One Paseo Vote

[FlyerInHi]

Those decades old master plans remind me of the 5-year plans, 10-year plans in communist countries. Totally useless and irrelevant to the situation at hand.

Times change, demographics change, business environments change. We didn’t have Qualcomm when the Carmel Valley plan was put in place.

Building technology for multifamily housing has improved in last few decades. By the Irvine Spectrum, they built a huge complex that looks just fine and provides comfortable living. Not like the apartments of the past.

There is pent up demand. Build the project and every single unit will be filled up. If you believe in the free market, you would support this project. People need to be housed somewhere close to their work places. That’s the best thing we can do for the environment.

[spdrun]

I’m not that picky — as long as it works, I’m OK with it. I’m not actually convinced that the food cooked in a 1950s kitchen tastes any worse than food cooked in a 2015-era HGTV kitchen.

Nor that once you replace the basic fixtures, paint, and tile, a 1970s bathroom works any less well than a spankin’ new one.

[carli]

[quote=AN]carli, so, what you’re saying is, One Paseo is too dense. But yet, you also say there’s no public transit. You also say it’s impossible to stop the development and all of Carmel Valley are zoned to be not very dense. Which mean that you don’t mind that Carmel Valley will forever be a lower density area with no public transit, since there’s not enough density for a need for public transit. Am I understanding that correctly?[/quote]

AN –

Yes to your first two statements, which means yes, I’m saying One Paseo is too dense and yes, I’m saying there is NO public transit.

No to your third statement, as I don’t think I ever said “it’s impossible to stop the development” but what I did say is that there are already developments in the pipeline that should not/could not be stopped.

And no to your fourth statement “…you don’t mind that Carmel Valley will forever be a lower density area with no public transit…” If that’s how you understood what I was stating, I’ll clarify this is not what I meant to express. I do not want Carmel Valley to be solely made up of low density housing, nor do I want it to stay free of public transit. The opposite is true.

I think we differ in terms of the priority we place on things like aesthetics, quality of life (including hassle factors like traffic), environmental impacts, etc, or maybe we just have different needs.

Either way, I believe residents of a city should have a chance to weigh in on both the community planning process as well as major deviations from the plan, such as this one. As you said, it’s too bad we can’t send this One Paseo proposal to a vote.

As someone else mentioned, of course community plans become outdated quickly so let’s figure out a way to respond quicker to the changes in our community. But swinging the pendulum all the way to the other side and throwing out the plan to say yes to any developer’s proposal (the denser, the better) just because we need more housing is not the right answer. There is some common ground in between.

And a free market approach may sound attractive in theory, but I believe most people want a voice in how their surroundings evolve, especially when a considerable part of their income and/or net worth is probably tied up in it. Who among us is willing to say about our neighborhood, “Let the developers build what they want and the market will figure out if it’s the right thing”? No thank you.

[Essbee]

I think this (very tongue-in-cheek) article is appropriate to the topic at hand:

http://gawker.com/we-must-build-a-new-new-york-city-somewhere-warm-1516648532

The author proposes about bulldozing San Diego to make room for a new New York:

“Don’t think of it as “San Diego”—think of it as “an area that will soon be bulldozed to make way for New New York City.” Gone will be the sprawling detritus of lesser America. In its place we will painstakingly construct a jumbled super-urban metropolis that spreads for hundreds of square miles in all (sunny) directions, like a high-rise-laden squid that has made its inky escape from the Northeast, bringing along all of its charms and none of its fucking ice.”

Very silly.
Viva la sprawl!

[Essbee]

. accidental dual post

[spdrun]

Pbbbbbbt – the weather is part of the charm. Where else can you go canoeing on the East River Drive, snowshoeing in Central Park, running from people made angry by the heat, and skating on falling leaves all in the space of a year?

What does San Diego get that’s fun? Bushfires. Not even earthquakes like in LA or San Francisco. Baw-ring.

[flyer]

Funny article. Fortunately, it will never happen.

Most of us in San Diego could live anywhere we want to live, but we choose to live here and visit elsewhere for many, many reasons.

I don’t see any reason to argue about which city is more or less “impressive,” as long as people are spending their lives in the place, or places they REALLY WANT to be.

Love San Diego–live there–Love NYC–live there–Love Boston–live there–Love Florida–live there, and on and on. It’s really pretty simple.

[an]

[quote=carli]No to your third statement, as I don’t think I ever said “it’s impossible to stop the development” but what I did say is that there are already developments in the pipeline that should not/could not be stopped. [/quote]I take that to mean the same thing, but I guess you can argue about semantics. But the end result is, no change.

[quote=carli]And no to your fourth statement “…you don’t mind that Carmel Valley will forever be a lower density area with no public transit…” If that’s how you understood what I was stating, I’ll clarify this is not what I meant to express. I do not want Carmel Valley to be solely made up of low density housing, nor do I want it to stay free of public transit. The opposite is true.

I think we differ in terms of the priority we place on things like aesthetics, quality of life (including hassle factors like traffic), environmental impacts, etc, or maybe we just have different needs.

Either way, I believe residents of a city should have a chance to weigh in on both the community planning process as well as major deviations from the plan, such as this one. As you said, it’s too bad we can’t send this One Paseo proposal to a vote.

As someone else mentioned, of course community plans become outdated quickly so let’s figure out a way to respond quicker to the changes in our community. But swinging the pendulum all the way to the other side and throwing out the plan to say yes to any developer’s proposal (the denser, the better) just because we need more housing is not the right answer. There is some common ground in between.

And a free market approach may sound attractive in theory, but I believe most people want a voice in how their surroundings evolve, especially when a considerable part of their income and/or net worth is probably tied up in it. Who among us is willing to say about our neighborhood, “Let the developers build what they want and the market will figure out if it’s the right thing”? No thank you.[/quote]
I think you’re creating a straw man argument. No one say we should let the developers do what ever they want. As I said, I think it would have been better if residences in 92130 can vote on projects. However, that’s not possible in the current system. So, we leave it up to the community planners to make those decisions.

As for common ground in between, I totally agree. Which is why I’m trying to see what the opponents to the project would prefer be built there. I’m intrigue to see what kind of common ground can be had.

As I also said, I’m not sure One Paseo is the right place with the right density. I think it would have been better to add a walk-able town center where Pacific Highland Ranch is with very high density and mixed used a long with industrial. Think along the line of Mountain View downtown as an example. But that boat has already sailed. So, if not One Paseo, where else can you add density to Carmel Valley?

[The-Shoveler]

Me I think high density development should happen like it did in L.A.

It mostly occurred by developers buying up old dilapidated parts of downtown (or near downtown), tearing it down and re-developing the area.
To me that is more natural and organic instead of just force feeding and using hormones type of development.

Anyway not my fight but just does not seem like the right way to do this type of thing.

[scaredyclassic]

There was a lot of uproar about a new plan for Temecula wine country. Bike paths with some easements made people ballistic.

People argued the bike paths would bring crime. Sheesh.

Sure would’ve been nice. Oh well…

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=flyer]Funny article. Fortunately, it will never happen.

Most of us in San Diego could live anywhere we want to live, but we choose to live here and visit elsewhere for many, many reasons.

I don’t see any reason to argue about which city is more or less “impressive,” as long as people are spending their lives in the place, or places they REALLY WANT to be.

Love San Diego–live there–Love NYC–live there–Love Boston–live there–Love Florida–live there, and on and on. It’s really pretty simple.[/quote]

the reason to compare and argue is because cities change and require future planning and comparisons give people a basis to argue how the future city should look like.

also superior cities are group accomplishments and city dwellers should not be modest about them. My mom for instance is incredibly immodest about how great NYC is. I on the other hand praise Temecula and talk about how NYC is soulkilling.

I also seriously doubt that most people in sd or anywhere could live anywhere they want. He’ll I’m seriously tied down where I’m at. And budgeted.

[all]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Me I think high density development should happen like it did in L.A.

It mostly occurred by developers buying up old dilapidated parts of downtown (or near downtown), tearing it down and re-developing the area.
To me that is more natural and organic instead of just force feeding and using hormones type of development.

Anyway not my fight but just does not seem like the right way to do this type of thing.[/quote]

This is happening – a lot of construction going on in East Village. Parking lots and halfway houses being replaced by condo, apartment and office buildings.

[an]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Me I think high density development should happen like it did in L.A.

It mostly occurred by developers buying up old dilapidated parts of downtown (or near downtown), tearing it down and re-developing the area.
To me that is more natural and organic instead of just force feeding and using hormones type of development.

Anyway not my fight but just does not seem like the right way to do this type of thing.[/quote]
That kind of re-development works best in already somewhat dense city center. I don’t see it happening in the suburbs. I just don’t see strip malls being torn down and replaced by highly dense village/town centers. The long term residence would fight that tooth and nail. They’re already fighting it when the land is empty. Imagine how much harder they’ll fight if there’s pre-existing businesses there.

[The-Shoveler]

That’s kind of the point, it grows organically as a location matures and grows, it’s not force fed.

When the owner of an old outdated strip mall is suddenly offered 20-50 million for his land, the Biz owners will most likely get something too, it just kind of works itself out.

[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.

[Author]

Posts