Laura Hout: The Big Sleep
Commentary blows the roof off of Santa Barbara's building debate. Let's do it again.
Just back from vacation and it’s great to see so many people blogging in, even if it is to impugn me as a Realtor in cahoots with those evil builder-developer types. LOL! Anyone who has met me knows I detest corrupt politicians, lazy government officials, lawsuit-propagating attorneys, dangerous doctors, whiny entitlement-class “victims” and unscrupulous Realtors.
A few years earlier I’d lived in mixed-use housing in Munich, with high ceilings, a full kitchen and a Kohler tub with hot water on demand. I lived car-free; I walked to stores, beer gardens and one of Europe’s largest parks. While in grad school I shared an $1,150-per-month mortgage payment for a three-bedroom condo in Agoura Hills. At least I was building equity.
Returning home — where the curtains swished inside my Westside “studio” on blustery March nights — I gained real-time perspective on our city’s need for housing. Had I no ties to this community I would have run … screaming. I can assure you many of my homegrown, college-educated contemporaries have — and more continue to leave.
So the next time you go the hospital and need a nurse, tech or doctor; the next time you call a cop, firefighter or EMT; the next time you want your child to be taught, tutored, coached or trundled on field trips, just remember those workers have to drive from Ventura or Santa Maria to get here. They might be late. You might die. But you wanted lower building heights, thus eliminating the possibility of creating the housing options we need most in this city.
For now, I’ll cite my pedigree, since preservationists seem to feel long-term residency imbues them with a special status the rest of you newcomers and interlopers lack — even if you do have advanced degrees in urban planning and architecture. I grew up in Santa Barbara in the 1950s and ‘60s; I, too, am a 50-year resident. I loved riding my Stingray bike through lemon groves before all the tract houses were built. I loved walking my dogs on the beach — without pit bulls attacking as they do nowadays. I loved those big Christmas trees that adorned the center of State Street before too many drunks hit them and ruined it for us all.
I loved going to Fiesta and Fourth of July celebrations without worrying about gang violence. Speaking of preserving our “small-town feel,” why don’t we do something about that? But I digress.
But I don’t cherish seeing businesses board up along State Street. I don’t cherish bland, boring and boxy architecture, old automotive shops and run-down wrecks. I’m not happy the former Italian & Greek Market, now tagged with graffiti, is becoming a cell phone store. I want a vibrant downtown in my future; I want a service class around to assist me in my impending dotage. After all, I’m a card-carrying member of AARP. Thank my mother’s side of the family that I haven’t gone gray.
I’ve never understood why we can’t just take the good from this, the good from that, stop labeling it yours or mine, and just make it “ours.” Santa Barbara is unique. We got a second chance after the 1925 earthquake. Higher-density housing and mixed-use developments offer us another chance — finally. Are we so unenlightened, in the age of jumbo jets and the World Wide Web, that we shun newer building methodologies? The best we can do is “just say no?” That’s exactly what lowering building heights will do.
“The proposal to reduce building heights from current standards is in direct conflict with the CEC’s goal to make this community ‘Fossil-Free by 33.’ We believe Santa Barbara needs the flexibility to provide as many energy–efficient, affordable housing opportunities as we can in the Central Business District and along its major transit corridors. It’s better to build up than out. We can do better,” says Dave Davis, executive director of the Community Environmental Council.
“We have much better building technologies we could be using now,” adds Karin Perissinotto of Built Green Santa Barbara. “Building costs and impacts are absolutely reduced by having one set of infrastructure, one roof, common walls, one parcel of land. And nothing affects the environment more than the built community.”
Building along transit lines has collateral benefits as well. A recent MSN.com article states, “Walkable communities are also being touted as a way to curb the national obesity epidemic: In one study, San Diego residents of traditional neighborhoods who had stores, services and other facilities a short walk from their homes were found to be 40 percent less likely to be overweight or obese than those who lived in neighborhoods of suburban sprawl.”
In a poignant observation, another builder asks: what’s going to happen when photovoltaic roof panels conflict with our red-tile-roof skyline? Are we going to just say no again?
As Ted Bosley, curator of the historic Gamble House in Pasadena, says, “It’s a good thing for people to take an interest in their historic core and take part in a vigorous debate to get past the emotional responses that naturally arise. Then it’s important to be honest and become fully informed.” Bosley adds that disingenuous arguments are ultimately unhelpful to preservationists, who play to “the emotional card.” Pasadena’s citizens, he notes, settled on redeveloping Old Town Pasadena by taking it block by block, carefully preserving landmarks, while adding mixed-use projects in the historic core.
Don Corace, author of Government Pirates: The Assault on Private Property Rights — and How We Can Fight It, is more blunt. “Everyone wanted his piece of the ‘American Dream.’ Those who achieved their dream, however, wanted to shut the door behind them and keep others from sharing in it. Among the players are NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard), BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything), and Greens, environmentalists with extreme no-growth philosophies. Often, one or more of these groups seek to form coalitions in an attempt to mask their true motivations. For example, condo owners who do not want their views blocked would recruit Greens on some purported environmental issue. They would argue that their cause benefits the public, but in reality only a few condo owners would benefit.”
The “just-say-no” crowd is engaging in blatant fear-mongering — words like Monstrosities, Canyonization and Skyscrapers are offensive and insulting. Save El Pueblo Viejo‘s rendering of Santa-Barbara-to-be, sent in by a commenter, is ludicrously out of scale. Assuming that’s the 100-foot Courthouse tower on the left, it’s impossible — with existing 60-foot height limits in place — to create the skyscrapers they depict. Far more fun — and admittedly tongue-in-cheek — is another commenter’s submission.
Oft-trumpeted myths include “taller buildings block mountain views.” Well, try this. Stand at the southwest corner of State and Ortega streets and look toward the old Greek Deli. Yep. No mountain views over a one-story building. Other architecturally absurd ideas include cramming four stories into a 40-foot building. Which forces builders to create eight-foot, tract-house-height ceilings. Since when are low ceilings an amenity — especially in smaller living spaces?
Taking away a story won’t solve our problems either. The additional units an extra story allows are the least expensive to add, because you don’t need another roof, another set of infrastructure, another parcel of land, additional plans and lengthy approval times. When you take away that extra story you make it more expensive — and, therefore, harder — to build affordable units.
One commenter contends higher density housing won’t help Santa Barbara because it failed in Los Angeles. No kidding. Los Angeles dismantled its public transportation system to its everlasting detriment and sprawled into a virulent, car-dependent neoplasm. That patient is terminal. I know — part of my graduate degree at USC was learning the Los Angeles freeway system. His source article asserts smart growth doesn’t work in L.A. because “… in Southern California work and school sites are not necessarily near train and bus stops. That’s different from the older East Coast cities, where the urban grid is closely connected to the local transit system.”
Where it does work.
By sheer dint of our mountain wall we haven’t sprawled irreparably. Santa Barbara’s saving grace, albeit accidental, is that her communities and job centers are situated along transportation spines: Downtown, Upper State Street, Hollister Avenue, Milpas Street, San Andres Street, Cliff Drive.
And here’s a final doozie. What detractors of Paseo Chapala don’t seem to know — but which board minutes can prove — is that the original design for Paseo Chapala was a more terraced look, like a wedding cake, with the upper stories farther off the sidewalk setback. At first, the design review board loved it, but when the project went back for a subsequent review, the board wanted the upper stories brought forward toward the street. They felt moving the mass forward was more consistent with urban design guidelines.
So, after an arduous two-year-plus process, encompassing a continuing conflict of agencies and agendas, the final design was approved by your elected officials and appointed board members. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by project’s principals trying to navigate a capricious, costly, inefficient and contradictory process.
In other words, the changes requested by the design review board — not by the developer or architect — resulted in the current building.
So if you want to play the blame game, be sure to spread it around. Your elected officials and design review boards are the most crucial part of the approval process. Your General Plan is their guiding light. One insider confessed that government officials are so afraid of being sued that they’re afraid to lead. We need to streamline the approval process and make it uniform not labyrinthine, straightforward not punitive.
Just saying no and lowering building heights — and our heads — gets us nowhere. How about focusing on what we can do? Here are the top 10 suggestions I heard and conceived while writing these commentaries.
1. Change current “development standards” to allow smaller units to be built.
2. Ease “parking requirements” for higher-density projects near transit lines.
3. Rezone areas along transportation spines for higher densities. Build mixed-use and affordable/workforce housing along those spines.
4. Enact deed restrictions so affordable housing remains affordable in perpetuity. Enforce affordable housing policies and purchase criteria strictly.
5. Develop a community consensus on which occupations receive priority for affordable housing.
6. Allow “legal” granny units to meet the needs of aging parents, extended families, etc.
7. Scrutinize development block-by-block in the historic core, like Pasadena does. Consider limiting building heights in the same block as the Presidio, for instance, not the entire city core.
8. Streamline the approval process!!! We need the private sector to create new housing. Builders and developers aren’t charity organizations. Realize market rate units help subsidize affordable units. Stop dreaming and get real.
9. Get involved with SB4ALL.org. Learn about development and approval processes, sustainable living and smart growth.
10. Stop thinking you can export it all to Goleta, Ventura, Buellton, Lompoc or Santa Maria.
The deadline to get your comments into the Plan Santa Barbara Team Planning Division at the city’s Community Development Department is 5 p.m. Friday.
We can’t rest on others’ laurels. Bowing to short-sighted, narrow-minded mediocrity is the truest affront to our heritage.
Call it The Big Sleep.
Laura Hout is a freelance writer and Realtor affiliated with Prudential California Realty.
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 09:35 AM
You are right-let us hope that the boards and commissions see the light. The Manhattanization of Santa Barbara can only benefit the locals, and the need for permanent affordable housing trumps most objections to densifying our business areas.
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 09:55 AM
I too have lived here for 50 years. I too have lived in substandard housing. I too have suffered ever increasing rents. Santa Barbara will never ever be able to build enough housing for everyone who wants to live here. Higher densities of people need higher numbers of support people. That is why we import so much labor from out of town and they drive to town. High density construction hurts the people who live here or want to live here. More and higher density construction makes you, a real estate businesswoman money. It makes Santa Barbara that much more a congested, gang ridden, urban atrocity. Density is density. Pollution and congestion. Visit Beijing for a glimpse of your future.
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 09:58 AM
Right on, Laura!
I’ve got a masters degree in urban planning but even if I didn’t I could tell you that you’ve got the right idea and too much of Santa Barbara has stupidly stuck its head in the sand on this issue. I got my degree in a city with a vibrant city core filled with the middle class where you could walk to work or take transit and anyone who has been fortunate to experience this knows the benefits of such a lifestyle for both residents and city. To all those petitioners out with their clipboards getting unthinking residents to sign for lower height limits I’ll keep saying, “I like the ‘big’ buildings and I want more of them!”
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 10:00 AM
Thank you, Laura, for your articulate and intelligent contribution to this debate. I couldn’t agree with you more.
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 10:02 AM
BRAVO!
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 10:45 AM
Laura,
Thank you for another terrific article! Fearmongering in “Save El Pueblo Viejo” website is rampant: they talk of “high rises” and “rapid growth” but, in reality, it is one or two 4-story buildings per year, at most!
I support your suggestions to improve our small city.
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 10:51 AM
Excellent analysis, Laura. Hopefully, city bigwigs will take note.
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 11:09 AM
This article is a little better than the previous article but there is still another side to the argument. Many things are left unsaid.
Santa Barbara is the most beautiful town in the country. Only part of it is because of its natural beauty and climate and a significant part of it is because of the efforts of citizens just like the citizens working to preserve the charming relatively small town character and quality of life. It is not beautiful due to the efforts of the developers, who if not for the slow growth controls and building height limits, would have transformed her years ago into just another Orange county.
Think about the qualities that give us the charming small town character and quality of life. It has a whole lot to do with the primarily low density 1 and 2 story building height which has human scale and allows mountain views and light to shine on our paseos and plazas. The slow growth controls keep the population in check and keeps traffic congestion tolerable. Laura talks about our transportation system as if it was ideal for high density development along transit arterials. Nothing could be farther from the truth. out transportation system is the worst possible design and this is our most major constraint to high density growth,. The south coast is essentially shaped like a banana 3 miles wide by 30 miles long with only three east west arterials consisting of the freeway, foothill and State/Hollister. The best street system for walking and biking and cars is the is the is the grid system where there are so many possible alternate ways to get around that one does not get congestion. Santa Barbara is essentially built out and the city transportation Department has a policy that it will never build any more new streets and has a policy that it will never purchase houses and tear them down to widen streets. So we are stuck with what we have. SBCAG recently did 2 computer modeled traffic studies that concluded that under the current rate of growth which has been 100 units per year over the last 18 years, which comes to 1/4 of 1% growth, that in 2030 the entire city will be total gridlock with level E or F service at all our freeway interchanges and arterial streets.
This means that we simply can’t grow more than 1/4 % per year or our city will be in total gridlock.
What the opponents to lowering building heights don’t seem to want to accept is that the slow growthers want many, if not most, of the same things as they do. Where we differ is how best to go about it. We all want to provide a livable community for our children and the future generations. We all want a diverse community and one where housing is available and affordable to the workforce. But growth in Orange County has proven that building a lot of units does not lower the price of a unit, so we can’t just build a lot of units and somehow get the price to be lower so that a worker can afford to buy it. Santa Barbara will always be an expensive place to live and it’s residents make a sacrifice and tradeoff to live here. We are all in favor of smaller units. We are all in favor of creating incentives for he kind of affordable housing we want and disincentives for the high end luxury housing we don’t need or want. We all want housing to be in balance with jobs. ( but consider one way of achieving that is to slow down the formation of jobs by slowing down the building of commercial space). We all want a walkable community where one can live close to work and shops. We are all in favor of alternate transportation and even light rail system. But this can be done with 3 story buildings instead of 4. We all like mixed use and a vibrant community but this can be done with 3 story buildings instead of 4. And mixed use will not solve our traffic problems because studies have shown that people living in dense projects near transit still own and drive a car. they just drive it a little less but adding more people even those that drive less still adds more traffic congestion. We are all in favor of accommodating solar panels We all want the city to be green and sustainable, and live within its resources. But this can be done in 3 stories instead of 4. Changing Santa Barbara to high density will not change the development pressures to develop outside of our city limits one bit so growing vertically will not affect or stop urban sprawl beyond our borders. We have no control over that. The same amount of development will occur there whether we grow vertically or not. A town of 25,000 does not have to grow to 35,000 in order to be sustainable! it is a fact that a lower population in any ecosystem with fixed resources is more sustainable than a higher population. We all agree that change is inevitable and certain but where we disagree is that growth is inevitable or desirable. There are 200,000 people on the South Coast, a beautiful relatively small resort beach town with a perfect climate, and 20,000,000 people living with in a 100 mile radius of the South Coast. Just how many of them would love to move to Santa Barbara? A recent study asked people where they would prefer to live and only 10% picked a big city while 80% picked their preference is to live in a ‘small town”. Therefore millions would like to be able to move to Santa Barbara. Where do we draw the line? What duty do we residents have to accommodate the 1,000,000 who would like to move here? And what does that do to being sustainable and to live within our resources and to maintain our quality of life? Are we planning primarily for the current and future residents of our town or are we primarily planning for the population needs of the whole region, irrespective of what it does to our quality of life or living within our resources.?
The best way to answer that question is to consider the town as a lifeboat with a limited resources and limited capacity. There is one point at which the quality of life is no longer sustained drops for the residents and another point where life is no longer sustainable. Just like there is a limit to the population the earth can carry there is a limit to what our country can carry and our state and our county and our town, and our neighborhood. the best way to make our world sustainable is to start at the bottom and make each neighborhood sustainable and then each town and work up. We do not have an obligation to the region to solve its population problem but we have a basic over-riding responsibility to make our own community sustainable. If each community is sustainable then that will take care of the region. if each region is sustainable that will take care of the state, etc.
lastly I want to talk about affordability. It is a fact that one unit can be built much cheaper as a 3 story building located on cheaper R-3 land than a 4 story building downtown on more expensive land. It is a fact hat a 4 story building is much more expensive per sq. ft. than a 2 or story building because the building codes require a 4 story building to be fireproof heavy construction with an expensive elevator and expensive fire sprinkler system and requires expensive scaffolding. This expensive construction , especially if the ceilings are high, requires the units to sell over $1,000,000 far beyond the capability of the workforce. While a 2 or 3 story building can be constructed of light construction like a house. So the opponents to height limits are making a false claim that adding a fourth story will somehow miraculously make the units somehow affordable to the workforce. If that were the case answer me why no 4 story building so far has provided units affordable to the workforce. the city housing authority, an expert in providing housing affordable to the workforce has made a determination that they will never build any 4 story projects because they are inherently more expensive than 2 or 3 story projects. If a 4 story project was cheaper to build the housing authority would be building them because 4 stories are now allowed.
Lets all work together to plan our town as a santa Barbara for all, while maintaining our beauty and quality of live, but we don’t need tall buildings and a lot of population growth and traffic congestion to do it. There are better ways.
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 11:11 AM
You go, girl! (But don’t go away!) Laura Hout, I love thee - thank you for speaking out in such a refreshingly lucid and intelligent way. Would that your views could be made into a virus to infect the smug, selfish, self-satisfied hypocrites posing as “environmentalists” of Santa Barbara. I would guess that you were raised by parents who taught you to share your toys and that you were, indeed, your brother’s (and sister’s) keeper.
It seems that there is a growing hunger nationally for “change” - may you and other advocates for social, environmental and economic justice succeed in changing the stale old-guard leadership in SB. It has long since become irrelevant to the needs of real people.
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 12:17 PM
Interesting - the two things I take away from the two opposing views to this article are: 1) we are in emminent danger of becoming like Bejing, and 2) we are stuck with our infrastructure the way it is and therefore can do nothing. What a joke! Have we really lowered ourselves to the point where educated, caring and objective people are expected to believe that? I hope that most people want to plan for the future in a way that upholds the essence of what is important - that we continue the tradition of execllence in urban development and high quality of life. I do not place myself in the camp that seems to believe that the only way to maintain a high quality of life is to hang onto small builidngs that no longer serve the community well. It is frankly insulting to the intellect that we are actually expected to buy that line!
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 12:21 PM
Great article, Laura. Notable to me that you and those who generally agree with you post their names in this blog, while opponents continue to hide behind anonymity. Much better for all to know who is taking what position and why. Land use and associated issues are probably the most emotionally charged issues in debate in SB and deserve open, rational, fact-based discussion from verifiable sources to help separate the self-interested individuals as you mention from the more community-oriented folks.
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 01:26 PM
Thank you for another excellent article! I completely agree! I am befuddled as to how anyone can think that the new buildings along Chapala Street are not architectural improvements over used car lots. The issue, for me, is the composition of the interiors. With all the focus on being green and reducing our “carbon footprint”, I believe one of the most effective things we can do is to reduce the square footage of our living spaces. Our family of 3 lives quite comfortably in a 3 bedroom / 2 bathroom house of 1,500 SF, with room for guests! At the recent opening of Chapala One, it was the smallest of the units that was the most appealing and well executed, in my opinion. If we want to preserve our garden environment, and undeveloped mountains for views, we need to allow and encourage growth to occur in the city. Thank you again for your work! Well done!!
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 01:45 PM
Response to laurie 6:58 ; Well, thank god the majority of the voters don’t like big monster buildings and don’t want any more like those monstrosities on Chapala. Even two 4 story monsters a year is not acceptable because it transforms our city one building at a time into Orange County and causes traffic congestion one project at a time. “Death by a thousand cuts”
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 03:04 PM
Why not give Santa Barbarans a choice, Santa Barbara’s small town qualities or its “Manhattanization”, as Mr. Ghitterman urges in the lead letter of the comments? That’s what the ballot initiative is all about, giving the voters the chance to choose 40 and 45-foot maximums or the present 60 feet (or more, as some insist they want). Those who live in Hope Ranch, Mission Canyon, Montecito can’t vote on this issue --- it would be strictly the local Santa Barbarans. I’ve signed the petition to give us a chance to have my voice heard, to have our voices heard. I hope they get it on the ballot.
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 03:27 PM
Response to NOT AFRAID OF THE FUTURE:......You say that your intellect does not buy the premiss that we are stuck with out infrastructure and that it is a joke to think so.
Well I got news for you. there is a big difference between your talk (talk is cheap) and reality. For a dose of reality I suggest you call Rpb Dayton of the City Transportation department and he will verify that the city is never again going to construct any significant new traffic infrastructure, any new street or even widen any streets in the city. The hard facts of reality is that there will simply never be the funds necessary to purchase houses at $1,000,000 each and tear them down to build a new street. This means implementing high density smart growth here will cause completer gridlock gridlock congestion......Now lets look at Santa Monica: Years ago their city planners, and folks like you, promised the residents that if they implemented high density smart growth with taller mixed use buildings along transit corridors that this would reduce traffic congestion. Well they built the big tall mixed use buildings along transit corridors and the result was a whole lot more traffic and a whole lot more more commuters. This proves that high density smart growth, which sounds good to the likes of you, does not work as advertised, but in reality only makes the problem much worse.
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 04:10 PM
Laura says the Two Monster projects on Chapala include more than 15% affordable units.... Well all that is important is that the AVERAGE number of affordable units in these monster high density projects is around 15%. Another point is that the vast majority of the residents of Santa Barbara don’t want any more such monstrosities even if they had 25% affordable units with 75% high end luxury units priced well over $1,000,000. Its simply not a tradeoff we are willing to make. The high end units and the monster buildings so more harm to the community than good and make the problem worse instead of better. Now we do support a 3 story project with 100% of the units market units affordable to the middle class workforce even if they are priced around $600,000. There is simply no getting around the fact that high density vertical smart growth simply does not work as advertised. It causes a significant increase in traffic congestion every place its ever been tried.
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 06:19 PM
Dear Readers, To send comments to YouPlanSB via email (thus saving gas!) you can send to: If you are dropping them off, they will be open until 5 p.m. on Fiesta Friday (bummer for them—I’ll be at the Parade ogling horseflesh.) Beatriz E. Gularte or Peggy Burbank Planning Division (upstairs), City of Santa Barbara 630 Garden Street Santa Barbara, CA 93102 Also and FYI: Paseo Chapala includes 8 affordable units and 21 market units. Chapala One includes 11 affordable units and 35 market units. I’m sure some number-cruncher can come up with a percentage for us, but even I can tell that’s more than the “only 15% of units being built are affordable” claims made by detractors.
» wrote on 07/31/08 @ 07:39 PM
Once again you have voiced reason and intellect, Laura.
But am I missing something here. Once again your detractors have come back with this lame small town argument. How many times must you beat these people over the head with reality before they wake up and see it? Really, I’m going to scream the next time some half wit, blind, or delusional nut case mentions the famed Santa Barbara “small town charm”. The last time Santa Barbara was small was 1905. There is nothing charming about a city that purposely made traffic bad to discourage growth which happened anyway leaving it with LA style gridlock. Oh, and I guess chasing out white collar jobs and the middle class families that go with them in place of the number 10 best “party” college students, tourist, gang bangers and self centered idle wealthy is pretty damned charming at that. For God’s sake people, wake up! SB is not small and lost its charm decades ago and the only thing the No-Nothing-Never crowd here has stopped is solutions. But hell if Laura’s wit and reasoned article can’t cut through miles thick emotional investment the N3’s have in their cause then maybe the passion her article has unleashed in those of us who have been stifled and shut down for so long, just might!
» wrote on 08/01/08 @ 12:42 AM
Dear AN50 and those others who still have passion… thank you for your comments. I relish having this debate and I have the will, for now, despite professional risk and vilification by those who don’t have the chutzpah to write their own well-researched articles. Sure there’s always more to say… but I have deadlines… and this is a BIG ISSUE… with many moving parts. The point is ARE WE TRYING? Or are we “just saying no?” (Of course there are those who WANT to say no, as in keeping the freeway two lanes through Montecito.) That worked well. NOT. I vote for trying!
» wrote on 08/01/08 @ 04:36 AM
I don’t often stand up and give testimonials for people, but I have known Laura Hout for a number of years in arenas not relating to real estate, and I can’t tell you just HOW far off-base anyone would be to say that, because her profession is realty, she must be some money-grubbing pawn of Big Developers. Laura is one of most ethical people I know, imbued with more common sense in her little finger than most people have in their entire bodies. To say that she is for ruining the glorious city…the same glorious city in which she and I both have lived in such horrific circumstances for outrageous prices due to the fact that landlords can charge whatever they wish for whatever they wish…is absurd. Stop attacking the person for speaking a hard truth, and if we can just take a deep breath and think clearly and without prejudice, she brings out hard truths. Yes, let’s get our butts kicking and screaming into the 21st century, PUHLEEEEZ!
I am disabled; I have a significant problem getting around. I would love to be able to pop downstairs to stores, instead of having to walk the 100 yards to my car, start it up and drive somewhere with these gas prices, find even one of the lovely blue placard parking spots, and go into a large store, or worse, shopping center, and walk around trying to get all the things I need. I haven’t shopped even one store in downtown SB for years, because it is simply too far for me to walk to even the first store in any direction from any public parking. I am hardly alone in my NEED to have housing and shopping in better proximity. I’ve also lived in mixed-use housing in Europe where it worked gloriously and not at all to the detriment of a quaint neighborhood it was in, thanks to a smart and talented architect.
Let’s just stop the rhetoric and start thinking about what the people who live in this town NEED, ALL of us. We really do need rent control, but that’s another issue for another time. I could rant on that for a long spell, since I have rented here since 1974. We really do need to make it possible for the people of this city to actually LIVE in this city, imagine that. The point Laura made about emergency personnel not being able to make it to work from Lompoc or Ventura, for instance during heavy winter storms, this is a thought that gives me pause. Doesn’t it you, and if not, WHY doesn’t it you??
» wrote on 08/01/08 @ 11:10 AM
Continuing my anti-anonymity theme, I just love how anonymous writers claim to know what “the vast majority of voters” (that would be the anonymous poster “15%") and “the majority of voters” (that would be the anonymous poster “Death by a thousand cuts") want. Funny, but the anti-Caruso crowd is claiming the same thing regarding the Miramar hotel, but 90% of the comments at the MPC public hearing were in support of Caruso. Oh, sorry, I forgot - they were clearly paid or brain-dead pro-Caruso stooges - just ask the anti-Caruso forces, they’ll tell you, anonymously, of course.
» wrote on 08/01/08 @ 12:19 PM
Another good article on the subject (lucky that the Noozhawk doesn’t have word limits, otherwise it would have had to be three articles).
Lower building heights make a lot of sense in some cases, and in other cases, they don’t. But even if it was a good idea, just setting a uniform height limit at X feet would be like using a hatchet to perform brain surgery - it’s way too blunt and crude an instrument to use for responsible, responsive planning. It would be dumbed-down decision-making.
It always amazes me how people will take one single example of something and state it as if it somehow proves some law of nature. I study land use and transportation behavior as my profession, and it is clear that cities are very complex systems that don’t follow any simple rules or expectations. It doesn’t help to use black/white thinking and arguments when all the important stuff is in the details - the shades of gray in between.
It’s true that so-called “smart growth” concepts such as infill, mixed-use, transit oriented development have not worked as planned in some cases, but they have worked in other cases. What’s important is HOW it is done. Just naming Density as the root of all evil is just a scare tactic, as if Density were Communism or Terrorism.
The important questions are how dense, what types of densities, where should the higher density areas be located, and where should lower densities be maintained? It will be good when the Plan SB analysis gets into these specific analyses, so we can focus on something besides the same tired old rhetoric that doesn’t inform anyone.
[Editor’s note: Yeah, there should be a “height limit” on article lengths. We’ll be more attentive to that in the future.]
» wrote on 08/01/08 @ 01:34 PM
Dear 15%,
You say “we do support a 3 story project with 100% of the units market units affordable” – ahem – who is “we” and how are “we” going to pay for this? If you have a construction estimate that shows how builders/developers can do this, please, show us the math. I’ll rely on talking to professionals who say market rate units offset affordable units. Changing development standards can help (using square feet instead of bedroom counts, easing parking requirements, increasing densities) which is why citizens need to learn more and contribute to the revised General Plan. Pie-in-the-sky “we want” is tantamount to “just saying no.” I want to be on a yacht in the Mediterranean all summer, eating frutti di mare, swimming in a turquoise sea, watching my skin turn nut brown. LOL!
» wrote on 08/01/08 @ 02:42 PM
Laura Hunt and her fan club here are spinning the same shallow rhetoric that was a big deal five years ago.
The debate is far deeper now and concerns some inconvenient truths.
Nothing in all this, especially the SB4All stuff, explains how all the big building they advocate will be truly affordable, nor do they explain how they will assure that the people they want (the mythical “critical workforce") really, and legally, will get preference for dwellings in any new building even if is affordable.
Symptomatic of it all is how they say a mountain view is blocked if one stands directly and near a building, so therefore why be concerned about views from any distance away from a building?
And, Paseo Chapala had the mass moved closer to the sidewalk so the back of the building would not encroach on the Mission Creek streambank. The original problem is that no one at the time could just say no to the total floor area of the entire building, regardless of how it was reallocated towards the street.
» wrote on 08/01/08 @ 05:03 PM
To those who complain that they can’t find affordable housing here (one of the most desirable places in the world), and fret that their kid’s might not be able to afford living here:
“You’d have the same complaint if you lived in Manhattan, or San Francisco, or La Jolla, or Carmel, or Key Biscayne, or Marblehead, or Back Bay, or Beverly Hills, or Santa Fe, or Jackson Hole, or Fairfield County, or a thousand other places where people badly want to live. What the hell do you want, magic?”
Or
“What would you suggest? That we open the city to developers so they can build as fast as they can, so there will be plenty for him to choose from when he grows up? I’ve got news: No matter how many they build, they won’t get any cheaper. Ask somebody in Orange County.”
Or
“O.K. Here’s what we are going to do. Since traditional market-priced housing, no matter how much we build, won’t bring the price down, then what we’ll do is we’ll build tall, dense “affordable by design” units in the downtown core, and tons of it so its effect can be felt. But then I’ll bet you are going to come back and say: “Sure you built all that stuff. But what I really meant was: ‘when my kid grows I wish hope he can enjoy that nice small town like the one I brought him up in!’ ”.
Or
“Look, you want to be Ozzie and Harriet? O.K., here’s what Oz had to say to his kids: ‘Look, guys, you will be able to live here in good old Beverly Hills. But Rick, you gotta get a couple of albums to go platinum. And Dave, you get that degree from Boalt Hall and make sure to negotiate yourself a good taste of the syndication residuals’. Your kids can live here – there will always be for sale signs around the neighborhood. They will just have to do a something more to afford a house here than if you happened to bring them up in Bakersfield.”
Or
“Hey, its people like you – not City Hall – that created the problem. You are all giddy about appreciation of your Santa Barbara property values and the prices you can get for your houses, right? Terrific. The solution to the problem, then, is in your own hands! Want to solve the problem? Nobody is holding a gun to your head to extract every bit of capital gain out of your house sale. Just get together with all your concerned fellow citizens and pledge that when you go to sell your own houses, you will sell them only to local workers and at only a modest, reasonable increment above what you paid for them – maybe the national average of value appreciation - and put it in the deed that they have to do the same. Pufffft! Problem gone. Freedom of choice solution, no Big Brother.
But no. You’d rather fall for a seductive sounding “cure” – high-density hosing projects in tall buildings downtown – that will transform our cityscape but has a snowball’s chance of delivering on its promises.
» wrote on 08/01/08 @ 10:17 PM
Mr. Ghitterman has it half right: what is proposed is the “Manhattanization of Santa Barbara”; where he’s wrong, is that it “can only benefit the locals”. There’s no indication there would be price controls on this dense private building being urged and it is unlikely such controls would be legal if there were; instead, these will be middle-upper middle income units, most likely starting at $400-600K for a few of the many thousands everywhere who want to live here. The “inclusionary” units being funded would be built away from the desirable downtown. (Keep in mind: Males had a median income of $37,116 versus $31,911 for females. The per capita income for the city was $26,466. = 2004, Wikipedia.) These folks would not be able to afford these units. What’s needed are rental units --- and not necessarily at all in dense downtown developments, but in the West/East sides accessible by public transit. Maybe by benefitting the locals is meant the added service jobs there’ll be to clean these units; certainly, the new units could not legally be limited to “locals”. Whether it’s called “small town” or not (and having lived in a small town, I think this ain’t one), what’s important is the quality of life here, including views and a sense of openness which would be lost. Take a look at that block by the county building and the garage and then figure what other parts of the city, with narrower streets than Chapala, would look like with those Chapala-type monster buildings. Fair observation or not, it is striking that many of those opposed to having the height initiative be a ballot choice are realtors or people in the building trades, including architects. Now, why would that be?
» wrote on 08/02/08 @ 06:02 AM
Sorry, but we do nto have the land, the water, the clean air, etc., etc., for everyong that want to live in Santa Barbara. To save this city, to keep in desirable, me must live within the physical limitations ofr our recourse, that will not expand to provide for “housing for all”.
» wrote on 08/02/08 @ 11:20 AM
The benefit to the locals is simple. Any program that provides for the needs of community housing must contain provisions that protect the community’s right to preserve the affordable quality of the housing, and given the county’s problem of ensuring that affordable housing remains so, the policing of the qualified residents. That shouldn’t be too difficult.
We must have housing that provides for a diverse community, not only of human characteristics but also of income differentials, and unless we can come up with a different standard, a method of verifying continuing eligibility, so that housing for those willing to work for lower wages can be found in our town. There is certainly a need for that type of housing.
» wrote on 08/02/08 @ 12:05 PM
Since when did this become a “housing for all” argument? Of course we can’t “take” all the people who want to here. Duh. How about better housing for some? How about better housing at all??? Are we really content with 60s-era construction? Do you really want your doctor practicing medicine like he did 50 years ago? The black-and-white nature of people’s thinking on this amazes me… truly. Here’s another time-proven idea for housing the “critical workforce.” Government-owned rental properties. Renters must have certain jobs, keep those jobs, and when they retire turn those units over to others in similar jobs. This suggestion came to me by way of a professional who sees a critical need in his industry for workforce. Heads out of the sand, people! It’s the 21st century… And those who support better housing are certainly not only the building industry. But it’s true, they don’t identify themselves… hmmm….
» wrote on 08/02/08 @ 08:51 PM
I must say that David Pritchett and I are bucking Robert Meltzer’s trend. Sorry Robert, but I’ll stay anonymous where I can feel free to beat my opponents over their heads with their own arguments.
Mark Bradley makes some very good points about the complexity of urban planning. I believe that is what most of us on the anti-limits side of the equation have been saying all along, that blanket limits are indeed lazy and way more destructive than no limits at all. That none of us sees the problems we face in urban development as simple and that you cannot engineer a solution by just saying no all the time.
As Laura has by now realized with the firestorm that erupts when ever someone mentions building in this town that the N3 cult is very emotionally invested in their cause and they follow it with religious zeal. It matters not one wit that they are wrong. Yes that’s right; I have the gall, audacity and even the intellectual narcissism (that’s why I know when I see it), megalomania, ego and condescension to suggest that the limiters are wrong. Thank God for the internet! But the fact is they are wrong and history has proven it so. The problem is that when cult members face the horrible truth that their belief system is false the tendency is to deny it and then look for more and usually irrational ways to rationalize that belief. But how, how in the world can saying no to any development be bad? How can trying to preserve our town be like a cult? When preservation resembles taxidermy you have a belief system problem my friends. Preservation is for dead things you want as a trophy and little else. Yes it is good to preserve some culture artifacts and even a few historic buildings, but the whole damn town! Are you people serious?!! I can’t think of a better way to kill a city than what the N3’s have done to SB.
Thank you Laura and all the other fellow anti N3’s who have vented their spleens here. My sincere hope is that once the limiters see that the debate is very much alive and that their opponents are not going to be intimidated by the same 40 year old, tired labels, that they will soon realize we want very much the same thing, a beautiful place to live and work and raise our families and pass on to the next generation, that we can have that without having to say no to everything and that beauty itself is in the eye of the beholder, not some damned self appointed bunch of small minded cultists, who out of fear reject anything new.
» wrote on 08/03/08 @ 02:04 PM
Yes, I can see the argument for staying anonymous… I meant that “preservationist-types” didn’t ID themselves, but anyway… In this “go-along-to-get-along” town it can be dangerous to speak up. Yet a community is a shared event, a mutual place, and we all need to compromise and take real action in planning for OUR future. Stop saying “no,” and let’s hear HOW.
» wrote on 08/03/08 @ 06:47 PM
Reality check: Increased density in the downtown area or around mass transit hubs will do nothing to reduce the demand for housing - THERE IS NO END TO THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WANTING TO LIVE HERE. The real issue is quality of life for those who are already here. “Sustainability” will only create more congestion, more demand for low wage servant jobs, more crime and more young men from the servant class joining gangs. Our current planers will make SB become an ugly crowded town with pockets of gated/guarded wealth.
» wrote on 08/04/08 @ 09:02 AM
A question for Laura: Where has this urbanization theory actually worked for a similar city? How about Santa Monica, La Jolla, San Jose? And do you think our local experiment been successful so far?
» wrote on 08/04/08 @ 09:45 AM
Greeting from Charlotte, North Carolina - where sprawl is king (and expected.)
My sister lives in Montecito and I have followed the never ending development wars that are waged over the issues covered in these articles. The main problem that makes solutions so difficult to find is that the normal rules of economics do not apply to the situation in Santa Barbara.
Given the fact of limited space and a limitless supply of wealthy people who want to move there, any residental space available will always go to the highest bidder. Unless of course the goverment gets into the act of allocating space. That’s where economics runs into politics and emotions take over. If there is one thing Santa Barbara has in abundance it’s emotion. That’s not a bad thing, but it certainly makes logical decisions much harder because emotion is usually immune to rational argument.
I hope you are able to compromise on some issues and get on with the hard choices that will shape your community’s future. It won’t be the end of the world if you make a few mistakes, but it would be a mistake to do nothing.
» wrote on 08/04/08 @ 10:55 AM
Allan Ghitterman wrote, “We must have housing that provides for a diverse community, not only of human characteristics but also of income differentials, and unless we can come up with a different standard, a method of verifying continuing eligibility, so that housing for those willing to work for lower wages can be found in our town. There is certainly a need for that type of housing.”
Agreed, there’s a need. But unless this is government-funded housing, can private developers on land privately-owned be forced to have income-restricted housing? I don’t think so --- but I don’t know and it is a genuine info-seeking question. (The downtown density folks apparently are talking about condos and other private ownership units, not price-controlled rental units. Some of those condos of course would be investment units, rented out.)
» wrote on 08/04/08 @ 03:44 PM
One of your responders wrote: “I am befuddled as to how anyone can think that the new buildings along Chapala Street are not architectural improvements over used car lots.” Well, they may be architectural improvements, but they do huge damage to the views that make this city so beautiful and appealing. And please, lets add a setback requirement to make room for the planting of trees, big, big beautiful trees that are so sadly missing from these behemoth buildings. In Spain, the high-density streets are lined with magnicicent trees (they call them the lungs of the city) and this has to be part of any future building here. I hope the city planners look across Garden street everyday upon the idewalk hugging horror they allowed to go up there and that they puke with regret.
» wrote on 08/04/08 @ 04:11 PM
As I read the long array of back and forths in response to Ms. Hout’s article on housing for people on whom Santa Barbara depends, it occurs to me that the argument is distillable into two factions. On one side are those for whom their sense of aesthetics takes precedence over their concern for human (and environmental) welfare. On the other are those for whom the human condition takes precedence over an aesthetic status quo.
For those who claim that their oppostion to Smart Growth is rooted in an environmental ethic, I say “baloney.” All you’re doing is forcing those upon whom your community relies to find housing elsewhere. By whatever measure you can think of, the environmental costs of such opposition are much higher than providing local housing in an intelligent way.
As someone has said: “Grow Up, Santa Barbara!”
» wrote on 08/04/08 @ 04:32 PM
To Mark and other nay-sayers,
Many writers are asking good questions, and I hope our City officials read and consider our thoughts. With all due respect to Mark, I am not an urban planner, but “Santa Monica, La Jolla, San Jose” are not similar in size to Santa Barbara. Check out http://www.smartgrowth.org, http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth, and http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org, and take heed of another writer’s comments: “…It is clear that cities are very complex systems that don’t follow any simple rules or expectations. It doesn’t help to use black/white thinking… when all the important stuff is in the details… it’s true that so-called “smart growth” concepts such as infill, mixed-use, transit oriented development have not worked as planned in some cases, but they have worked in other cases. What’s important is HOW it is done.” So do your research—and demand your City officials do theirs too. Just saying “no” is not good enough anymore. NO, I do not think we’re doing anywhere near enough in this town to plan intelligently for our future. And YES, some trees would be great on Chapala Street. Again, look to your city officials and review boards!
» wrote on 08/04/08 @ 06:03 PM
The new buildings on Chapala Street have “affordable” condos under the City’s inclusionary housing program. These ownership condos are resale price restricted for a rolling 45 years, 90 years maximum. So, at best, they are “affordable” for 90 years. This is just a “short sighted” or short term solution.
But under the City-owned affordable rental housing program, units can be affordable for the life of the unit.
» wrote on 08/04/08 @ 09:30 PM
reply to AN50: Consider this: Everyone absolutely loves the current Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara is so nice because of the efforts of the slow growthers. lets go back 20 years. The pro-growthers arguments then are the same as now: ‘If we don’t grow we will not be vibrant and will wither san die”. And: ‘ we don’t want to preserve the town in formaldehyde.” We we didn’t grow much and we sure didn’t wither and die and nobody can say we don’t have vitality and a healthy economy. And we sure were not preserved in formaldehyde. There has been much change. Many stores have come and gone. Change is good and change is inevitable. But change can occur without a lot of population growth… Now think of what the town would be like if 20 years ago we had thrown out our growth controls and opened up the town wide open to developers to come and build whatever they wanted and the more the better and the taller the better and the more population growth the better. We would now have 100 of those ugly monstrosities like those 2 on Chapala that most implementingeverybody hates. We would have 10,000 more units with another 30,000 population. We would have total gridlock congestion. the housing prices would be exactly the same where the workforce can’t afford to buy a unit and we would have 30,000 commuters instead of 20,000 because the new high end population would have caused the need for even more low paid service workers. ...............Growth is not the answer ,my friends......... We can continue to grow slowly without implementing high density smart growth an in another 20 years our town will be as desirable, attractive and as vibrant and healthy as today. it will not be preserved in formaldehyde. But if we implement a lot of high density smart growth then the town will be much less desirable and much less livable because living in dense ‘projects’ is simply not a desirable way to live. There is much more crime and overcrowding and much more traffic congestion..............Remember: Density is Growth ( lots of it). Growth is more people. (lots more) More people requires more resources so is less sustainable . More people cause more traffic congestion. ( lots more) Traffic congestion causes a SIGNIFICANT lowering of our quality of life. Therefore we don’t want density. Therefore we don’t want tall buildings as tall buildings provides density.
» wrote on 08/04/08 @ 09:42 PM
reply to laura Hout: You say that Santa monica is not similar in size to Santa Barbara. shows how much you know. Santa monica has a population of 130,000 people. They would have had 100,000 the same as us if they had not implemented high density smart growth along transit corridors. 10 years ago their city planners and council promised the people that if they only implemented high density smart growth that their housing affordability problem problems would be solved and they promise that it would result in reduced traffic. (sound familiar?) Well the implement and the result is that it did not work as promised. The commercial component of the big mixed use projects created a huge increase in the number of commuters and the units are not affordable to the workforce. the traffic is now total gridlock congestion die to a combination of the increased commuters and the increase in population. .................................................................................................................. Allow Density, and you get density. Density in population is nothing more than a whole lot more people living close together ---all trying to use the same streets. It didn’t work in Santa monica and it sure won’t work here. Vote to lower building heights and keep density and population growth low.
» wrote on 08/04/08 @ 09:52 PM
response to laura, You are hogging the show. You wrote the article--you had your fair share of the say. Now please shut up and lets hear form all the other people in town. This is not a forum for your personal argument . If i see one more reply from you I am going to puke. Just who do you think you are to hog the conversation like you are? Are you afraid the smart growth advocates can’t carry the argument without you?
» wrote on 08/05/08 @ 01:21 AM
Dear Tired,
Yikes! Apparently YOU are afraid of this forum… which wouldn’t exist without my article, and if you don’t like it, why don’t you write your own article, then when someone asks you a direct question you can answer… and “hog the show.” I.e., if you want the attention, do something to merit it. As for the argument about Santa Monica being the same as Santa Barbara, there is no way our city is similar because Santa Monica is simply one more island in an sea of endless sprawl, that being metro LA. We still have a chance.
» wrote on 08/05/08 @ 08:24 AM
Hey, Tired. I think you’re not getting the point of Noozhawk’s public forum. It’s a FORUM ... people discuss things, authors included. If you just want to whine, complain and hurl insults, there are plenty of blogs in this town to satisfy your needs.
And before you start going off on me, I’m FOR a height limitation. I’ve been to many of the Plan Santa Barbara hearings but not one of them has had the kind of give and take that occurs on Noozhawk. In fact, dare I say it, I’ve found many of the opponents’ points of view very enlightening because of this forum. I don’t think they’re trying to ruin Santa Barbara’s charm. I still don’t agree with the smart-growth they propose but your childish intolerance doesn’t help the overall situation.
So go have your puke, then go get some professional help.
» wrote on 08/05/08 @ 11:31 AM
reply to before you rant: you miss the point. Of course it is not the INTENTION of the high density smart growth advocates to ruin the town. The whole point is that the unintended consequences of implementing high density smart growth is going to ruin the town.
This is because we have a relatively fixed infrastructure and resources. 100,000 people living here results in our current high quality of life but building another 10,000 units holding another 30,000 people built over 30 years all packed in densely will increase our population to 130,000 in the same area with the same transportation system and same resources and will result in a significant lowering of our quality of life. Not only will there be 100 new 4 story monstrosities blocking mountain views and sunlight but the traffic will be at full gridlock with increased air pollution and the population overcrowding will cause long lines for all services and significantly more crime and youth violence. And the housing affordability problem will still be with us, only worse, and the commuting problem will still be with us but only worse...............Santa Monica IS a good match in size comparison to Santa Barbara. Smart growth didn’t work there as promised and it won’t work here for the same reasons. Smart growth not working has nothing at all to do with it being located next to L.A. In fact the smart growth advocates say density is exactly what is needed to make smart growth and transit work. So why now is density good for us and bad for Santa monica. paleeeeze.
» wrote on 08/05/08 @ 11:53 AM
Thank you very much Laura. Affordable by-design is the direction South Coast development needs to go. Inclusionary requirements are absurd, do not work, and typically end projects before construction commences. I also agree with unfortunate situation of Goleta. Old Town Goleta is a great example of what happens when urban revitalization/renewal projects are stopped by NIMBY’s and ZERO-GROWTH advocates who are appointed to Design Review Boards and Planning Commissions. It’s disappointing so many South Coast residents aren’t willing to be apart of the solution to the regional problems. Like Jeff, who dared to compare the South Coast to Beijing. Apparently, he’s never looked North and seen the thousands of permanently protected forests adjacent to the South Coast communities.
» wrote on 08/05/08 @ 02:34 PM
Dear “laura” and “Before you rant”.
You are both putting words in my mouth; I am not afraid of this forum. I did not criticize laura as a person. I did not even criticize her article. I did not criticize this forum or its give and take and I am jealous of the attention that laura is getting or looking for attention.------------------------------------------here is the point that you missed: All I was saying is that this is a community wide forum and not the personal forum for laura to make dozens of new comments every time she sees a point of view that she doesn’t like. The point was all about being fair as to the amount of space given to just one person’s point of view, sharing the conversation and not hogging the space. in my opinion the fact that one wrote the article does not give them the right to hog the subsequent conversation. --------- I noticed very few of Laura’s subsequent postings were answers to a direct question to her specifically but most all were responses to a point of view she didn’t like. ------- We don’t need her to defend her point of view. Writing the article gave all of us her point of view. It makes the reading of the responses less interesting to keep running into one of her replies. it’s as if she has no confidence in what she said and feels the need to keep defending it. If what she said had true merit it would not need so much constant defending.
» wrote on 08/05/08 @ 03:57 PM
Come on Laura - or anyone for that matter: Please tell us where in the US this theory of urbanization has successfully worked out and how do you think it is working so far in Santa Barbara?
» wrote on 08/05/08 @ 04:54 PM
Dear “Before You Rant”:
What a hypocrite:- first you say; “ If you just want to whine, complain and hurl insults, there are plenty of blogs in this town to satisfy your needs.” Then at the end of your remarks you hurl the following insult: “ then go get some professional help”
With friends like you one doesn’t need enemies.
» wrote on 08/05/08 @ 06:55 PM
For “Mark Again” and others that have asked about examples that have worked, look at some reports by the Greenbelt Alliance in the Bay Area. In most parts of the country, “smart growth” is used as a way of preserving open space, both inside and outside of cities, and it is mainly environmental and preservationist organizations that propose it. The split that has grown in SB is very strange, and I think some of it comes because some people have been active in this area for so long that they are stuck in the past and don’t trust any new ideas - they just fit every concept and idea into their mind set that hardened into cement back in the 70’s, and aren’t willing to take an open-minded approach and take the effort to learn something new.
For those that are willing to at least study some examples, I refer you to the Smart Infill report at http://www.greenbelt.org/downloads/resources/report_smartinfill.pdf from 2002 which has some great discussions and examples. On page 56 is San Rafael, a city I used to live in which is about the same size as Santa Barbara, also nestled between ocean and mountains. A more recent report is http://www.greenbelt.org/downloads/resources/smartgrowthscorecard/smartgrowthscorecard.pdf from 2006, a “scorecard” of growth policies in every city in the 9-county Bay Area. You’ll notice that 8 of the top 12 scoring cities are smaller, freestanding cities in Marin, Sonoma and Napa counties, with the city of Petaluma ranking #1. Those counties have problems with affordable housing almost as severe as Santa Barbara’s. The argument that these ideas don’t work for smaller cities with just normal transit systems just doesn’t jive with the evidence.
» wrote on 08/05/08 @ 09:53 PM
Response to Mark Bradley: Dear Mark, thanks for the links to the articles. I read the one titled “Smart Infill”. I spent my vacation last summer driving all around the Bay area and i visited most of the cities mentioned in the report. From my careful on the ground first hand observation the reality is quite different than reported in the article. First off it was clear that the smart growth was not working. First it did not cause a lowering in the prices of housing and second as the population and density grew so did the traffic and congestion grow. Getting around was horrible and often I couldn’t even find a place to park. Getting across any of the bay bridges was next to impossible and numerous times I sat in bumper to bumper traffic for hours just trying to get across a bridge. This kind of congestion is not quality of life. And my general impression of the pictures in the Study was one of primarily 2 story buildings. I didn’t see many monstrosities like those on Chapala, smart growth simply does not work. It is nothing but a theory that sounds good. ___________________Here is something for al;l of your consideration: There are 3 possibilities for Santa Barbara not two: 1. Growing horizontal ( Sprawl) 2. Growing vertically ( smart growth) and 3. Not growing at all or growing very very slowly. Now smart growth is environmentally superior and more sustainable to horizontal sprawl, but it is a fact that no growth or extremely slow growth is environmentally superior and more sustainable than vertical smart growth.____________________
The building height advocates are not advocating horizontal growth sprawl but are advocating very slow growth because it is environmentally superior to high density vertical smart growth and is more sustainable than smart growth. The smart growth advocates admit this, but respond that growth is inevitable. (only change is inevitable but not growth) Well if it is then smart growth is the way to go, but the fact is that a lot of population growth is not inevitable. Proof is right here in Santa Barbara where we have had slow growth in place for 30 years now and it works. The result is a beautiful relatively small town character and a high quality of life with vitality and a healthy economy. Proof that slow growth works is the beautiful town that we all live in and cherish which is the direct result of slow growth, and is certainly not the result of a lot of high density growth. If Santa Barbara had implemented high density smart growth 30 years ago today Santa Barbara would be no different than the congested cities to the south. Our population would be 130,000 instead of 100,000, and our commuters would be 30,000 instead of 20,000 and our traffic would be total gridlock congestion with increased air pollution and even the busses would be trapped in 5 m.p.h. traffic. And to make it worse the housing prices would be the same or higher than they are today and we would nave more crime and gang vioilence. Folks, smart growth just does not work as advertised, so vote to lower building heights and just say no to high density smart growth. Remember smart growth is just another way of saying growth and congestion--and a whole lot of it.
» wrote on 08/06/08 @ 12:17 AM
Thanks to Mark Bradley for the great info! And to Mark-no-last-name and Still Not Convinced, et al, I’ve taken your questions about Smart Growth quite seriously and have questioned nationally recognized experts. More soon in an upcoming article! As for our “beautiful relatively small town character and a high quality of life” check out my current article, “I Live in a Garage.”
» wrote on 08/06/08 @ 01:24 AM
Less is Less, you poor miss guided N3. Let me help you, if everyone loves the current Santa Barbara then why all the controversy over current buildings? Does that love extend to all the violence, inept government, crumbling half done infrastructure? You N3’s never cease to amaze me, in how you can’t whine up a belly ache over how horrible things are getting and then turn around and say how wonderful it is here. Well which is it? Never mind, Less, I‘ve already had my fill of the N3 schizophrenia on another blog.
Never once, have I ever associated tall buildings with growth, why? Because there is no connection! For example, in the last 4 years while most of the skyscraping low rise 3 and 4 story buildings being built that have enraged the limits crowd so much, the damn population of Santa Barbara has actually dropped by 4000. Oops, I guess ya’ll missed that one huh? Further, you can induce just as much growth, traffic, crime, etc, with 1 and 2 story buildings, albeit at a lower density. So much for that. You N3’s trot out this idiotic notion that building a taller building means growth and you have no evidence to support it. Sure, building more buildings at a higher density can be growth and growth inducing. But show me where that has happened here? They have only changed the skyline and for the better. Another lame argument you people trot out is the association of tall buildings to greed and over development. Stupid, stupid, stupid, where is the cause and effect? These two examples are nothing more than an attempt to smear or demonize your opponents with unsubstantiated invective. Ok what do you have left? Tall buildings are out of character? This might have merit if it weren’t completely whacked by the historical evidence to the contrary. Again, I’ll remind you of the most stark example; the 8 story 112 foot tall Granada building was not considered too tall for the small town of Santa Barbara, population 25,000 in the ancient time of 1925. So how is it that a 4 story 60 foot tall building is now a monstrosity in that same town at 3.5 times more people and 83 years later (in a time when buildings can be built to half a mile high, no less)? When Fess Parker proposed building his sea side hotel complex, he was horribly blasted by the likes of you for trying to destroy the waterfront with a massive project. Never mind that the Potter hotel which burned down in 1921 was 7 stories and covered twice the acreage. God what an eyesore that must have been! Tallness is not anathema to Santa Barbara it is Santa Barbara, you nut cases just have your friggin heads parked up where you haven’t noticed!
Ok, Less. Take a breath. Start over. Tell me why a tall building should not be built in Santa Barbara, without smearing or irrational arguments. It’s not about smart growth, no growth or any growth at all. It has nothing to do with any particular profession or greed and it has nothing to do with the character of the town. What do you have left? Aesthetics? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Less, and that taller building is just as beautiful to me as your shorter one and that is what it really all boils down to, personal preference. Now then in all fairness, you N3’s have had your way for 40 years, now it’s our turn and we mean to take it. Your bankrupt ideology cannot stop the new rising force. It is a new era born out of the realization that the old way, your way, is a complete failure on every level, including aesthetics. What you and the N3 cult need to realize is we are not here to destroy you or the city, but instead rescue you from your own blindness and bring greatness back. Stop cowering in fear of that greatness. It is, after all, what built this great country. Yes, yes I know the current dopy underachievement culture distains exceptionalism. I know living in a culture that expects more out of you can be intimidating and that you have been indoctrinated in the public education system of mediocrity. But less is less, not more and its time the people who put a man on the moon stop wallowing in a drug induced hedonistic, self centered and selfish state and take on the future with what ever trials it brings. Don’t let that tall building intimidate you, embrace and participate in it, for it is great.
» wrote on 08/06/08 @ 10:40 AM
reply to AN50: Your arguments are weak because they always try to point to some discrepancy in our wording or you try and put words in our mouth. When we say we love Santa Barbara the way it is this means generally speaking. It has nothing to do with whether or not it could be even better such as to get rid of the gang problem or those two monstrosities just built on Chapala. We are talking relative to the other cities in California. there is simply no nicer place and the reason it is so nice is because of the slow growthers who worked hard for 50 years to make it this way. do you think it is this way be accident?...................
You made a false statement that Santa Barbara dropped in population by 4000. This is simply untrue. Prove it! If it had then we would have a huge vacancy rate of 10% ( which we don’t) because we have not reduced the number of units and have been adding over 100 new units each year. The truth is that population has been relatively flat and we intend to keep it that way. If we are not going to grow more than 100 units a year then we don’t even need the high density tall buildings that you smart growth advocates want, and thats the whole point!....................Why can’t you get through your thick head that the reason why Santa Barbara has such a charming downtown with a cherished small town character is because of it’s primarily 1 and 2 story buildings with human scale and allows both mountain views and lots of sunlight to get down into our plazas and paseos. A 4 story building blocks mountain views and blocks sunlight and simply does not have charm or human scale like a 1 and 2 story building. why can’t you get it through your head that the vast majority of Santa Barbara residents hate those two monstrosities on Chapala and don’t want any more like them anywhere in our beloved town...........You said: “You N3’s have had your way for 40 years, now it’s our turn and we mean to take it.”...Well buckwheat, I’ve got some news for you; while collecting signatures on the height initiative petition I personally spoke with thousands of people and heard 10 people say they don’t want tall buildings for every one that said they like tall buildings and want more of them.” Slow growth is alive and well in Santa Barbara. You are out of touch with the will of the voters. We have already collected way more than enough signatures to put this height initiative on the ballot so exactly how do you “mean to take it”.
» wrote on 08/06/08 @ 04:44 PM
Less, we are going to take back this town by beating you over the head with your own arguments. As I have said so many, many, many times before beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Santa Barbara is unique in southern California because of its dense downtown with many multi storey buildings. You and your merry band of N3’s somehow got into this obsessive/compulsive, emotionally slavish attachment to the “suburban” model of a city’s downtown, low, flat, sprawling, open air. Look you can get all that out at the mall or the shopping center ok. You don’t need to ruin the one example in all of so cal of a real city to satisfy your suburban desire. Why hell, Less, most sprawled out cities in this state are actually building their sprawling shopping malls to resemble open air plazas, just like you want SB’s down town to look like. Go there; drink up from that fountain of suburban mediocrity, where the buildings are less intimidating and you can feel more important than the surrounding architecture. But leave the city a city please. Those of you who keep dredging up this imbecilic small town charm crap are way off base and you know it. Get a grip and realize this is a talking point argument that has no basis in reality.
When you are down town among the taller buildings, most of which were built when SB was a small town, you get the feeling and sense you are DOWNTOWN in a CITY not a damned suburban shopping mall. Most of the 1 and 2 story buildings you mention Less, are damned shacks with metal roofs and faux facades. Get a grip man! It is not charming, it is STUPID. Now it is apparent you yourself are not up to the challenge of defending your cult talking points since you cannot even look up census data on the internet. Its ok you are not the only N3 that has been silenced by the mighty hand of reality. As far as your stupid ballot measure goes, you wave it around like a badge of honor. It is the equivalent of giving a 4 year old a damn chainsaw. The incredible amount of damage that has been done by the legions of well intentioned, but lazy, small minded community activist is mind blowing, not in what you have saved the community from but what you kept the community from achieving. Those of us who oppose the stupid, lazy, simple minded, draconian limits you N3’s are infatuated with have no desire to “over run” the city with high rises. We have no desire to grow the city into a damned megalopolis. We have no desires to line our pockets with cash at the expense of our city’s beauty and heritage. We simply want the architectural and planning elements of our city to be done by professionals that have a clue what they’re doing, not a bunch of well intentioned suburbanites bowing to some emotional hysterical fear over the boogeyman evil developer.
» wrote on 08/06/08 @ 07:28 PM
reply to AN50: You are too mule headed stubborn to pay close attention to what we are saying. We are NOT advocating to change our downtown into some 2 story suburban shopping mall. Please pay close attention: We love the downtown of Santa Barbara the way it is, including some older taller buildings. We recognize that change is inevitable and some slow growth is inevitable. .................. What we propose is that as the town evolves that it preserve ESSENTIALLY the same overall character and height that it has now. the existing character is generally that of primarily charming 1 and 2 story buildings with a few 3 and very few 4 or more. plus a few towers. Towers are exempt from our height limit. The overall character is one of low density and human scale, and allows mountain views and sunlight to get into our paseps and plazas. the overall low density provides for reasonable amount of traffic congestion. So what we are fighting for is to prevent our town from being ruined and to keep close to the existing character and quality of life. people move here from all over the world because Santa Barbara is different and the way it is different is we have neither sprawl or high density and big buildings. We have a character that has been carefully built up over 50 years................ Our city is nice and the way it is precisely because of people like us and not because of people like you who would have ruined her by overdevelopment years ago. We want to continue that tradition for another 50 years and I have news for you: We are not about to go away. ................. The voters of this town a few Years ago voted to put in place a 85,000 population cap and that slow growth preference is still very much alive and well. We don’t want or need a lot of growth or high density development. I respect your right to your opposing opinion, but please face the fact that you represent the minority viewpoint. The voters will decide this issue!
» wrote on 08/07/08 @ 07:29 PM
Less, you have ruined the town, ok? You people just don’t see it. You are emotionally attached to your movement. You really, out of fear, believe that those of us who are not opposed to taller buildings want to cover the city in high rise buildings. You have some convoluted logic when it comes to density and traffic and yes, a city of 90,000 where most of its tallest buildings were built in the 1920’s when the town was 3.5 times smaller, wanting to limit heights is suburban minded. I’m sorry you can’t see that.
Look, ask yourself this; if AN50 isn’t for rapid growth, isn’t for paving the town over with high rise buildings and wants to make Santa Barbara a beautiful and prosperous place to live why does he not agree with the height limits? The answer is simple; because tall buildings congregated around the core of the downtown, is what separates Santa Barbara from the mindless, purposeless, ugly suburban sprawl of most of California’s cities. I discovered this in 1969 when my family moved back here from Ventura County (land of the low rise, flat, featureless, suburban sprawl). I instantly fell in love with Santa Barbara’s dense downtown with its multi story buildings and cohesive architecture. The size and scale of the tall buildings gave you the feeling of being some place important, special. God, you can get all the damned low density open air crap at the mall. If you want small town feel where you are not intimidated by buildings go to the damned shopping center! Or better yet move to an actual small town. Why do you people have to wreck the one place in California that bucks the low rise trend? Why do you have to impose such a ridiculous small minded attitude on the city’s architecture and the way it affects you while ignoring all the big city problems festering right around the corner? None of your argument s, Less, makes any sense at all, unless you are nothing more than a talking point for the formaldehyde crowd (you know, turn the city into a dead trophy for the idle wealthy to hang on their Montecito mantle piece).
I know I’ve been rough with the insults, that’s my style, but we are not all that different in what we want. Where we are different is in what we view as a means of achieving it and certainly what we consider beauty. Don’t be a talking point my friend. Don’t take the N3 rhetoric at face value and simply accept it. Step back away from the movement and really look at what I have revealed to you. Walk downtown not from an attitude of open air plazas but from an urban attitude. Start by parking your car at the very top of the tallest parking garage. Soak in the view from up there. Then go down to street level and walk around the bigger buildings and drink in the feeling of importance they convey. You know you are in The City, that special place, the center of commerce, finance, culture and arts of the tri-counties. The shadows don’t block but convey, the size doesn’t intimidate but exhilarates. Try to feel what I felt 39 years ago after growing up in the 1 and 2 story stick and stucco waste land of suburbia. Try to understand the horror I felt when the first building height limits were passed and I realized that they would destroy what made Santa Barbara special. I have spent most of my life studying urban architecture, planning and development, not to make money, but simply for the joy of it. So yes I get quite agitated when some smuck moves up here 2 years ago and tells me everything I studied is meaningless when they only thought about it for two minutes while signing some damned petition.
You see, Less, that is why I rally for the professionals. If it affects me this much I can’t imagine how bad it must affect the architectural community. I do mean to put you and the N3’s down, not out of hatred or condescension, but simply to wake you up to a different perspective. To demonstrate that the movement you all have invested so much emotion in is predicated on false logic, irrational fear and misplaced desire. I don’t rally for profiteers or massive overdevelopment and never have. I just want you to leave what makes Santa Barbara different (her taller buildings) alone. If you must have limits then have them be reasonable and flexible enough to preserve the urban character of the city’s downtown core. Just try it Less. Forget the anger you feel for me and soak in the words you have read here and open your mind to a different perspective. I’ve already experienced yours.
» wrote on 08/08/08 @ 06:32 PM
reply to AN50:----O.K. An50 lets try and visualize it your way. lets see----We can add two high rise buildings exactly like the two high rises in Oxnard by the freeway on Lower State Street by Stearns Wharf , another two downtown next to our adobes, another 2 on Milpas by the freeway so visitors can see them on the way into town and two more at laCumbre plaza. yup--That sure is an improvement over what we have now. We are taking reservations. Would you like to have your unit on the 8 th floor or the 12th floor? And of course you are willing to give up your car and ride the bus. Oh, you say the bus does not go close to where you need to go? Sorry. Maybe you can modify your lifestyle to get with the smart growth program.
» wrote on 08/10/08 @ 12:48 PM
Less do yourself a favor and try to improve your reading comprehension. Your response is a total non-sequitur. What dark reaches of your cult rattled brain do you dredge this stuff up from? When you read some one else’s response do you actually take the time to understand it? You are not the first N3 I’ve had this encounter with. So the question must be asked; does the N3 movement exist simply because the movement seeks out non-critical thinking, narrow minded, unimaginative, intolerant and uneducated people with a propensity for cults? Or is it simply that a movement that embodies slavish emotional attachment to overly simplistic legalistic totalitarian methods attracts the kind of people mentioned above? Hummmm. Well, nonetheless, Less, you certainly have entertained me. However, your last answer pretty well sums up just how bad your movement is and how it will be defeated (BTW, if you don’t know what I mean, please go back and re-read the entire tread of comments here and try to do so without letting your emotions well up and take over).
Hate to be so brutally condescending, arrogant and insulting, but those are my trade marks, however enlightening or embarrassing they may be. You can chose to engage me or as some have done, shoot me down, but please try to make some sense with the attempt.
» wrote on 08/10/08 @ 10:38 PM
AN50, thanks for keeping the flame alive… I’ll be posting another article along about Tuesday, a little bit of myth-busting from a female POV.
» wrote on 08/10/08 @ 11:52 PM
Dear AN50
Would you like to put your money where your mouth is?.......I’ll bet you $1000 that the height initiative to lower building heights passes.....You call me uneducated....I’ll bet you another $1000 that I have more education than you do. .....You consider yourself condesending ........I’ll bet you a third $1000 that I have a higher I.Q. than you do....I’ll go up against you on a public debate on this subject any time you want.....I’ll bet you a forth $1000 that I know much more about planning, architecture and construction than you do..(much more).....Your talk is cheap!!
[Editor’s note: How about using that education of yours for something more imaginative than a barnyard epithet. And to all posters, thank you for the comments. All of you are doing a great job deconstructing these issues and furthering the public debate. It’s great, we love that! But I think readers take your points more seriously when you make them without resorting to personal attacks — as entertaining as they are. Thanks.]
» wrote on 08/11/08 @ 12:42 AM
Thank you for the moderation.
» wrote on 08/11/08 @ 02:04 AM
The flame lives. Other area blogs know if they want lots of traffic, just mention building heights or growth. The topics light up the local pages with a firestorm and you can count on little ole AN50 to pour on the gasoline (even at $4.50 a gallon!) Thanks to you Laura for providing an intelligent and entertaining base for us less skillful and sophisticated, but no less passionate rebels. Flame on!
To my good friend Less-ter, easy Less easy, musta hit a nerve! Ok, Less, prove your point. For such an intelligent, masterful, high IQ, planning and architectural genius, this should be quite easy against dumb, stupid, less educated, little ole me. No need for you to bet the family fortune, just demonstrate what you mean here on this blog. Hint; leave the anger to those of us who do it much better. You just concentrate on taking every one of the arguments I have made so far and tear them apart, with your wit and superior intellect. Now of course, Less, I prefer you stay on topic, you know building height limits, and leave all the personal stuff aside (I think the editor is getting some heat with the heat). I mean really, I think I’ve given you plenty of opportunities to go after my reasoning, but you just get mad at all the personal stuff and deprive us all of your education and talent. Just for the record, my friend, I have no formal education in any of this stuff and I am all thumbs in the public forum, so you are probably right about being much better than me, I JUST WANT YOU TO PROVE IT with an INTELLEGENT RESPONSE, ok? Now trank up any get cracken! You have a simple minded, intellectually lazy movement to defend against us poor dopy internet hacks.
Ok, seriously, Less, I know I’m having a lot of fun with you, but I truly admire your persistence. Most N3’s I’ve subjected this kind of tawdry tirade against would have quit in disgust long ago, but you keep hanging in there. Damn, don’t you know you’re just fueling my fire? Ok, so are you going to tear apart my arguments, one by one? Let me have it with both barrels and you can even resort to name calling or personal attacks, I just want to see your most intelligent and logically constructed arguments laid out here. Please expose my arguments weaknesses and contradictions. But, know this my friend, I will come back. I love a good argument and I am very passionate about this topic so I intend to challenge everything you throw out here. So let’s do it Less, you and me battling it out for all to see right here.
[Editor’s note: Thank you!]