Historical Preservation Topics

By Sharon Byrne

Questions and Answers historic preservation, and sustainable job generation through historic preservation projects.

I'll provide the quotes from it that are most relevant to this question, this conversation, that we are all having in this election: `To all this centuried romance (of California), Santa Barbara is the legitimate and favorite heiress + about the only one left that has not yet traded her birthright for a mess of `Potash and Perlmutter.' Will she follow the rest, and cast the rich pearls of her dowry before the swine of blundering materialism - or will she stand erect and queenly and alone in the purple beauty of her Romance?" ..... Unfortunately a town of ours cannot get rid at once of all the warts, pimples, moles, goiters, that may have grown upon its face; but it CAN begin at once to HATE them + and when the community begins to recognize Ugliness, and despise it and laugh at it, the battle is half one. It means that no new disgrace will be permitted; and the that old ones will be encouraged to disappear. .... Sharon here: He advocated for Santa Barbara to have its own architecture, and encouraged it to be Spanish colonial. Pearl Chase took up this cause, and now the city looks the way it does, with the charming red tile roofs and courtyards because of it. .... Now I would like to see Santa Barbara set its mark to be the most Beautiful, the most Artistic, the most Distinguished and Famous little city on the Pacific Coast. It can be, if it will-for it has `the makings.' And those makings are not its landscapes but its Romance, its Past, to build on. The worst curse that could fall on Santa Barbara would be the craze to GET BIG. Run down to Los Angeles and stay a few days. See that madhouse! You'd hate to live there! ..... In reference to an adobe that was demolished to build the then-City Hall: I do know that while no one will be proud of the City Hall 25 years from now, that adobe would have been worth more to the city every year than City Hall cost. ..... The Honor of Santa Barbara is in your hands-and do not fancy for a moment that her Good Name will stand, if you let the materialists strip her of her Romance and leave her nakedly Common. And more than that, the responsibility for all California is pretty much dropped down on your Barbareno shoulders! You hold the Last Trench of THAT California which has shone for centuries in song and story, which has fascinated the world, and put a new sentiment and beauty in American life. So it is up to you both to SAVE SANTA BARBARA ROMANTIC, AND SAVE CALIFORNIA'S ROMANCE IN SANTA BARBARA. It's 88 years after this article, and isn't it surprising how much of what he says is still relevant? Keep in mind, he would have written it in the American modernist period, where industrialization, progress, and materialism were the order of the day. Nearly a century later, we had the exuberant irrationalism of the 90's and early 2000's, and the cry to build high-density. So now we get to add our voice to this conversation. Mine sounds like this: I fully agree with him. Santa Barbara, hold fast to what we have, what we are: that shining star of a romantic, historic city, for the rest of California, who lost their way on this one. Don't fall for the development-as-progress trap, and be hostile to blight.

Dr. Lummis, spot on.

2) What is the biggest challenge facing Santa Barbara today? Public Safety. It affects everything, from tourism to downtown visits by locals to the feasibility of raising a family successfully here. Safety is the prime, basic need, at least according to Maslow! We simply have to get on top of this, and quickly. A safe city is one where people can walk about freely, enjoy their beaches and parks without worry, trust that children can arrive at school safely, and feel confident and at ease when they're downtown. People are reporting in San Roque and the Eastside that there are multiple neighborhood burglaries, with evidence of casing beforehand. We're hearing families don't enjoy the experience of walking down State or Milpas to get to the beach, because they're witnessing pot-smoking, urination or defecation, or encountering aggressive individuals. I am trying to live the walkable downtown experience, but had to take back my neighborhood from violence before it became truly liveable. These are not conditions that lead to a city thriving and prospering. It took a year to get our neighborhood safe, but now I see three businesses opening in it, and I realize that safety for residents also produces conditions where a business will feel it can succeed, because the streets are safe and clean and customers will come. If we get on top of this problem, our city can thrive and prosper again, as long as we create the right conditions in terms of safety for it.

3) What is your position on the issue of district elections in Santa Barbara? I am in favor. The current general election is a high bar for candidates to scale, and requires a lot of fundraising and work to win the neighborhoods that ring the city from the Mesa through the Foothill Rd area to the upper Eastside and over into the Coast Village Rd area. These are the high-propensity voter districts, and this is where most of our current council lives. That leads to a council not really reflective of the people that live and work here, especially those living below Canon Perdido St. It also means that only those with significant time and resources can run, or those backed by party machinery, which creates partisan politics in an non-partisan position. The effect of an outer-rink council can be seen in zoning decisions, where controversial land uses are put below Canon Perdido, and over on the Eastside. These are low voter-turnout areas, that can't turn an offending council out of office for these affronts, even though they are also high-density neighborhoods. Therefore, with no voter penalty, councils are free to make one-off decisions that over time bring these areas down. District elections would stop that because neighborhood representatives would be accountable to their voters. It also means there is someone on council that represents you. District elections would also lower the barriers to entry, which would help ease the partisan politics present today in council races. Candidates would only have to meet voters in their district, and raise enough funds to win their district. They wouldn't be relying on party machinery to get them across the finish line in the wider city. The only downside is tendencies towards districts fighting to get their way, at the expense of the wider city. A solution to that is a hybrid approach, recommended by the Grand Jury in 2006, that gives four district reps, a mayor elected at large, and 2 at-large council members.

4) What do you think about creating an Office of Historic Preservation, separate from the Planning and Development Department and fully staffed to research and address issues of preservation? How important would that be to you? While I am not in favor of increasing the size of city government, this is an interesting idea, and could be accomplished by moving planning resources to this department, with a lot of assistance and loaned expertise from the Pearl Chase Society and Santa Barbara Historical Society. The city is mostly built out, so new development opportunities are fairly small, and capital for them is hard to come by right now. On the other hand, this city is promoting tourism by historic preservation, and there is a lot of evidence that historic preservation is a better jobs generator, and produces higher wages and more use of local, even recycled materials, than new development. This could be a great win for the city to stimulate historical preservation projects, and we're certainly supply-heavy, in that there are many older buildings here that could use renovation. As an example, there is an auto shop on lower De La Vina that has an original gas station on the property from the 1930's. It is in a blighted state at present, and the owner does not have the financial resources to renovate it. There are grants that could help with renovation projects like these, and such an office of Historic Preservation could apply for those, and administer them to worthy projects. It would generate local jobs and improve neighborhoods with structures in need of renovation. Given that there are firms here that recycle old fixtures and materials, like original fire grates and leaded paned glass, out of local remodeling projects, there is a ready supply of recycled material available for reuse in a historic preservation project. We'd be using local materials rather than importing materials from outside the area, and generating skilled labor jobs. That's a win for us.

5) How does high-density housing with limited open space improve the ability of families to live in Santa Barbara? I am a fan of the downtown living experience, as I live it! But I understand it's not for everyone, and families in their peak earning years often desire a house, with a yard, a dog, and markets nearby. The idea of living in high density, with no yard, little available parking, and no nearby markets is not attractive to most families. You can see this clearly from New York City's demographics. Families buy homes in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, and commute in for work. Unless we plan high-density communities to allow for pets, easy access to local markets, safe routes to schools, and nearby parks for recreation spaces, it's not going to draw families to live in the city. We really have to solve the public safety issue first, because people are going to live away from what they perceive as unsafe for their family. If the city had a very safe feel to it, and other family needs for shopping, school access, and open space are resolved, you might see some families gravitate here. My largest concern, though, with high-density zoning, is that it raises property values, and long-term working class families and small businesses that have been here for years might suddenly find it prohibitively expensive, from their property-tax bills, to continue. Displacing these families and businesses is not the way a responsible city treats its citizenry.

7) How would you proceed in order to help the Council reach consensus on the General Plan revision? The stumbling block here is that the General Plan update puts forth a vision that will govern the city's development for the next 20 years. The vision as set out at present has some aspects that people feel are radically different from what they can live with. The circulation element and high-density zoning in particular are causing strife. Rather than force it to closure, it feels right to debate it openly, in public. Whose vision is this? Staff's? Special interest groups? The current elected council's? If you can't get the public to sign off on it, and we seem to not be able to, then something is wrong with the vision. Some parts of the plan read like we're trying to create Amsterdam's historic core + limited cars, favoring bikes and pedestrians over cars, and high-density buildings. But Amsterdam is constrained by ancient streets constructed between 1300 and 1700, and canals. They've got no choice but to build tiny, and dense, and limit cars in the old city core. We've got 1920's-1960's streets, and a Spanish colonial feel. It seems to me that the streets need to be re-engineered to include bike and pedestrian traffic, particularly on Milpas, rather than engineered to make cars unworkable, as the current plan lays out. Zoning for high-density housing without identifying who would live in it, and why, is also a stumbling block. It's not like there's huge industry here that drives housing demand. We don't build airplanes or cars, and we no longer have much of a high-tech or financial sector. To my knowledge, Google has not called to say they'd like to relocate here, but just we don't have the right housing for their needs, darn it. Tourism is the main economic engine, so businesses here are mainly engaged in it, with other businesses supporting the people who work in it, like grocery stores, barbers, car repair shops, etc. Given that, and given the fencing of buildable space geographically pre-determined as between the mountains and the ocean, is it realistic to plan for high-density, without an identified economic driver for it? In some ways, I think we're like Nantucket, off the coast of Massachusetts, or Jekyll Island in Georgia. They're lovely, and everyone would love to live there, but there isn't enough land, jobs, houses, schools, or resources for everyone to just move there that wants to. They're also historic places, and build-out would destroy the very thing that makes them attractive to tourism. Given the amount of consternation over the plan's direction, it seems that we need to settle on a crisp vision of what we are as a city, and hold to it in crafting the 20 year update. I'd push that vision conversation out in the open, and settle it as a people, rather than trying to nudge it forward by tweaking at the detail level.

8) How would you describe the difference in the quality of life in Santa Barbara today compared to 10 years ago? This is a terrific question! I first moved here for a job with a prominent high-tech firm 12 years ago, and thought I must have perished on the plane trip, and this was all some post-life fantasy because there is no place in the country this stunning. The 90% year-round useable outdoor climate, the free recreation on offer, from beach walks to hikes in the woods to summer concerts in the parks....well that just doesn't exist in major urban centers. My daughter was 3 when we moved here, and I was stunned at the marvelous things on offer for children, like the merry go-round, the playgrounds all over the city, some with stunning ocean views, the wading pools for toddlers, and play days at the beach + it felt like a dream place to raise a child. In contrast, in other cities I've lived in, public parks are few, not always safe for kids, and 110 degree summer days send everyone fleeing indoors for A/C or to the nearest swimming pool. Here, you could have an active, outdoor lifestyle, and it was a terrific experience. However, lately, Chase Palm Park doesn't feel very safe, and I see fewer families at the playground and picnic areas there than when my child was small. It took major effort to win Cabrillo ballfield back as a public space for families and sports teams. East Beach is now crowded with sleeping bags and refuse, and the bike path doesn't feel very welcoming at times. Families don't seem to go to MacKenzie park much more. It feels like we are losing our public spaces all over the city, and that's unacceptable. State St is distinctly unsafe late at night on weekends. There have been stabbings, windows broken out, and other violent acts on State, and it was never like that 10 years ago. Graffiti seems to be much worse than it used to be, creating ugliness where beauty was. The harassment factor on State has turned people away from visiting it, and that's terrible for businesses there. I've been through urban decay cycles in major cities, and this feels like that, like urban decay is happening here, but without the gutted, shuttered buildings that usually drive it in other cities. My understanding is that a loss of police, from 151 in 2000, to 138 today, is contributing a great deal to that, since they've moved to mainly reactive mode due to shortages. It also seems to me that we've tolerated things in the name of compassion and good-heartedness that have worked to denigrate our city overall. Another problem is that our city zoning tends to place controversial land use elements into the downtown, Eastside, and upper State areas, and enough of these over time seriously brings down these areas. These cost us dearly in terms of our overall quality-of-life. The good news is this is not Chicago, or Detroit, where it takes enormous resources to turn things around. We're small enough and strong enough to be able to get on top of this quickly and turn it around, if political will exists, and the people are supportive of it.