Many of you read News Press articles, which mainly promote lowering building heights. Some of you are familiar with the initiative to get the issue on the ballot. Here's a link to an article I emailed yesterday supporting height limits as they currently are.
http://www.noozhawk.com/point_of_view/article/0722_commentary_building_height_blues
Share your thoughts...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Good job, Laura. I agree with you that this building height limitation initiative is a bad thing for Santa Barbara. Hopefully, the City will get enough feed back from its constituents and put a stop to this height-limitation issue before it goes any further.
In 1990, I represented sellers of a mixed-use building at 1330 Anacapa, mixed-use being a concept the City at the time did not embrace. Now, just a few years later, there are many mixed-use projects, a concept so openly encouraged by the City that you would think the City invented this concept on its own!
If there is to be no development other than agricultural along the Gaviota Coast (a good idea), then further residential & commercial development will have to go either up or down. Look at China and get a glimpse of the future. I suspect the larger real estate companies that are owned and controlled by entities away from our locale would like to see increased sprawl as well as towering high rise since that would increase inventory, require more licensees and generate greater profits for the corporate offices in New York, L.A. or wherever.
As long as the population soars, more & more development will necessarily take place. To think that Santa Barbara – or any other one-time quaint village - will become anything other than high-rise concrete canyons is living in a state of denial. We, and particularly our children and grandchildren, will soon live like sardines in a can working overtime to keep the economic engine churning and providing luxurious lifestyles to the very wealthy and their offspring. The rest of us will live on the crumbs as they “trickle down”.
I understand there are issues relative to building heights, but there are two sides we need to take into account. If a small home looses the sunlight & privacy from a towering overbuilt home next door desiring to capture a view, we need to ask what view the house really is capturing. Quiet enjoyment needs to be respected; a neighbor should have to build in a way that gives backyard privacy to the neighbors. I have clients repeatedly asking if the house next door is two stories. This is beginning to become an issue that will prevent sales of smaller homes. Privacy is more important than a view. If my neighbor decided to put a second story that would look into my backyard I would fight it. On the other hand I am one for development. We are all hypocrites to some degree. The politics’ behind these initiatives stem from people being affected that have the ability o bring it to the table. This is not a new discussion.
Downtown is different. Commercial buildings in my opinion should have no height restrictions. Growth is important in creating jobs etc. If a person wants to live downtown, they should understand privacy will be sacrificed a little. Maybe the city should reconsider the process for acquiring permits, because it is backwards and ridiculous in most cases. You can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars drawing plans etc. and then they say no.
Like most governmental agencies, the process is backwards.
The determining factor of what gets approved falls on who the architect is? Who's the developer? What projects have they done? And who can scratch their back...we live in a small community here where who you know actually matters. The same groups get variances where the blue collar worker can't get anything done. An initiative won't change anything for the "club members" just create more variances, more fees for variances, and more money in fees. That is what's behind this. You'll still see buildings above the height restrictions no matter what. These iniatives pacify people affected, but the city wants growth for tax reassessments and higher fees.
Another article, called The Big Sleep, can be found at:
http://www.noozhawk.com/point_of_view/article/0731_laura_hout_the_big_sleep
Uniform flat topped buildings (as proposed by the ballot initiative) are not beautiful enough for Santa Barbara. What's allowing larger buildings downtown is the new (5 years old) Mixed Use parking ordinance. The parking requirement was decreased. This ballot initiative is an 'end run' by special interest groups to avoid a public debate in the General Plan update proceedings. It's a power grab. Please look at the videos at AIAsb.com media link.
Post a Comment