B Is for Bad

Maybe City Council should have adopted these clearer design guidelines before the 11,000 people helped qualify Measure B for the ballot? Don't take the voters for granted. Even Democratic voters like me who still like Das at the end of the day.

Measure B really makes no sense, and its supporters would make a greater contribution to Santa Barbara if they focused on lobbying the city to adopt stricter green building standards. A view is not as important as sustainable development. It's not the size of the Chapala monstrosities that upsets me it's their facade oriented aesthetic. Shelton's building is the most interesting because of its exaggerated design, but the others are forgettable!

Why can't the opponents of Measure B skip all the silly rhetoric?
If Measure B passes there will be a city-wide height limit of 45 feet, and a maximum of 4 stories. If it fails, we will be left with the (existing) limit of 60 feet and 4 stories.

The only difference will be a mere 15 feet, within the same 4 stories.

Now, who but a pro-development ideologue - or someone who hasn't been paying attention to the details - can seriously argue that the change can make one speck of difference as far as housing availability or affordability? It can't.

So why can't we drop all the "sky will fall" diversionary rhetoric, and decide the matter on the basis of esthetics and preferences for appearance of the city's skyline - which is all the Measure B proponents intended?

Baloney on "no ballot box planning". We can credit the very attributes of this city that we love to numerous "draconian" ballot-box measures!

Baloney on "the limit will cause sprawl, increased carbon footprint, preclude affordable housing". The difference in heights that Measure B would impose is a mere 15 feet - that make a huge difference in esthetics but minimal difference in what goes into the building's interior (it would, in fact, encourage the smaller housing units, that everybody seems to be clamoring for.)

How is that 15 foot difference going to cause the environmental sky to fall? There are plenty of "low profile" very sustainable cities!

And baloney on the claim that the Measure would preclude replication of architectural gems. That's beyond baloney: those red lines the opponents draw mostly affect architectural features - towers, decorative elements - that Measure A would not restrict. A good architect can create as many new "gems" within the new limit as before.

It is really all about esthetics; the rest is all Red Herring distraction. And esthetics is what the Santa Barbara we know and love is - and historically has been - all about.

How is that 15 foot difference going to cause the environmental sky to fall? There are plenty of "low profile" very sustainable cities!

And here I thought I lived in a democracy. Don't we the people get to have any say in what we want our city to look like? I like Measure B and I am voting for it. So are my friends.

I can't believe that a prominent architect would say there are lessons to be learned from the buildings on Chapala, most notably the need for greater setbacks from the street. Does he really think that is all that is wrong with them? What about, they are way too tall, big, and massive and don't fit at all with Santa Barbara.

Do the opponents of Measure B think we are stupid? Are we really supposed to believe that if Measure B failed urban sprawl will go away and suddenly these condos they want to build will be truly affordable? Think again.

By the way, where is all of that affordable housing that the developers had the opportunity to build with the 60 foot height limit? I must have missed it.

Join me and Vote YES on Measure B, the true will of the people.

LongTimeResident asks a good question: where are all the 60' affordable housing buildings? There are none, because the City changed the economics by approving luxury housing projects in the R3/R4 zones. Take a minute to watch
http://homepage.mac.com/saj777/pop_th...
Approving R3 luxury housing inflated land costs, killing any chance for non-subsidized affordable housing.

joer43, Measure B restricts building heights to 40' in the El Pueblo Viejo district (downtown). The extra 5' makes a critical difference when trying to design a 4-story mixed use project. But otherwise I agree with your point that dropping the limit from 60' to 45' (while allowing architectural features to exceed 45') won't make a lot of difference. But in that case, why is the new ordinance needed?

An unlikely coalition of agency representatives. So what? Doesn't look like much compared to the 11,500 residents who signed the petition to vote YES ON MEASURE B.

By the way, its a bit one-sided to not include YES ON MEASURE B argument in the "news" article, don't you think?