Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › One Paseo Vote
- This topic has 266 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
Coronita.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 20, 2015 at 11:45 AM #783197February 20, 2015 at 11:48 AM #783200
carli
Participant[quote=AN]carli, here’s a good read about the opposition. http://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2015/01/26/one-paseo-deserves-no-vote-february/
One Paseo currently zoned for 510,000 square feet of office and retail space and no residential. Kilroy is applying for 1,454,069-square-foot of office and retail and 608 residential units. So, if you disagree with this opponent, what would you suggest?[/quote]
AN, yep, that piece sums up all the reasons why One Paseo is a bad idea, in its current form. Dave Roberts is a good guy and has stepped up to push back on the developer and voice valid concern on behalf of his constituents. I’m not sure why some other elected officials have not, but I could probably guess.
To answer your question, it’s not really up to me or anyone else in the community (nor are most of us qualified) to respond with a better development design for that property. Theoretically, the community has already outlined what we feel is appropriate for that property by implementing zoning regulations, which the developer clearly knew before he bought the land. If a developer like Kilroy wants to apply to build beyond those regulations, especially to the tune of 3x, he needs to be able to justify why. And if he’s turned down, then he can redesign and if he’s still outside current zoning regulations, it’s incumbent on him to again explain the impacts to the community and city officials to find out what’s acceptable.
I would have no way of knowing, for example, what the traffic impacts would be if the design contained 300 housing units instead of the current 600+. Maybe that would be okay, but since 300 housing units are still outside of current zoning regs, it would be up to Kilroy to do the traffic study, explain the impact and make a case for it, and then the community would respond, not the other way around.
February 20, 2015 at 11:53 AM #783201Participant[quote=spdrun]I 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)[/quote]I’m with you, I usually go for charm and good design over newness, but I think we might be in the minority. It will be interesting to see how these places are received by the marketplace.
February 20, 2015 at 12:10 PM #783202The-Shoveler
ParticipantMaybe I am wrong,
But it seems like the only people who want this project don’t actually live in CV LOL.
.
I guess there is your answer.Put it in other people’s back yard.
PIIOPBY LOLFebruary 20, 2015 at 12:49 PM #783205FlyerInHi
GuestSo what? When the comminity changes different people will move in. Nothing is static.
It’s like downtown. At one point few wanted to live there. Now it’s more desirable.
Btw, why wait decades to tear down and rebuild. This is empty land. Let the developer build something economically appropriate to the location near a top employment center.
February 20, 2015 at 1:00 PM #783203spdrun
ParticipantI’m with you, I usually go for charm and good design over newness, but I think we might be in the minority.
Not in NYC. Not when the layouts are as bad as this. Essentially, people are paying for $2000-3000 for 100-150 sf of usable living space, which is asinine.
February 20, 2015 at 1:47 PM #783206Guest[quote=spdrun]
I’m with you, I usually go for charm and good design over newness, but I think we might be in the minority.
Not in NYC. Not when the layouts are as bad as this. Essentially, people are paying for $2000-3000 for 100-150 sf of usable living space, which is asinine.[/quote]
spd, people like new, crisp, clean, bright and airy. All my apartments are pure white, euro look, with clean lines. I rent them out so easily. You may question the layout, but those micro apartments have the right feel.
The old quaint/rustic look is not appropriate for apartments. They give the space an icky feel.
Granite countertops should be square edge. The old bullnose look is yucky. No raised paneling on doors.
In a big house that you personalize for yourself, anything goes; but in an apartment, things should be modern. It’s really useless to add ornamental elements to small urban apartments.
In this apartment you linked to. The kitchen and bath are icky. There is no design thought to them. Farm house type cabinets in a NY apartment?!!?
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/fee/4900188348.htmlFebruary 20, 2015 at 2:10 PM #783207an
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]Maybe I am wrong,
But it seems like the only people who want this project don’t actually live in CV LOL.
.
I guess there is your answer.Put it in other people’s back yard.
PIIOPBY LOL[/quote]
Though I don’t live in CV, in my area, there are two new developments that are much denser and larger than One Paseo and I fully support them. So, it’s not about PIIOPBY. I would have loved to have the neighborhood strip mall be wiped out and put in something like One Paseo as well.February 20, 2015 at 2:27 PM #783212ParticipantAN
I was just kidding about the PIIOPBY thing, but it does seem strange (or telling) that no one has come out and said, “I live in CV and I fully support this”.But really I don’t have a problem with nimbyism in SD.
February 20, 2015 at 2:30 PM #783208ParticipantFlyerInHI: With due respect, I’m 99% sure that most renters in NYC would overlook the kitchen cabinets and instead focus on the fact that it has 2-3x (i.e. non-kitchen/bath space) the usable floor space and good light for the same price (unsubsidized) as any of the micro-apartments.
From the view, it looks like the apartment has windows facing south and west on a high floor, which isn’t bad. I’m guessing it’s at 250 East 39th St. (I know the pinkish building in the view is #240) if you want a Google View.
February 20, 2015 at 3:14 PM #783214Guest[quote=spdrun]
Yes 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?[/quote]
Shoveler is a few decades late. At one time, people were abandoning the city and moving to the suburbs. In the 1960s and 1970s. The trend started reversing in the late 1980s.
What Shoveler forgets that it that the suburbs and beyond were made possible by a subsidy regime that funds highway construction and forces public and private companies (eg telecom) to provide services out in the boonies for the same price.
Left to market forces, services providers, from the post office to telecom, cable and utilities, would charge more where there are fewer users and lower economies of scale.
February 20, 2015 at 3:22 PM #783215Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=spdrun]
Yes 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?[/quote]
Shoveler is a few decades late. At one time, people were abandoning the city and moving to the suburbs. In the 1960s and 1970s. The trend started reversing in the late 1980s.
What Shoveler forgets that it that the suburbs and beyond were made possible by a subsidy regime that funds highway construction and forces public and private companies (eg telecom) to provide services out in the boonies for the same price.
Left to market forces, services providers, from the post office to telecom, cable and utilities, would charge more where there are fewer users and lower economies of scale.[/quote]
Most the Big Cities were started because of the importance of their ocean and river ports (for transport and commerce), though still important they are not nearly so much as they were 80 or so years ago.
IMO the recent high prices are the result of hype and limited supply, that same limited (downtown) supply is the real limit to this success IMO (it only allows for a very small percentage of the population, it won’t scale).
February 20, 2015 at 4:01 PM #783216GuestYes and the ocean and rivers are natural features. Go to Europe ans Asia. The thousand year old villages are accessible by riparian means.
transport to the suburbs require highways and oil.
Btw, I own properties in las Vegas, a poster child for the suburban subsidy regime. But I wouldn’t claim it’s a natural state of living. We can technically do many things which require lots of resources.
A skyscraper is “unnatural” and “wasteful” but high density houses up to 10 stories are very carbon footprint friendly.
February 20, 2015 at 4:36 PM #783218Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]AN
I was just kidding about the PIIOPBY thing, but it does seem strange (or telling) that no one has come out and said, “I live in CV and I fully support this”.But really I don’t have a problem with nimbyism in SD.[/quote]Like I said since the beginning, I don’t have a dog in this fight, so whatever they decide, it’s fine by me. I was just talking generally about San Diego and its suburbs. I’m glad the planning group for my area embrace density and approve projects that would put One Paseo to shame in term of density. But if people in CV don’t want it, it shouldn’t be shove down their throat. They should get to decide how their community evolve. Which is why I would have like to see some kind of a vote by the residence.
February 20, 2015 at 5:35 PM #783219GuestAbsolutely not.
Do the residents of bario Logan get to stop nassco expansion? -
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.