation systems will need to reach further to get to them and thus become less tenable, and businesses will have a harder time finding the high-density loci where commerce is profitable. There’s a very good reason why small towns are in danger of becoming extinct in this country. It’s because they’re built off old recipes that don’t work particularly well in the 21st century. Want to preserve SB’s character and charm? Figure out how to carefully and deliberately update our city to meet 21st century needs with style, panache and vision, rather than having to make drastic, desperate, hodge-podge changes later when reality sets in. Stop looking to the past and start looking towards (and planning for) as many possible futures as we can imagine. (And props to the city planners I met last night who appear to be doing just that.)
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 04:50 PM
Cameron Clark said: “Personally, I don’t think we’re going to transition to a hydrogen fleet and fueling infrastructure anytime soon.”........
Honda announced in the news today that is has started actually shipping hydrogen cars to southern California , where some hydrogen fueling stations are already in place and a lot more to come.
So much for the accuracy of your opinion. The reality is that with high gas prices Southern California could and will transition to a hydrogen fleet and fueling infrastructure over the next 10 years. Well within the time period of the general plan update. What is the wisdom of putting in place a plan based on no cars when the reality is that during the entire time period of the general plan update and for 50 years beyond the vast majority of the american people will still use the car for personal mobility. Yes the fuel will change and cars will be green, smaller, and will no longer use fossil fuel or contribute to global warming.
So get your head out of the sand and plan for reality, not some pipe dream of a world with no cars.
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 05:58 PM
reply to AN50
Get your facts straight: I just checked with both the State and U.S. Census and the current population on the entire South coast of Santa Barbara county is 200,000 not 220,000.
And the vast majority of our streets are 60 feet wide not 80 feet! ( and the pavement curb to curb is 40 feet. 60 feet tall buildings can and do create a canonization effect. Just go look at that new city parking Garage on Anacapa directly across from the 4 story county Administration building. that sure looks like a canyon to me. Certainly not at all attractive.
And 60 feet buildings block the cheerful sunlight and put the plazas and paseos where people are in gloomy shade. Yes, a real plus.
Also, thanks a lot for calling me self centered, self absorbed and intellectually narcissistic, and like Stalin just because I love this town and don’t want to see it ruined by the likes of you. Such name calling will get you and your cause nowhere.
And like I said, get your facts straight.
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 07:29 PM
I consider myself very progressive. Unlike most of the people who wrote comments I was undecided on this issue. After reading the article and all the comments ( whew!) I am now leaning strongly toward the side of lowering the building heights.
Here is the reasoning that led me to this position:
1. How many of the market units in the huge 4 story projects are affordable to the workforce. The answer is none because 100% sell for over $1,000,000. One developer I spoke with informed me that 4 story buildings are so very expensive to build that they just won’t pencil out unless the units sell for over $1,000,000.
So I thought to myself; “ Gee, reducing the new buildings in height and thus size by 30% is not hurting the housing problem because 30% of no affordable units is no affordable units lost.
I heard that the city housing authority had made a determination that a 4 story building full of units affordable to the workforce simply can not pencil out without a lot of high end units but that lower buildings, due to their lower construction cost per sq. ft. can pencil out . So they will not be building ANY 4 story projects. ..............
2. To be progressive is not to be on the side of the Developers who only want to be able to build a building that is 30% taller and thus 30% bigger so he can make 30% more profit selling 30% more high-end luxury units over $1,000,000. Rather being progressive is to be on the side of the people and protecting their quality of life by preventing out of town big developers to come in and exploit our beautiful town by building a lot of very profitable high end luxury units, in tall monster buildings, in order to sell them for order $1,000,000 to rich folks from L.A. who buy them for a weekend getaway, and ruining our town in the process. How many hispanic children do you see living in these new projects. The answer is none. Not one! And this is progressive? NOT.
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 08:44 PM
Hey everyone.
There is an even better article on this subject in today’s Independent on page 23.
Very well written and worth reading.
» wrote on 07/24/08 @ 09:07 PM
Zero emission Hydrogen cars are here now! Honda FCX clarity hydrogen cars, which get 74 m.p.g. are in production production, are currently being shipped to Southern California, and are for sale at Power Honda Costa Mesa, Honda of Santa Monica, and Scott Robinson Honda. Each dealer is located in close proximity to hydrogen refueling stations. The first 5 have already been delivered. Film producer Ron Yerxa took delivery of the first FCX Clarity in July. The remaining four early adopters for Honda’s next-generation fuel cell vehicle are author and actress Jamie Lee Curtis and her filmmaker husband Christopher Guest; business owner and car enthusiast Jim Salomon; and actress Laura Harris.
This is the future and the future is now.
» wrote on 07/25/08 @ 02:39 AM
Laura’s photo of that monstrosity on Chapala is misleading because it is taken at an angle that does not show the true mass and bulk and height of the 60, feet 4 story building building, but only shows the small portion that is only 3 stories.
The photo actually shows what an acceptable 3 story 40 feet building looks like. why not be honest and take a shot of the whole Chapala frontage. Oh I forgot --it is too big to all fit in one camera shot.
But the residents of Santa Barbara have seen this actual building and 99% absolutely abhor this behemoth monstrosity.
If I was the architect or the contractor I would be ashamed to show my face in town.
This bad project and the other new monstosity on Chapala are the reason why the height initiative is going to pass. The public knows what it doesn’t like, or want, when it sees it. And these two projects are it. No more!
» wrote on 07/25/08 @ 09:35 AM
For CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS wrote on 07/24/08 @ 09:57 AM
Shopping Center magnate Caruso’s (proposed) mega-sized Mira Mar (sic) resort project is in the County. What’s at issue here are the building height limits within the City of Santa Barbara. One can support the proposed Miramar development --- although I don’t until there is an EIR so we can examine all of its impacts --- and still think differently about the City - and certainly not want its massively tall cousins downtown. (It is possible to hold two different opinions on different topics at the same time. (smile - something rarely done by many of the commentators on this list.)
» wrote on 07/25/08 @ 12:18 PM
Boo Hoo Stalin, I erred by 20,000 you say. I can’t seem to find the data to back your claim, not that it matters much since the point is a metro area at 200k or 220k with a core city of 90k isn’t small. The city is 3.5 times larger than it was when its tallest buildings were built. Do you get that! So much for small town charm! The term canyonizing was coined to describe streets in Manhattan and Chicago, lined with 15, 20 and 30 story buildings not 3 and 4 story buildings on the 80 foot wide section of Chapala. Does that fact sink in buster? Your subjective view of Anacapa and the buildings lining it are just that subjective. One man’s tall is another’s small. And yes the “I’m here now so slam the gates shut” argument is extremely self-centered. What good is drowning the architecture of a city in formaldehyde if the people living their have sold their soul to the devil to make it so? You save nothing if you have to become a selfish obstructionist to get what you want. Your city becomes a dead trophy inhabited by shallow, selfish deluded people.
So take the stupid, hysterical, over sensationalized, emotion driven crap away from your argument and what do you have? Nothing! So you can add moron to the long list of pejorative remarks I love to ascribe to the biggest bunch of hysterical, cry-baby, No-Nothing-Never obstructionist on the planet. Get that fact straight pal.
To Laura, I apologize for the abrasive remarks. You and the rest of the professionals in this town were the first victims of rabid name calling, being labelled evil developers and any other pejorative that might shut down debate. It has worked for 40 years, but enough is enough. You and your colleagues can continue the fight in your diplomatic, balanced and logical professional manner. I prefer taking the opposition out where it hurts them the most – the underlying deficit of character and the complete lack of reasonable and logical thought that mars their very arguments and is the real source of decay in the city’s character.
» wrote on 07/25/08 @ 01:54 PM
Thank you to Laura Hout for her excellent comments regarding the benefits of taller buildings and density in downtown Santa Barbara. I could not agree more and thank her for her work in so eloquently describing the issue.
» wrote on 07/25/08 @ 02:43 PM
reply to AN50:...... You resort to name calling because your arguments are weak!
lets look at he facts: 1. the vast majority of our residents love what THEY consider a small town character of our city. Your saying it is not a small town does not change the opinion of the majority that to them it is a small town. And we love what we consider the small town character enough enough to vote to preserve it.
2. It does not matter what you think canonization means. To the majority of the residents we know it when we see it and we don’t like the canonization created when we see two 60 feet buildings across from each other on a 60 feet street. The majority of don’t line it. DO YOU GET THAT-The majority of us don’t like it and we don’t want it and were going to vote to prevent it.
3. You call us no -nothings. Well the majority know one thing and that is that we want to preserve our cherished small town character. the vast majority also know we don’t want any more 60 feet monstrosities like those two on Chapala. And we know that we can prevent getting any more monstrosities by voting for the initiative to lower building heights. And we know that your name calling is not going to get even one of us to change our vote.
4. Only you think the architecture of our beautiful town is drowned in formaldehyde! You are welcome to your opinion, but know this: The vast majority are of the opinion that our architecture is beautiful and we know it is beautiful primarily because it has human scale because it is primarily 1 and 2 story buildings. We love it! YOU GET THAT---WE LOVE IT! And, whether you like it or not, the majority is going to vote to preserve the wonderful small town character with it’s low buildings.
5. You don’t agree with the majority so you call us names and call us selfish. Well all that matters is that the vast majority choose to control growth and to grow very slowly and part of growing slowly is to prevent tall buildings because tall buildings create a whole lot of population growth which in turn causes gridlock traffic congestion. the majority will vote to lower building heights as a way to prevent gridlock traffic congestion.
6. Welcome to the reality of the will of the people. Democracy at work. You can’t stand the will of the people, and you realize you are impotent to stop us from voting to lower building heights, so you resort to calling “the voters” names. Well that tactic will get you nowhere. You get that straight, pal?
» wrote on 07/25/08 @ 04:51 PM
Laura, there are no beautiful mountains in London or Paris; a beautiful view is a joy to everyone who has the opportunity to see it. It is available free to everyone, regardless of race, creed or economic situation. ANYONE can look up at our mountains and realize how lucky he is to be here. But not when remodels and developments block that view, over and over again. The views will only be available to the few people who can afford to live on the the top tiers of those developments. The little guy on the street will be out of luck.
» wrote on 07/25/08 @ 07:10 PM
What a ridiculous and ludicrous analogy Laura Hout gives for building tall! It sure comfirms my ever increasing conviction that the 80/20 rule applies to everything and everyone! And, it makes me understand more why I sometimes sort of cringe when I’m asked in unfamiliar circumstances, “what do you do?” It is precisely because of the mentality of some realtors, architects and developers, that it’s sometimes awkward to admit I’m a Realtor.
To compare ancient, and even new, buildings in Europe’s largest cities to Santa Barbara, is beyond any sane comprehension; London with over 7,000,000 people - Rome, with nearly 3,000,000! I can travel to wonderful cities and enjoy them, but the feeling of traveling north on the way home, and cresting the Summerland hill to see Fernald Point, is the most comforting and welcoming feeling to be coming back to “small.”
Is the Granada beautiful? No, but we love the theater and it would fit nicely in a two-story. The Arlington is a landmark, as is the Courthouse. No small town needs “landmarks” on every block! The Canary Hotel is a disaster as are the Chapala Street buildings. I don’t sell those, nor do I sell lots where no one has lived before. Hats off to a well-known architect on Coast Village Road who designs small buildings and to Maryanne Brillhart who lives what she believes and chooses to sell charming, older homes that make Santa Barbara special.
I would invite Laura to submit her letter to the News Press or The Independent and see how the blogging would go. Not many would agree to trying to replicate New York, Los Angeles or even Rome or London here in what the vast majority do consider a small town and will work very hard to keep it that way. I would suggest that Ms. Hout and others who love big city living and tall buildings pick their favorite and live there happily. Or, for a city that simply replicates them, as was suggested in the letter, there’s always Las Vegas.
I have worked very hard to stay living here for nearly 40 years because I am not comfortable living in a city, but rather, a smaller town. And I will continue to work equally hard to preserve that.
Maybe the old adage, “love it or leave it” needs to have a come back with new meaning!
» wrote on 07/25/08 @ 08:57 PM
Reply to laura Hout....
You asked for the name of the pole: A 2002 Public Policy Institute of California poll found that 80% of Californians prefer living in single family homes with their own private yard over apartment or condo living in high density projects in either downtown or along mass transit corridors.
The problem with high density smart growth is that it simply is not what the Californians want. Yes 20 % may like the idea of high density smart growth but is it right for the tinkly minority of smart growth advocates to force this social engineering on the majority by forcing them to live on the 4th story of some dense ‘project”, just because the smart growth advocates think that smart growth is right? of course not. This is still America and the vote of the majority controls.
» wrote on 07/25/08 @ 10:10 PM
Laura Hout asked for name of a poll:
A survey conducted June 30, 2007 by the Los Angeles Times titled: “ Transit oriented Development” found that only a tiny fraction of the residents who lived in high density projects next to mass transit actually used the transit but the vast majority used their cars to get around.
here is the web site address:http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-transit30jun30,0,4693321.story?coll=la-home-local
» wrote on 07/26/08 @ 02:02 AM
Gee, did I hit Stalin’s nerve? You bet! Guess ole Stalinsky can dish it like the big boys but cries like a baby when he’s on the receiving end. So let’s all get this straight. Santa Barbara is a small town because the No-Nothing-Nevers (N3’s) and limiters say so? Ok, Stalin why don’t you just say there is no gang problem then. Why don’t you and your merry band of delusional characters just say there is no crime, grime, traffic, water shortage, housing shortage, high prices and any other piece of reality you don’t like and it will just be so. After all if the “vast majority” says so it must be true, huh? You can give all the subject arguments you want pal, but that is all they are, your subjective opinion, not fact. You cannot make Santa Barbara small just because you say so. You can’t make it charming with a building façade, just because you say so.
My aim is not to change your opinion, your vote, your lack of character or your obviously distorted perspective on reality. I’m just going to drag your small minded, shallow, illogical, dim witted ideology out here in the open and have you display it for what it really is. Why you’ve done a marvellous job so far keep it up.
By the way, the rest of the lemmings are headed for the cliff care to joint them?
Now let’s have some fun with Phoebe, shall we? My dear there are thousands of cities in Europe and most particularly the Spanish Mediterranean that are far smaller in area and population than SB that are denser and have taller buildings and more of them and yet as Laura was trying to get across are just as charming. Her mistake was picking cities most everyone is familiar with. What she doesn’t realize though is that she’s trying to be rational, logical and diplomatic with people who have winked out of reality. They are, well, like Stalin. You keep trying, Laura, but it won’t work. The more reality imposes on these people the harder they dig into their little delusion. Stalin isn’t the first to expose this local phenomenon and won’t be the last. This is a defining issue. It will expose the inherent psychosis in the limits group. You watch. Fear and paranoia are not far behind.
» wrote on 07/26/08 @ 08:36 AM
Building up vertically in downtown will only increase congestion because it won’t releive development pressures in out lying areas. People want to live in any and all areas of SB. Incresed density downtown will not lower housing prices but will create more demand for lower paid service workers. Our “servant class” will continue packing into rental units and look for even more homelessness, petty crime and young men in gangs. Stop the naming calling and just look around at the way SB is evolving and ask yourself if you like it.
» wrote on 07/26/08 @ 12:00 PM
Research by Ali Modarres author of the powerful book “City and the Environment” demonstrates that jobs are scattered all over the city not just all concentrated downtown. If a city located workers downtown under the faulty assumption they will be able to walk to work it creates more traffic congestion downtown because most workers will have to drive from the downtown to jobs scattered throughout the city or on the periphery. Its far better to have nodes of 3 story workforce projects scattered throughout the city so that a worker can find housing close to his job. And such land outside the downtown is much cheaper so the units can be affordable to the workforce.
Several prominent scholars including University of Maryland atmospheric scientist Konstanin Vinnikov, University of Georgia meteorologist J. Marshall Shepard and Brookings Institution research analyst Andrea Sarzynski--have found there is little evidence linking suburbanization to global warming,pointed out that high density itself produces increased auto congestion and increased greenhouse gas global warming. Recent studies in Australia have shown that multistoried housing generates much higher greenhouse gas carbon emissions than single family houses because of the energy consumed by the common areas, elevators (which run on huge 25 h.p. motors), and parking structures with their continuous running huge fan and lights, as well as the lack of tree cover. Also units in tall buildings downtown have to keep their windows closed due to air pollution. odors coming from the pizza place below or noise, and thus have to have air conditioning which adds to the carbon footprint.
The bottom line is that suburbs are better for Mother Earth than dense living and is actually more sustainable, in part because because people can have a garden and raise some of their own food.
» wrote on 07/26/08 @ 12:48 PM
reply to AN50: You are right in much that you say. Yes this is all subjective. You didn’t get my point. It’s all about values. Those who consider our town to be beautiful, and who enjoy living here because of the character of what it has now, and who put a subjective value on preserving our beautiful town character and quality of life, and who have a subjective preference for slow growth and low building heights, and who don’t want any more monstrosities like those on Chapala, will vote for reducing the maximum building height to 45 feet.
Those who prefer to live in a big city, and those who prefer the character of high density and big cities with huge buildings and who have a subjective preference for growing a lot in population, and who like those monstrosities on Chapala and want another 100 more just like them, will vote to keep 60 feet building height.
So yes it all comes down to subjective preference.
What you don’t get is the term small town character simply refers to comparing the existing character of Santa Barbara with its low density and primarily 1 and 2 story buildings to a big area with high density and huge buildings like L.A. It has nothing at all to do with the legal definition of “small town” but is simply a term used to describe the existing character of our city. What we really mean when we use the term small town is a RELATIVELY small town of 100,000 as compared to a big city of, say, 400,000 with a lot of 4 and 6 story buildings. Yes its all subjective, even as to the definition of what is still a RELATIVELY small town. It is not the term that matters here but the concept that the majority of the residents love and cherish this town. partly due to the character, and do not want to see it transformed into a big city with tall buildings and hundreds of thousands of people and the traffic congestion that goes with it. Please respect our right to have our opinion and values and we will respect yours. Your name calling is truly unproductive and actually significantly hurts your cause because there is no candidate running to smear but only the values and preferences of the voters, and why alienate the voters by calling them stupid. State your case and we will state ours.
In the end there will be some compromise, middle ground, and balance because we all care about many of the same things and we all want what is best for our town and its people .
» wrote on 07/26/08 @ 07:09 PM
Thanks, Stalin. Yes subjective arguments falter on the face of reality and yes I do get that you and most of the limits crowd are making a relative comparison (look at fun with Phoebe in my last response). There are two subjective view points here I think we can all agree on. Some people like a city with everything short, low density, suburban like and unchanging. Some like a city to resemble a city with a taller denser environment and are more accommodating to changes in the urban environment. When I moved to SB in the late sixties from Ventura County the one thing that blew me away about SB was its dense downtown with multi-storeyed Buildings. Having spent my formative years in a suburb without a city, a two dimensional landscape of low rise, low density sprawl, I found Santa Barbara to be a fascinating and beautiful counterpoint to the southern California model of endless single family housing tracts and strip malls. Imagine my horror when the first limits crowd pushed a height limit of 60 feet in response to a pair of 9 story condo towers. Nooo, I said. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water! It’s not building height you want limit, but bad tall buildings located badly. You can have really bad short buildings too you know (the Double Tree and new Cottage hospital, not too mention all the other sprawling structures going up)! No one listened. Don’t like the 9 story towers so we kill everything to prevent it from ever happening again. And thus began a forty year program to turn SB into a stick and stucco, suburban, low density, low rise Disneyland a la Spanish style. I literally wept at the damage done to our city. What was once a proud and beautiful counterpoint began a slow slide into mediocrity, just another suburb in search of a city. The fight against growth, change and style became ever more rancorous. Those who were the believers of the new religion of “do nothing” and “scale back” would not accept anything outside of the narrow position they took up. That is when the name calling began. “Evil developer, greedy developer, destroyer of our quaint little town, outsider, etc…” and those were the nice things that were said. The movement was gripped and controlled through fear and all who took issue with it were demonised. The sad thing is I agree with much of the concern my fellow residents have. Having witness first hand the destruction rampant development can do I became an anti-development environmentalist at the early age of 11. As a lover of architecture and urban planning, I watched in severe disappointment the ravages of shallow short sighted urban development in LA including the almost random and senseless location of tall buildings. But never did I ever think that the solution was the kind of limits SB has imposed on itself. I agree whole heartily that over development is destructive. I agree that the sprawling low rise 3 story buildings now popping up around town are monstrous, but only because they do not fit that unique character of Santa Barbara’s oldest and tallest buildings. And I am not talking about architectural style here but foot print and shape. My preference for Chapala One to be a 6 story building on one fifth the land area and located closer to State and Carrillo comes not from a desire to ruin SB with over development but to enhance the skyline with beautiful architecture placed in a way that enhances the buildings around it. It is subjective and individual taste and a desire for something greater than us all not lesser, but subjective none the less. You Stalin were subjected to a barrage of pejoratives and insults. Your belief system was turned on its head and your adherence to it was demonized and attacks made personal. You now know what many of us who disagree with you have listened to for 40 years. No amount of logic, reason, diplomacy or passion would dissuade you or the other limiters. It does not matter that most of us who disagree with height limits actually agree with limiting development, planning for people scaled environments and love Santa Barbara as much as anyone else here. We have never had the chance to say it because disagreeing with the limiters is automatic rejection of all else. The most important thing of all though, is the “values” you mentioned. To some of us values stretches beyond the skin. What possible value does a beautiful city have if it is selfishly coveted and stingily horded by its inhabitants? Certainly a limiter could argue that the city would be better at a population of 60,000 than its current 90,000. Alright then, who goes? Who stays? The millions who want live here and can’t are saying what gives the self centered folks who made it in the right to exclude us? Believe me this is a very messy moral dilemma and at some point you have to ask yourself what side do I want to be on and how does that effect the beauty of the place I live? Be careful what you ask for. The local indigenous peoples of this area could make the same claim the limiters are now. How many of you who believe so fervently in the close the gates, less is more, scale back ideology would be willing to leave here to accommodate those who were here first and pretty much shoved out of the way for the new comers? Yah didn’t think so. No this doesn’t mean opening the flood gates and accommodating millions of new city dwellers or using “sustainability” as yet another close the gates excuse. It does require those of you who have become fanatics, narrow minded and unwilling to accept any other point of view to do some real self examination. I can’t think of a worse form of urban blight than selfishness and narrow minded fanaticism. As for tall buildings, I’m for them. No not LA, London, Chicago or New York style tall buildings, but Santa Barbara style 4, 5, 6, 7 and even 8 story buildings. And no not everywhere but where they make the most sense and enhance the skyline the most. Placement is as important as size and shape. I know of no one who is in favor of taller buildings in SB who wants the city over run by them and those who use this fear mongering tactic do not do their case any good. But what I do know is that blanket ordinances and limits are an insult to the very beauty that many boast of here. Limitations of the nature we have here say we are shallow and lazy. The fanatic adherence to them says we are sick and delusional. There is a way out and it does not mean over development over crowding or senseless ruinous building. But it also means dropping the limits and restrictions and opening up the possibility of accepting once more the idea of American exceptionalism. My fear is that so much emotion has been invested in limits, so much fear rallied to support them that escape from them is nearly impossible. You, Stalin, felt the welling up of emotion and anger when your belief system was attacked. Multiply that by the thousands who have become enveloped in this movement and you have the very rigid inflexible intolerant atmosphere of an emotionally charged mob. I still believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, subjective and individual and not some mob born consensus rammed down everyone’s throat. Thanks to Laura and the local Blogs for providing the impetus for reflection and communication between a very diverse bunch of people and my sincerest apologies to you No Stalin and your merry band of limiters for the insulting remarks.
» wrote on 07/27/08 @ 05:40 PM
Thank you Laura for a great article! As you can see, readers can’t have enought of this subject!
Some love cities and some love suburbs: Can we all get along? But please: don’t drive on my street…
» wrote on 07/30/08 @ 10:15 AM
A BEAUTIFUL CITY !!!!
Imagine a beautiful Mediterranean City on what has been called some of the most beautiful property in the country, envision the American Riviera. Beautiful three, four, and yes perhaps a few five story Spanish Style buildings with white plaster walls, red tiles roofs, beautiful towers, spires, and undulating roof forms (exceeding 60’ in height) housing people, businesses, and cars. A livable, walkable, green City where affordable and efficient mass transit makes cars obsolete in the downtown core, where businesses flourish, where it’s fun to live. Where buildings step back from the street and views to the mountains and ocean are prominent. Imagine a more beautiful Santa Barbara where talented architects, developers, and builders transform asphalt covered used car parking lots into beautiful new mixed use housing projects.
That in my mind is what is happening in SB, and it is a beautiful thing. Perhaps the ones complaining about the progress, growth and building would like to keep SB as asphalt covered parking lots, inefficient one and two story shacks, havens for homeless encampments, garbage, urine, feces and all the stuff I’ve had to view firsthand over my decades of living in this City. I prefer a beautiful City, I think these new buildings on lower Chapala are wonderful and completely appropriate for our downtown. Can they be better? Yes I believe they can be, perhaps stepping back from the a street level 2 stories, and elegantly climbing up to three, four and perhaps five stories in the center of major projects. I believe with all my heart that these new projects are a major step in the right direction for our downtown. The City planners, design review committees, development teams and architects should be very proud to have been part of what I feel are such a major improvements to the downtown area, despite those threatened and opposed to such progress. To the detractors I say move back to LA (or wherever else you came from) and let us envision and build a more beautiful City for the world to enjoy as well as those of us who were born and raised here. Let the nay sayers leave and take their negativity, short sighted visions and trust fund / retirement for all mentality elsewhere. For those of us who must work for a living, we all benefit from a health community that grows slowly yet properly.
We are a beautiful city in the sun and the future is wide open for us to make it even a more beautif