Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › One Paseo Vote
- This topic has 266 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
Coronita.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 19, 2015 at 7:36 AM #783170February 19, 2015 at 1:36 PM #783181
njtosd
Participant[quote=carli]No one I know is reminiscing about horses and open fields, wishing to go back to those days. Most of us look forward to having more housing, dining, entertainment and shopping options nearby, and again, no one I know is opposed to One Paseo being built in the right way.
…..
But still, bring on the housing, dining, retail and entertainment right now in the right density, and it will be a welcome improvement to the area. Most of us are trying to say just that, but that part gets drowned out with all the rhetoric and accusations of NIMBYism, etc. There is more common ground here than most realize.[/quote]
I completely agree. Had Kilroy come in with a plan for 500,000 sq ft without a residential element (which would likely require a new school that is not even contemplated) I would be perfectly content. Perhaps I would be able to get a parking space at Ralphs when I need to run out to the store rather than driving around for 10 minutes searching for one.
Kilroy has tried to cast this conversation as all or nothing, which it isn’t. They are completely able to build a reasonably sized development under the current zoning – they just want more and they want us to bear the brunt of it.
February 19, 2015 at 3:29 PM #783184rb_engineer
ParticipantInteresting and relevant article:
February 19, 2015 at 3:45 PM #783185The-Shoveler
ParticipantYes that’s what the Ivy hall types keep trying to sell the public, but the buyers are voting with their pocket books and the builders are listening.
If I lived in Woodbury, I would move,” Marohn said. “I would not be confident the house would hold its value over time.”
FAMILIES PREFER SUBURBS
But that isn’t what’s going to happen, said Danks of the Builders Association.
Danks said the study underestimates the demand — and doesn’t understand why buyers favor single-family homes.
She said the report asked misleading questions of the millennials. “If you ask them, they will say, sure, they want to be downtown. When I was that age, that’s what I wanted,” Danks said.
As they get older and raise families, they will migrate to the suburbs, she said.
That’s what Dave DuBay did. In August, DuBay moved with his wife and three children from St. Paul into a house about twice as big in Lakeville.
“We moved to the city when we did not have kids, and moved to the suburbs when we did,” said DuBay, 42.
The house, in the Spirit of Brandtjen Farm development, is a four-bedroom home on one-third of an acre.
One reason for the move was the development’s slew of amenities, including a community pool, clubhouse with gym, and bike trails.
“The neighborhood is fantastic,” DuBay said.
A report from the National Association of Realtors supports Danks’ theory. The report said the percentage of homebuyers who bought single-family homes increased steadily from 75 percent in 2006 to 80 percent in 2013.
That’s been John Lockner’s experience. He sells homes in Woodbury for RE/MAX Results — and sales are booming.
“As long as there is market demand, the single-family home is what builders will be wedded to,” said Lockner, a former president of the St. Paul Area Association of Realtors.
Developers of urban apartments say they are more environmentally friendly because their occupants use less gasoline, as well as less water and electricity. But Lockner said the appeal of environmental friendliness is overestimated.February 19, 2015 at 6:03 PM #783186FlyerInHi
GuestExcellent point, Shoveler. Let’s not listen to what the “Ivy hall” is selling the public. There’s a market for certain housing products and urban development. Let’s give people what they want and not force it.
Nobody is forcing high-density on Lakeville, Lakeside, Lakeshore or Lakewhatever.
So, likewise, let’s not force a development based on a 1975 plan, more appropriate for Lakeside, on prime land close to prime employment centers.
Let’s give people what they want and let the market success or failure of the proposed development become the “catalytic converter” for things to come.
February 19, 2015 at 6:25 PM #783187
svelteParticipant[quote=carli]
Reality now is that zero public transit is even being proposed for the area until 2035 and even that is unplanned/unsure/unbudgeted. [/quote]Well. Maybe technically it is true that nothing is proposed right now, but I doubt it happens anywhere near that late.
http://www.sdmts.com/MTS/documents/rtm-oct-2014.pdf
In the above link, scroll down to Q4 and you’ll see that MTS Route 308 passed about 2 miles from One Paseo.
Once One Paseo is complete, it would be simple to re-route 308 to go to the corner of Del Mar Heights Road and El Camino Real…and it could be done for virtually zero cost.
Take that bus 5 miles to the Coaster and you’re set up to go anywhere in the county.
February 19, 2015 at 9:27 PM #783188spdrun
ParticipantYes that’s what the Ivy hall types keep trying to sell the public, but the buyers are voting with their pocket books and the builders are listening.
Riddle me this: if there’s no demand, why are good downtown areas so damned expensive per sq ft?
February 19, 2015 at 10:41 PM #783189an
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=carli]
Reality now is that zero public transit is even being proposed for the area until 2035 and even that is unplanned/unsure/unbudgeted. [/quote]Well. Maybe technically it is true that nothing is proposed right now, but I doubt it happens anywhere near that late.
http://www.sdmts.com/MTS/documents/rtm-oct-2014.pdf
In the above link, scroll down to Q4 and you’ll see that MTS Route 308 passed about 2 miles from One Paseo.
Once One Paseo is complete, it would be simple to re-route 308 to go to the corner of Del Mar Heights Road and El Camino Real…and it could be done for virtually zero cost.
Take that bus 5 miles to the Coaster and you’re set up to go anywhere in the county.[/quote]
According to the One Paseo website, they’re proving shuttle to residence to the Sorrento coaster station. So you don’t even need to wait for MTS to reroute 308.February 20, 2015 at 4:01 AM #783192CA renter
Participant[quote=AN][quote=The-Shoveler]That’s kind of the point, it grows organically as a location matures and grows, it’s not force fed.
When the strip mall owner is suddenly offered 10-20 million for his land, the Biz owners will mostly like get something too, it just kind of works itself out.[/quote]But areas like built out suburbs won’t grow, unless it already has an urban core w/in it. If it doesn’t, it will most likely just stand still as a suburb. Have you seen very many suburb with no urban core reinvent/grow itself and add an urban core?
Even if the strip mall owner might get offered 10-20 millions for his land, the surrounding residence won’t let that strip mall be converted to an urban core with mix use. That’s my point, I just don’t see that happen. A strip mall can be renovated, but it will stay a strip mall.
Also, you don’t want just any strip mall to be converted to mix used urban core. You want your urban core to be near freeway/public transit. Those are the kind of things that need proper planning.[/quote]You’d be surprised. My MIL’s neighborhood in LA looks vastly different today than it did just 10-15 years ago. Her house is beginning to look like the old man’s house in the movie “UP,” when the big city was being built all around the quaint little house. (the second picture down)
They’ve torn down some old favorites (houses and businesses) and built up 4-5 story buildings in their places. It’s happening all over the place in the older parts of LA, including the suburbs.
February 20, 2015 at 4:08 AM #783193Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Carli, I would argue that zoning takes away property rights. The rules are cookie cutter arbitrary and don’t take into account the lay of the land, people with resources can get variances but the regular guy is hurt.
So you end up with ugly suburbs like Clairemont that don’t get up zoned and remodeled.
I thInk my view is more big picture than those of soccer moms who don’t want to deal with traffic taxiing their kids around in their SUVs and mini vans.[/quote]
Your last paragraph says it all. You should be allowed to live in a high-density area if that’s what you like, but “soccer moms” should also be able to live in the boring suburbs if that’s what they like. We need ALL types of neighbhorhoods because different people have different needs and desires.
Soccer moms shouldn’t be able to force their way of life on you, and you shouldn’t be able to force your way on them. Thank goodness we aren’t all alike. That gives us more choice, which is a GOOD thing!
February 20, 2015 at 9:34 AM #783194Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=The-Shoveler]That’s kind of the point, it grows organically as a location matures and grows, it’s not force fed.
When the strip mall owner is suddenly offered 10-20 million for his land, the Biz owners will mostly like get something too, it just kind of works itself out.[/quote]But areas like built out suburbs won’t grow, unless it already has an urban core w/in it. If it doesn’t, it will most likely just stand still as a suburb. Have you seen very many suburb with no urban core reinvent/grow itself and add an urban core?
Even if the strip mall owner might get offered 10-20 millions for his land, the surrounding residence won’t let that strip mall be converted to an urban core with mix use. That’s my point, I just don’t see that happen. A strip mall can be renovated, but it will stay a strip mall.
Also, you don’t want just any strip mall to be converted to mix used urban core. You want your urban core to be near freeway/public transit. Those are the kind of things that need proper planning.[/quote]You’d be surprised. My MIL’s neighborhood in LA looks vastly different today than it did just 10-15 years ago. Her house is beginning to look like the old man’s house in the movie “UP,” when the big city was being built all around the quaint little house. (the second picture down)
They’ve torn down some old favorites (houses and businesses) and built up 4-5 story buildings in their places. It’s happening all over the place in the older parts of LA, including the suburbs.[/quote]You’re right, it does happen, but I think on average, it very hard to rezone. Every city and suburb have a different feel and desire. So, just because some suburb are willing to rezone and become more dense doesn’t mean the vast majority would. That essentially is my point, it’s more likely to see houses/strip malls/business buildings remodeled and rebuilt within the same footprint. I think it’s more rare to see a strip mall converted to a high dense urban center where you now have mixed use zoning where it wasn’t there before. If you take a look at all the suburbs/strip malls/etc in America and see how many actually get upzoned and change drastically. I don’t have data, but my gut feeling is a very small % actually go through the kind of transformation that you’re talking about and what got displayed in the movie “Up”.
You can easily look at some of the older part of San Diego as a prime example. You have places in San Diego that were built at the turn of the last century. Yet, the general zoning of them haven’t changed all that much over the last 50 years. Better yet, just look at One Paseo and Carmel Valley as a prime example. All the opponents seems to oppose it because it’s a mix use project. If it’s purely a strip mall, there won’t be as much objection. The opponents objects to the change in zoning because it’ll be detrimental to their quality of life. Once this is built as a strip mall, do you seriously think they will tear it down w/in our life time and rebuild it as a mixed used town center? My gut feeling say there’s a 0% chance of that happen. Once this is built, it’ll stay as what it is w/in our life time. It might get remodeled over the years, but the zoning won’t change.February 20, 2015 at 10:16 AM #783195carli
ParticipantAN, opponents are not generally against One Paseo because it’s a mixed use project. To the contrary, I think most of us feel the mixed use aspect makes it more attractive. A village center concept is extremely appealing…who doesn’t want more connectivity, walking paths, gathering places, cafes, etc? Especially if we can actually live and/or work in that village center. This is much more attractive than a strip mall.
The issue with One Paseo is not the design or the mixed use aspect, it’s the density and scale.
And I don’t have faith that the lack of public transit will change anytime soon. Yes, it should be easy to fix as there are two bus lines currently 2+ miles away from One Paseo, but locals have been working for years to bring either one of those bus lines up Del Mar Heights Rd, without any success. It would be great if One Paseo became the catalyst to make that happen, but if that was likely, why wouldn’t the developer and/or elected officials be saying so as part of their pitch? So far, the only offer the developer has suggested is that they might have a shuttle bus to the Coaster station. Nice, but not going to be useful to anyone who needs to get around the area, going to the beach, schools, library, other shopping areas, etc – and isn’t that the point of creating hubs/villages in the area?
By now, you must be tired of my restating these points so to change topics slightly, here’s a semi-related story I read in today’s NYTimes, about micro-apartments and the demand for them in NYC, as their single population has grown from 1/3 to 1/2 of the total population. Now don’t go telling me this would be good for Carmel Valley, lol, but micro apartments are a great concept in areas that are in demand by singles, and already have robust public transit systems and high density. 🙂
February 20, 2015 at 10:54 AM #783196Participantcarli — the micro-apartment complex mentioned in the article is utter over-hyped shit. Anyone paying $2000-$3000 for a 260-360 square foot apartment should be given a free apartment in the Ward’s Island loony bin, considering that there are plenty of other buildings in safe, convenient areas where $3000/mo will get you 2-3x the apartment.
I’ve also seen the layouts. Fully 2/3 of the floor space is dedicated to bathroom and kitchen, because they decided to make ALL apartments in the building accessible rather than just some percentage. Furthermore, they designed the apartments with an entrance at the narrow side of the rectangle, which means they lose more space by having a “corridor” past the bath and kitchen.
Yuck!
February 20, 2015 at 11:19 AM #783198Participant[quote=spdrun]carli — the micro-apartment complex mentioned in the article is utter over-hyped shit. Anyone paying $2000-$3000 for a 260-360 square foot apartment should be given a free apartment in the Ward’s Island loony bin, considering that there are plenty of other buildings in safe, convenient areas where $3000/mo will get you 2-3x the apartment.
I’ve also seen the layouts. Fully 2/3 of the floor space is dedicated to bathroom and kitchen, because they decided to make ALL apartments in the building accessible rather than just some percentage. Furthermore, they designed the apartments with an entrance at the narrow side of the rectangle, which means they lose more space by having a “corridor” past the bath and kitchen.
Yuck![/quote]
Bummer about the bad design – weird, too, because they won the design competition. Probably Bloomberg’s rules for the design competition stated they had to all be accessible.
Will be interesting to see how they’re received by the marketplace of single renters. Maybe the advantages of being with a community of other singles and having some other nice pluses (storage space, common areas, good light) will be enough to outweigh the design/layout. For millenials, it might be kind of like moving back into their old college dorms, but in the city and with amenities.
They may prefer that to moving into a more demographically mixed, older building, even if it’s cheaper.
February 20, 2015 at 11:43 AM #783199ParticipantI don’t know — it’s sort of a boring part of NY. Many buildings have storage for $25/mo or so. If I wanted good light in Manhattan for under $2500/mo, I’d rent something like the listings below. Charging $3000/mo for an apartment with a giant kitchen, bath, and no living space is frankly criminal. I’d sooner see most of them (a few are already subsidized) turned into subsidized housing for people who actually need that kind of setup, since it’s lacking in NYC.
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/fee/4900188348.html (about 500 sf)
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/sub/4860869756.html (400 sf /w fireplace)
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/nfb/4900177539.html (450 sf)
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/nfb/4900157056.html (3 bedroom uptown)
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/sub/4895677496.html (small 1 bedroom) -
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.