Mansionization
[ Excerpt from SBN-P article 5/14/2006 by Joshua Molina ]
Proposed home size rules feed acrimony, rile residents
In the million-dollar oceanside neighborhoods on the Mesa, there is trouble in paradise.
Residents are locked in a fierce fight over the quality of life in their neighborhoods. The battle centers on the size of homes...
While most pronounced on the Mesa, the issue that critics have dubbed "mansionization" is one that affects the entire city, where large, two-story homes are casting shadows over the smaller, one-story, 1950s tract homes that once dominated Santa Barbara.
Younger people, retirees and others who love Santa Barbara are moving in, tearing down the old houses, and then building larger ones to accommodate their needs.
This trend has angered many longtime residents, who believe that new money and a pro-development Orange County mentality is consuming the city's housing stock and wrecking everything that makes Santa Barbara special.
The "mansionization" issue is one of the hottest, most controversial topics in the city and it sparks strong emotions. The acrimony over larger houses has sparked bad blood, turning neighbor against neighbor.
... [a recent] special public workshop on the topic followed more than two years of debate by a city committee whose members were supposed to come up with a consensus about new rules for house sizes.
Few people, however, are happy with the proposed new rules, which basically set ratios for house size based on the size of the lot.
Neighborhood activists, property rights advocates and many elected officials are disappointed that after two years the issue is still unresolved...
At its core, the conflict is philosophical...
"I don't want to live next door to some huge thing with people looking into my backyard," Mr. [Mac] Bakewell said. "It is not a happy feeling to feel like your home is being invaded by people of a different mindset."
Ms. [Michelle] Giddens [a recent neighbor, who moved here from Texas], doesn't agree with that perspective. She described the complaints as an "imaginary problem."
She is an advocate for property rights and believes that homeowners should be able to build larger homes. She said she doesn't mind if people build two-story homes in her neighborhood. One day, she may do the same. She doesn't relate to people who complain about their views being blocked by larger homes.
"You can always step outside," she said. "Santa Barbara is filled with beautiful views."
She represents a group called "CityWide Homeowners," which believes that the city's current rules work just fine, with larger projects being reviewed by the city's Architectural Board of Review, which makes subjective design determinations.
The new rules proposed by the steering committee, she said, are too strong. According to the recommendations of the committee, the maximum home size for a 6,000-square-foot lot, the size of most single-family residential properties, would be 2,700 square feet, which equals a floor-to-lot-area ratio of .45.
On the other hand, neighborhood preservationists say that a house of that size on a lot of that size is too big.
Further complicating matters, the proposed ratios would only apply to lots that are under 7,500 square feet. For properties 7,500 square feet or larger, the ratios are considered guidelines only. Critics contend that those larger lots will get less scrutiny...
The only two members of the public who sat on the steering committee, Dianne Channing and Joe Guzzardi, are upset with the proposed new rules. They believe that the committee was hijacked by architects and the development community, who pushed for larger house sizes.
"I just feel like the committee collapsed at the end and when the majority decided to have this ordinance apply only to 7,500 square foot lots (or smaller), that is very nearly a complete failure of what our original intent was," said Mr. Guzzardi, a candidate for 2nd District supervisor. "We spent two years trying to create something that was going to provide order for neighborhood development and we failed."
Mrs. Channing also feels that the new rules recommended by the committee will lead to houses that are too big.
"I do not feel that public expectations have been met," said Mrs. Channing, who chaired the committee. "We have failed these expectations."
Ultimately, the City Council will have the final say on the matter. It will take five positive votes to adopt the ordinance. The council is split on the issue.
"The main issue that people are scared about is mansionization, but the main recommendation coming to the council doesn't do enough to protect against mansionization or enough to protect the neighborhoods," said councilman Das Williams, also a candidate for 2nd District supervisor.
Council member Brian Barnwell said he has mixed feelings about the work of the committee, which he sat on. He said, however, "It is a good outcome." He trusts the design review boards to make good subjective decisions about design to guard against "monstrous homes."
... Ms. Giddens hopes the council does nothing and leaves the review of houses to the design boards.
"I don't see any logical arguments for why we shouldn't build a larger house," she said.
For the Bakewells, the reasons are clear.
"Everyone is against each other," said 13-year-old daughter Benyapa. "I really don't want big houses to ruin everything."
e-mail: jmolina@newspress.com
Santa Barbara News-Press
Proposed home size rules feed acrimony, rile residents
In the million-dollar oceanside neighborhoods on the Mesa, there is trouble in paradise.
Residents are locked in a fierce fight over the quality of life in their neighborhoods. The battle centers on the size of homes...
While most pronounced on the Mesa, the issue that critics have dubbed "mansionization" is one that affects the entire city, where large, two-story homes are casting shadows over the smaller, one-story, 1950s tract homes that once dominated Santa Barbara.
Younger people, retirees and others who love Santa Barbara are moving in, tearing down the old houses, and then building larger ones to accommodate their needs.
This trend has angered many longtime residents, who believe that new money and a pro-development Orange County mentality is consuming the city's housing stock and wrecking everything that makes Santa Barbara special.
The "mansionization" issue is one of the hottest, most controversial topics in the city and it sparks strong emotions. The acrimony over larger houses has sparked bad blood, turning neighbor against neighbor.
... [a recent] special public workshop on the topic followed more than two years of debate by a city committee whose members were supposed to come up with a consensus about new rules for house sizes.
Few people, however, are happy with the proposed new rules, which basically set ratios for house size based on the size of the lot.
Neighborhood activists, property rights advocates and many elected officials are disappointed that after two years the issue is still unresolved...
At its core, the conflict is philosophical...
"I don't want to live next door to some huge thing with people looking into my backyard," Mr. [Mac] Bakewell said. "It is not a happy feeling to feel like your home is being invaded by people of a different mindset."
Ms. [Michelle] Giddens [a recent neighbor, who moved here from Texas], doesn't agree with that perspective. She described the complaints as an "imaginary problem."
She is an advocate for property rights and believes that homeowners should be able to build larger homes. She said she doesn't mind if people build two-story homes in her neighborhood. One day, she may do the same. She doesn't relate to people who complain about their views being blocked by larger homes.
"You can always step outside," she said. "Santa Barbara is filled with beautiful views."
She represents a group called "CityWide Homeowners," which believes that the city's current rules work just fine, with larger projects being reviewed by the city's Architectural Board of Review, which makes subjective design determinations.
The new rules proposed by the steering committee, she said, are too strong. According to the recommendations of the committee, the maximum home size for a 6,000-square-foot lot, the size of most single-family residential properties, would be 2,700 square feet, which equals a floor-to-lot-area ratio of .45.
On the other hand, neighborhood preservationists say that a house of that size on a lot of that size is too big.
Further complicating matters, the proposed ratios would only apply to lots that are under 7,500 square feet. For properties 7,500 square feet or larger, the ratios are considered guidelines only. Critics contend that those larger lots will get less scrutiny...
The only two members of the public who sat on the steering committee, Dianne Channing and Joe Guzzardi, are upset with the proposed new rules. They believe that the committee was hijacked by architects and the development community, who pushed for larger house sizes.
"I just feel like the committee collapsed at the end and when the majority decided to have this ordinance apply only to 7,500 square foot lots (or smaller), that is very nearly a complete failure of what our original intent was," said Mr. Guzzardi, a candidate for 2nd District supervisor. "We spent two years trying to create something that was going to provide order for neighborhood development and we failed."
Mrs. Channing also feels that the new rules recommended by the committee will lead to houses that are too big.
"I do not feel that public expectations have been met," said Mrs. Channing, who chaired the committee. "We have failed these expectations."
Ultimately, the City Council will have the final say on the matter. It will take five positive votes to adopt the ordinance. The council is split on the issue.
"The main issue that people are scared about is mansionization, but the main recommendation coming to the council doesn't do enough to protect against mansionization or enough to protect the neighborhoods," said councilman Das Williams, also a candidate for 2nd District supervisor.
Council member Brian Barnwell said he has mixed feelings about the work of the committee, which he sat on. He said, however, "It is a good outcome." He trusts the design review boards to make good subjective decisions about design to guard against "monstrous homes."
... Ms. Giddens hopes the council does nothing and leaves the review of houses to the design boards.
"I don't see any logical arguments for why we shouldn't build a larger house," she said.
For the Bakewells, the reasons are clear.
"Everyone is against each other," said 13-year-old daughter Benyapa. "I really don't want big houses to ruin everything."
e-mail: jmolina@newspress.com
Santa Barbara News-Press
Posted by Malcolm on
5/16/2006
Subscribe to RSS Feed
0 Comments
Post a Comment
<< Home