Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!Amassing tall condo developments in downtown Santa Barbara, atop ground-floor offices and shops, will preserve from development the oak-studded hills of the Gaviota Coast north of the urban limit line. So say defenders of the 60-foot buildings that are going up on Chapala Street. Over the past several years, the city’s planning department has come to embrace the philosophy of “smart growth” as an alternative to sprawl, placing high-density apartment complexes and mixed-use projects in the commercial corridors, with the blessing not only of developers and housing advocates but also the Sierra Club and the Community Environmental Council. “Most environmental groups support the idea of a vital, lively urban core with people living in it, close to jobs and services, to preserve open space outside the city,” said Detlev Peikert, architect of the Bermant Development Company’s Paseo Chapala, which reaches heights of 50 feet. Completed in 2007, Paseo Chapala mirrors the Paseo Nuevo mall, which is directly across the street, except that its upper floors house 21 luxury condos and eight affordable condos.
Paul Wellman
Architect Detlev Peikert designed Paseo Chapala to look more delicate than one might expect from a 60-footer.
Building skyward to add more housing is better than building outward, Peikert said. “It’s a more environmentally sound use of land and energy resources.” People living in the city don’t have to commute, he explained, which saves gas. “It’s sort of a no-brainer on that level,” Peikert said. “It’s hard to argue for a more suburban model in the urban core,” which would necessitate a push into the countryside to find space for new housing, he said.
There is little doubt that Santa Barbara will have to create new housing. The state mandates that each region provide a certain number of new homes each year in order to accommodate its “fair share” of California’s population, which grows by about a half-million people each year. For another, the city offered to absorb some of the building that would otherwise occur in Gaviota by making deals to transfer landowners’ development rights from countryside to city.
Yet Paseo Chapala initiated the conversion of Chapala Street from an off-State Street haven for mom-and-pop shops — Juan Lara Saddlery, a locally owned boutique and beauty shop, a corner grocery — to a distinctly urban corridor. The project also set off a reaction against what critics have dubbed the “canyonization” of Chapala — a reaction that gained critical mass with the construction three blocks down of the even-bigger Chapala One, which is 60 feet high and almost a block long. Nestled against Mission Creek, it bears 46 homes on its top three stories, 11 of them affordable. In its later phases of construction, Chapala One has sprouted bouquets of exterior detailing, from blue-tiled alcoves to unique terra-cotta moldings, intended by the architectural firm Design Arc to charm pedestrians. If critics had been aware beforehand of the building’s beautiful skin, perhaps that would have tempered their criticism — though probably not. In any case, by the time these stylings materialized, the opposition had already sprung into action, led by former city office holders.
Paul Wellman
Bring It Down
Architect Don Sharpe, who had retired from public life after 13 years on the Architectural Board of Review and eight years on the Historic Landmarks Committee (HLC), immediately re-applied to the HLC and was reappointed at the beginning of 2007. He has been using his position to obstruct such projects by any means necessary. Former mayors Sheila Lodge and Harriet Miller as well as former planning commissioner Bill Mahan are busily heading up a petition drive to lock into the city’s charter a 40-foot height limit in El Pueblo Viejo.
The city’s historic district and its main commercial zone, Pueblo Viejo comprises a rectangle bordered by the downtown streets of Sola and Ortega, Chapala and Laguna, with extensions along Chapala, State, and Carrillo. The former mayors’ charter amendment would also impose a 45-foot limit in the rest of the city’s commercial areas. It would lock into the charter the existing 30-foot height limit, now decreed by ordinance, for single-family and two-family residential zones. Both of these, along with a 60-foot limit in Pueblo Viejo, are currently decreed by ordinance. A second petition, being circulated by longtime civic activist Jim Kahan, would charter a three-story, 38-foot height limit throughout the city. Petitioners will need about 7,000 signatures to get their charter amendments onto the November 8 ballot, where they will require approval by a simple majority of voters in order to pass.
During a City Council meeting in early March, Councilmember Helene Schneider publicly pleaded for the petitioners to hold off and to just participate in Plan Santa Barbara — a series of vision-drafting workshops to form policies ultimately to be folded into the city’s update of its general plan in 2010 — but to no avail. With 13 more projects more than 40 feet in height already in the Pueblo Viejo planning pipeline, the petitioners said that two years is too long to wait.
Not that they’re entirely opposed to density downtown. Everybody, on all sides of the height question, loves El Carrillo, a three-story, 35-foot-tall housing project on Carrillo Street that fits 62 studio apartments on a half-acre of land. El Carrillo incorporates actual nature — not just potted plants but earth, insects, trees, and seasons — in its interior courtyard, a design concept on many California architects’ list of favorites. However, its gracious outdoor spaces are made possible only by the waiver of all parking requirements and the small size of its apartments — 254 square feet each, reserved for people who were formerly homeless. City designers of all stripes also swoon over Casa de Las Fuentes, a 42-unit project just down the street from El Carrillo, designed by Peikert, which also has an inner garden as well as large decks on the upper floors. Its apartments are reserved for downtown workers without cars. Other high-density projects almost universally admired include Casas Las Granadas, 12 affordable apartments encrusted on the outside of the Granada Parking Garage, and the greenery-ringed Garden Court Apartments on De la Vina Street, which provide 97 affordable units for seniors. Both Casas Las Granadas and Garden Court Apartments are also Peikert projects. None require much parking, and all four were funded by government and private grants.
Earth and sky
The Chapala developments are an entirely different story, however. Too massive to blend with the city’s historic downtown, they are not the kind of things tourists come to see, say petitioners. And tourism is the city’s economic base. “Here we are building Pueblo Viejo to look like Orange County and Van Nuys and saying, ‘Now come visit us,’” said architect and former planning commissioner Fred Usher. Yes, Santa Barbara has to house the workers who make the tourist economy work, Usher agreed, but can do so without huge buildings. “In fact, there’s not a square foot of children’s play area in all of Paseo Chapala,” said architect Don Sharpe. “You’re going to get kids bouncing balls in halls against the doors of those $2-million condos.”
Developers contend that the only way they can subsidize affordable housing with their projects, as the city requires, is by spreading the cost among a large number of luxury condominiums. Former planning commission Mahan and other critics of the large condo projects beg to differ.
“You wouldn’t have to build property line to property line and 60 feet high to fit affordable [units] if you limited the square footage of the units,” Mahan insisted, seated at a conference table with Lodge and Sharpe as they pitched their case to this reporter. “Architects go around saying they can’t do it in 40 feet,” said Mahan, “but that’s not the truth, and we know because we are architects,” he said, nodding at Sharpe. “They can do it within 40 feet and make it more compatible and more beautiful.” The only thing stopping them is their clients’ attention to maximizing the bottom line, even though, according to these architects, profits on luxury condominiums are enormous. According to Mahan, they typically sell for more than twice what they cost to build.
Paul Wellman
Former Mayor Sheila Lodge has re-entered the public arena to fight tall buildings in the historic district. She prefers interior gardens such as this one at the Casa Las Fuentes, which sacrifices indoor space for more outdoor space in the urban core. It, too, was designed by Peikert.
True, the smaller projects would not be worth as much money, which would probably reduce the cost of the land. That, according to Lodge, would be a good thing. The review process would be speedier and therefore less expensive for less massive buildings, petitioners said, “because the Historic Landmarks Commission and the Planning Commission won’t be fighting tooth and nail with developers.”
The petitioners also took issue with the generally accepted view that tall buildings are greener than short ones because they shed less heat. Lodge and Mahan were scandalized by a newspaper ad for Paseo Chapala that boasted of ceilings 13 to 17 feet high; they estimated that the added square footage would increase heating costs by two-thirds or more compared to eight- or nine-foot ceilings. Moreover, they said, residential projects in mixed-use buildings are allowed to come all the way to the property line — and trying to persuade developers to move them back even a few inches is a major battle — yet windows on a property line cannot be opened, according to state building codes. That means there can be no cross ventilation to cool the building with fresh air. “How sustainable is that?” Sharpe demanded.
Last but not least, the petitioners challenge the contention that large condo developments in the city will prevent sprawl into rural areas. Lodge noted that San Francisco’s tall buildings, meritorious as they may be for other reasons, have not prevented city workers from commuting into the city from as far afield as Santa Rosa and Palo Alto. “If you build one,” declared Sharpe, “10 more will come.”
Paul Wellman
Getting Medieval
“I’m not sure what people are so afraid of,” Peikert responded. “Some of the most beautiful cities in the world have three-, four-, five-story buildings in the urban core. Go to a European medieval town, and there are many taller buildings, even in that small town, but it’s surrounded by open space; it’s how they conserve open space.” It might not happen automatically, he said, but it can happen with careful planning. Most critics will come to appreciate Paseo Chapala’s beauty when the ground floor commercial spaces are occupied and the trees get larger. And as for eight-foot ceilings, Peikert said, they were born in the ’50s and ’60s in a suburban setting. “When you are surrounded by backyards if might be okay,” Peikert said, “but in an urban environment, it’s important to provide the maximum amount of air and light and sense of space. Most of our buildings downtown have tall ceilings — you wouldn’t want an eight-foot ceiling in a store on State Street, it wouldn’t be enjoyable. Nine feet, okay. But eight feet? I’ve been to offices with eight-foot ceilings and immediately know I don’t want to spend eight hours a day sitting around in this space. It’s a little oppressive.”
“It’s too late to make Santa Barbara a medieval village,” Usher retorted. City dwellers need green space — beyond potted plants — close to home. Luxury condos in the core will push people outward, increasing pressure on the surrounding neighborhoods to build out to their 12-unit-per-acre maximum. Presuming everybody has to have off-street parking, will nature-loving Santa Barbarans really be content to reside in an all-concrete environment, he asked, or will they push ever outward into suburbs?
To bring more nature back into the urban environment, Peikert recommended that the city encourage rooftop gardens. “In fact we are now trying to incorporate it into all our urban projects. But do you know,” he said, “that there are some on the HLC who abhor roof gardens. Apparently they are worried that someone might have an umbrella which shows liveliness and life downtown.” Peikert might easily have been talking about Sharpe, who explained that his problem with roof gardens is that they “tend to turn into fourth stories,” what with tall trellising, plus stairwells and elevators, which project another 10 feet above roof level.
Peikert also suggested that the city could acquire more parkland in the urban core, though he admits that it would have been a lot cheaper a few years ago. Besides the desirability of interior courtyards, that’s another point on which Peikert sees eye to eye on with the tall-condo critics, who couldn’t agree more. “That’s the direction the city should go,” Usher said.
“So it really is in flux,” Peikert said, “as everybody tries to figure out what we want.”
This story has been updated to correct errors.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Nice article Martha. Important Discussion. If we can't even complete the Plaza de la Guerra for a downtown open space, --our own historic, and civilized amenity, how can we hope for the dreams of Peikert?
I tend to think the petition is necessary. The streetscape cannot be canyon-like and oppressive. Where's the sun? What are the effects of shadows. What's the wind doing? What about views?
How about some examples of these wonderful Medieval Cities Peikert is talking about? You can't invent them out of thin air. Fast growth is leading us down this road. Sheila Lodge will think about resources like water and how to sustain all this.
Protecting the urban boundary line is absolutely vital. The real character of our Pueblo Viejo is vital...Spanish era Paseos are vital. The Plaza is vital. Who is thinking about this?
The new urban plan should start with the three first overlays on the land. The Chumash City, The Spanish City, and so on, before getting to the American City. Lay the last layer on the historic.
Past is prologue.
Don't invent a Medieval City that never existed, and keep away from those property lines. Sheila is right.
And it's obvious to everyone by now that politically correct detailing from landmarks does not an architecture make.
Everybody read Vitruvius today. Start with the first chapter of the first book.
DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2008 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To DonJosedelaGuerra,
Since its obvious you have access to the internet, if you had done a simple Google image search of "medieval village, town or city" you would've been given many examples of a Medieval City you say never existed. I think history might disagree with you. I'm pretty sure human civilization existed back in the Medieval Ages where people built towns and cities with tall buildings that were built right up to the street and up to property lines directly adjacent to one another.
As for the "real character of our Pueblo Viejo," you need to look back on history yet again. Before the 1925 earthquake, Santa Barbara was a town/city with buildings much taller than present day, where State Street was lined with 3 and 4 story buildings. In addition, pre-1925 earthquake Santa Barbara looked nothing like a Spanish town, it looked more like any other town or city in US at that time, i.e. San Francisco. Only after the earthquake did the city begin building in the Spanish Colonial Revival Style. Also, if you're so worried about preserving that Spanish town look, you should look at actual Spanish towns where there virtually no setbacks, buildings 3,4,5 stories high built right next to each other, the streets would be much narrower with little to no cars, etc. Your idea of having real Spanish character is no where near the actual thing.
Maybe you yourself should read the Ten Books on Architecture by Vitruvius. He clearly states history as being important to architecture. If the people of Santa Barbara opposed to high buildings got out of their close-minded thinking that a Spanish town resembles Santa Barbara and look back on history to see how Spanish towns were built and still stand today, then they might see that the developments on Chapala Street are in the right direction.
Spanish towns/cities, such as Granada, Pamplona, and Sevilla are so densely packed that there are shadows everywhere. In these towns, since buildings are built right next to each other, they create barriers against wind. Having Santa Barbara actually resemble an actual Spanish town will make the city more intimate and lively and not "oppressive" as you say. If you want "canyon-like" go to a city like San Francisco, New York, Chicago. Santa Barbara is no where near being "canyon-like."
The current 60 foot height limit in the Commercial Zone, which includes most of El Pueblo Viejo, is more than reasonable. Currently, there are very few buildings in Santa Barbara that actually even reach that level anyways.
I agree with having nice open plaza though. I think it might be feasible to close some blocks off on State Street to begin to create that sense of a plaza or revitalize De La Guerra Plaza to make it much nicer and attractive.
ElJapo (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well El Japo, good day to you. I certainly know what a medieval city is, I lived in Aix-en-Provence for many years and know the interior medieval walled city complex and its virtues and problems quite well. You can be sure that I've also traveled all over so I've seen plenty of other versions. Please understand and I am sorry if you are confused, I am not contending that tabula rasa, medieval cities don't exist, they do indeed, have their charm. But you must agree with me that a medieval Santa Barbara never existed, so building one now, would be building fantasy. Never a good idea.
I advise you to get off the idea of pushing the virtues of a medieval Santa Barbara. That will get you nowhere.
The Plaza, the Casa de la Guerra, the Presidio, the Mission, and many of the extant adobes, are the visible presence of the Spanish past, of Presidio, Mission, Pueblo, in that order. Let our architects today pay attention to that. The inspiration for the Spanish Colonial Revival which you mention dominated as you say after the earthquake, thanks to Pearl Chase and the Plans and Planting folks (but there was some work before--like El Paseo) and all this was due to the real presence of a Spanish past in Santa Barbara.
After you finish reviewing Vitruvius (check out the old Spanish water system here for fidelity to the Roman technology of Vitruvius--you'll be amazed). Consider next, having a look at the Spanish 'Plan of the Indies' which was the architectural code in force with the Spanish built Santa Barbara. It is the oldest city planning document in the world...and the Spanish went everywhere with it. This might give you some more appropriate architectural ideas and clues.
Think about too, the difference between the military feel of Florence with its walls to the street canyons, and the Provencal, Spanish or Italian Hill towns with their set-backs and variations that so agreably please our eyes and refresh our spirits. After all, we have that Riviera in our Mountain background to think about...
'Man is the Measure' and 'Past as Prologue' keep those axioms in mind.
I agree with you that almost everything, how shall I put it, "icky" in Santa Barbara comes from the American build-out from the 1870s up to 1920--you've got the rectilinear grid system, bricks, cast-iron, and shazzam, even lighting...what a world!
We will do better if we pay attention to those things I mentioned in my first posting. I don't want to bore you with repeating myself...
Good luck. Medieval hardscape can be nice, but it's not us.
DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't recall protests against the Granada, the Arlington, or the Balboa building. I don't think the issue is tall buildings, but rather the rate of change in the CIty's appearance. A Measure E type of restriction on the rate of introduction of tall buildings might well be an answer.
And if you don't like canyonization, try walking a block.
Steve_Johnson (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's a suggested slogan for the "birthplace of environmentalism":
"GROW UP, SANTA BARBARA -- not out!!"
Those fighting development of moderate height limits in the urban core (and 60' is moderate, for cat's sake!), would freeze the present circumstances forever, doing no favors to future generations or the working folk the city absolutely relies on. No city worth its salt would do that. (Even Jefferson warned against binding the hands of future generations who must make their own choices, even if those choises are different from the present.) Those who point to buildings like the Granada, Arlington and Balboa adding interest and texture to the cityscape are right on. Does a thriving urban core need open spaces and play areas? Of course: density without relief is oppressive -- but all good planners and smart growthers know this.
GROW UP SANTA BARBARA!
Pagurus (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good morning. Interesting comments this morning. The occasional accented bigger building indeed may not be the problem with building up as Mr. Johnson points out, and certainly the rate of change in this part of the city is difficult to digest.
What concerns me on Chapala is the reinforcement of the Grand Boulevard effect with the large width of Chapala which is after all, a road to nowhere that ends at the freeway. This piling up of a dense wall of confusing architectural masses on both sides of the wide street amplifies the effect. Do the projects have the right relation to each other and then to this overly wide street? Just thinking out loud...
DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Two of my favorite cities New York (born there) and San Francisco. This one horse town needs more housing, so the city planners better get planning. Santa Barbara's "no growth" planning is not planning.
DarNel (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A City Charter amendment only requires a simple majority vote, not a 2/3 margin.
These are nice theories and spin that building taller will prevent horizontal urban sprawl, but where is the evidence??
The market demand is nearly insatiable, so once the tall unaffordable condos are sold out, demand still exists for more and more sprawl both vertically and horizontally. Sure, if the choice and system is EITHER UP or ACROSS for where to build more housing, then building up can make a lot of sense in the urban core cities. However, the choice does not exist, as it is BOTH in the real world.
Preventing urban sprawl depends upon raw political will to uphold zoning, urban limit lines, and Just Say No, as in up and down Gaviota Coast. Building even taller buildings in downtown Santa Barbara will do nothing to reduce the demand for horizontally spreding housing growth until the population of California stops increasing.
David_Pritchett (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2008 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good morning Mr. Pritchett...that is not a very optimistic picture you're painting! What is the policy dimension of your comment?
Build nothing? Only downtown? Up and down the Gaviota Coast? Only the Gaviota Coast? None of the above?
Do you have another alternative?
Or is it just: "raw political will, and just say no?"
I say (along with Dylan) "He who's not busy being born, is busy dying."
""People who live in densely populated places lead more environmentally friendly lives. They consume fewer resources per person and take up less space. And because efficiency scales with the size of the population, big cities are always more efficient than small cities."
Which is the more sustainable alternative...the spreading city or the urban city? Which is the more cultural alternative...the spreading city or the urban city?
DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2008 at 5:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Santa Barbara ain't no stinkin medieval city. But the pro-growth city council who approved this awful project is down right mid-evil.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Large mixed use buildings work in cities that have jobs where the pay scale is inline with the cost of real estate. Santa Barbara is not one of these. This type development will only provide more $10.00hr service jobs and a hoard of people commuting from the north and south to clean condos,water potted plants and mow and blow rooftops. Welcome the coming of second home owner haunted houses or worse, converted time shares. Eat,drink, flush, pose and go home.
Mugu (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, David Pritchett. That error has now been corrected in the online piece.
martha (Martha Sadler)
March 17, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Think everybody. What would the architect Jeff Shelton do?
DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
David Pritchett says " Building even taller buildings in downtown Santa Barbara will do nothing to reduce the demand for horizontally spreding housing growth until the population of California stops increasing."
David Pritchett is right, and nothing else anyone says will change that.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DonJosedelaGuerra says: "Good morning Mr. Pritchett...that is not a very optimistic picture you're painting!"
It IS rather grim, but the underlying issue of cramming more and more people into a limited amount of space is what is at stake, and all one has to do is compare the quality of life in Santa Barbara between now and (pick any particular time) 20, 25, 30 years ago and back then S.B. was not the frantic stressed out crowded place it is today.
It is easy to forget that the very thing that makes S.B. such a great place geographically--the fact that it is sandwiched between the ocean and the mountains--also dictates that spreading out as a city on the flatlands can do is not an option unless you go up and down the coast.
We can make different conclusions about "how many is too many?" but adding more buildings and people to Santa Barbara won't help the quality of life. Also, there are traffic issues.
It's interesting that with all the positive press Planned Parenthood gets in this town, its goal is steamrolled over by the growth that endlessly prevails.
I wish S.B. well, but realize the fight is pretty much over.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
These types of newer in-town mixed use projects seem to appeal to a lot of out of town buyers and second home buyers here in the Santa Barbara area. Many Europeans seem to also see them as natural growth for cities if you want to see open space maintained.
As a real estate agent here in Santa Barbara, I do come across these units quite often and right now the biggest negative that people seem to bring up is the "potential glut in supply."
I think the main topic I am approached with is the rate that these types of buildings are popping up in Santa Barbara...and now a similar proposal on Coast Village Rd in Montecito. This issue along with the height are the two areas of discussion for most people that I come across. Hopefully we as a city can find a balance.
www.SantaBarbaraRealEstateVoice.com
kevinschmidtchen (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the new,hip groovy downtown lifestyle of the rich and famous is to build your new boho condo underground. everyone who is anyone is doing it. you can go as far down as you want(water-table permitting). imagine how deep you can go, how much you can save on heating and cooling, and how many of your friends can pack in w/your unlimited underground free parking! this is the new urban aesthetic. only poor people and the chronically unhip will live above ground. laugh at zoning restrictions, depth limitations, paint your external walls bright purple, dare to cover your roof without spanish tiles, the possibilities are endless! get down!
rustyfairlane (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2008 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would say rusty has a down-to-earth approach to things. One would have to dig deep to afford such building costs though, and it's also best to be out in the open about permits. I would hate to get submerged in all the red tape such an undertaking would cause.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2008 at 2:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment