First Look at Bacara Condos

It's *my* local beach. (I live up canyon.) Enough! No more Bacara buildings. What had been one of the best 'locals only' beaches (because no one else would hike down there from the railroad tracks) was changed forever when they came, and not for the better. They just keep pushing and pushing. Enough!

I can remember once (whenBacara was 1st built), on a beach ride on my mountain bike, a Bacara security guard ran up & started yelling @ me that I was trespassing on "private property" & that he could have me arrested.
I asked him if he was aware of the California Coastal Commission Act that declared that "private beachfront property" begins approximately 7' above the neap tide line.
The "gentleman" looked puzzled & continued on about my alleged act of trespassing.
I asked him to call his manager, he did & the manager ruled in my direction.
Why did this EVEN happen? I'm just minding my business, riding along CA coastline, OUR backyard & this?
Bacara is REALLY pushing the bounds of their commitment to the Goleta community w/ an ultimate goal to keep all "undesirables" (lowly working class Goletans) out of "their property" for good.
Sure, they've done things like put in "public" restrooms & created "parking" w/ the intention of seeming like a good neighbor.
But underneath all that smokescreen lies a more sinister plan & we all know what it is: Keep locals away from the pricey tourists because after all, local yokels are a nuisance.
Kind of the same way Cubans aren't allowed in the very resorts in Cuba that they can only work @ in order to avoid contact w/ the tourists as they spend tons of $$$ :) henry

Hank, they do let the Cuban women in $$$$

Lord, HAHAHA! Yeah. It's called "state sponsored prostitution" & has made an EVEN bigger comeback under Castro's rule. Sad state of affairs down there, but fair & funny question :) henry

It should be pointed out that in these tough economic times, Bacara remains one of the largest employer of "Goletans", and helps the local economy. That's great that you guys surf and ride your bikes and feel your beach invaded. But, just once, consider some of the families of the Bacara employed, and their ability to live in lovely Goleta/Santa Barbara in the first place.

Brandon, I never said "my beach was invaded" by any means. That beach is technically everyone's beach. What was invaded (temporarily) was my right to use that beach by an unknowing individual.
True, they are a local employer, props to them for that. But really, you have to wonder why the attempts to keep the locals from using the beach keep happening.
They may own the Bacara property, but they don't own the beach, well, up to 7' over the neap tide line & down. Bottom line: It's the law :) henry

I think the rendering is very California: chic and progressive.....like the avant garde bungalows designed in the 50Â's by Craig Ellwood in Los Angeles...that juxtapose against the kitschy Chateau MarmontÂ's feux Normanism.

Does SB really need more red tile?! It is 2009 in case no one noticed!!

I say VIVA the minimalist design!! and beach access too!!

Thanks, "lovechop". I concur on the design.

As for the BAR suggesting that green roofs are a maintenance problem, I say, Welcome to the 21st century! Do some research before you open your mouths. Now they are discouraging using common sustainable green building techniques that they obviously know nothing about. Quote from Noozhawk.com: "The green roofs were not such a great idea, said a couple of members, because of the maintenance required."

Good heavens is that ever ugly! Not that red tile is beautiful either but wow...two design mistakes do not make a right. Phew!

Is there a reason this county seems to keep rubber-stamping all this development? Once the ground is paved over, it's gone forever, and another ugly development is just not necessary.

All one needs to do is look south to Hell-A to see what malignant development has done there; traffic, crowds, pollution and a complete elimination of any quality of life for the people who have to live there. They have allowed development right up to the water in most cases, and access to beaches is severely restricted to only those wealthy enough to own beachfront property.

I agree with lovechop in that the whole red tile thing is passe..but minimalist is just plain ugly and is not an improvement.

This county does not need more condos, country clubs, strip malls, dense development etc. There is no shortage of any of this stuff. Let these developers go back to where they live and foul their own nests for a change, instead of fouling everyone else's.

You don't see this junk being built in Hope Ranch, Montecito, or other tony areas where these developers and investors live. They hide behind their gates and guards, far away from the rest of us who have to look at this garbage and have our beach access restricted.

Enough already!

I hate to tell anyone what to do with their own property but it would truly be a wonder to see some of these people exercise some restraint and social responsibility, and NOT pave over every square inch of dirt they can gobble up.

Brit's can't design s... or cook. Take a look at Brit designed and developed beach properties around the globe. Ugly, dated junk. The Canary Islands are a good start.

What somebody does w/ their property ain't an issue & shouldn't be w/ anyone outside that property.
What's the issue is if they restrict access to a public beach, trail or road. That is the crux of the problem many tend to see.
Ugly or not, their property, go to town! Block access to a beach many of us have been going to, we got an issue.
When the plans of a property begin to expand outside that line, the question becomes "who is trespassing now?" :) henry

I think you emotionally misunderstood the context or intent of my statement. What's built there is there & it ain't going away, simple fact/reality. Somebody approved it, therefore it exists & an addition within that property really won't change much. Again, simple fact/reality.
It is when things go OUTSIDE said property & start affecting the surrounding area's normal usage that the problem arises. That was all I meant by the statement you rhetorically took to a new level of over-literalism.
I hope I'm wrong on how you took the statement, but just like my statement seemed a way to you, your response seemed a way to me :) henry

I know & understand how you feel. It is a frustrating thing for all parties concerned. Look @ the development near Sandpiper in Ellwood. What a waste! It's U-G-L-Y, is barely occupied & is, well, U-G-L-Y.
My wife & me were owl watching 1 evening around November & we noticed that out of the ~30 units there, only a few were actually occupied. A waste of a beautiful place, definately gave it that O.C./Hell-A appearance.
The good thing is we can still circumnavigate that cluster, but don't be surprised in property owners in that compound try to keep us out of Ellwood. Let em' try, that'll be a battle worth fighting :) henry

This is going to be a nice weekend! It is our summer here, as opposed to some places where it is -5F. BRRRR!
The Haskells Locs, man, what a fun bunch! We need to have those all day surf/camp sessions again! :) henry

Why, why, why, why, why, why would any of this be a good thing?

Here's a sort of "epiphany" that occured to me @ 2:30 a.m. in bed: In light of the current economic situation (which is not good @ the moment), do the owners/developers really think that this move to expand/build more will bring in more cash flow?
The economy has been in a downturn since 1998, yet developers seem to feel that building MORE expensive/exclusive dwellings is going to be the ticket for more $$$ in their pocket. I beg to differ.
Again, w/ reference to the Ellwood project next to Sandpiper, look @ the fact that those units were built in better economic times than now, but have yet to be fully occupied & from what I understand, there's not many knocks on the door from potential buyers.
I'm not a finance or economics wiz, but something there just don't make sense to me. Maybe it was the Superbowl festivities :) henry

"It should be pointed out that in these tough economic times, Bacara remains one of the largest employer of "Goletans", and helps the local economy. That's great that you guys surf and ride your bikes and feel your beach invaded. But, just once, consider some of the families of the Bacara employed, and their ability to live in lovely Goleta/Santa Barbara in the first place."

-BrandonMPSU-

Brandon: The overall benefits to Goleta locals is minimal. Yes, there are some people who benefit (and how many of these are recent transplants) but the overall effect it has on the vast majority of local is a negative one because it affects their use of a natural resource, and in the long run, does nothing tangible to help the economy,

To put it in stark terms: A few decades back the Santa Barbara/Goleta area was affordable and did not have anywhere near the traffic and sense of "rats-in-a-cage" feeling that is has today. All the development that has happened has not made the area affordable to working-class people. All this hotel has done is created more traffic and a sense of driving people out of here.

To put it yet another way: How many long-time locals do you hear saying "life is better here thanks to all this development"?