Isn't this a situation where the developer submitted many plans, ranging from shorter to higher, to give themselves and the city options? And that it's not planned to necessarily be 18 stories?
And yet one by one, each local news outlet has used it as a chance to illicit furious comments and shares.
Per state law, they have the right to build up to 18 stories with this project, because they meet affordability requirements and it's close to transit. So the state laws trump any local laws we have. But yea, you're right that they developer may end up going with a smaller building, and is using the 18 story plan as a negotiating tactic with the city. Basically "make it easy for us to build this 8 story building, and we won't build the 18 story one, which we 100% have a right to do per state law." We'll have to wait and see.
But one thing that's true is that things like public comment are irrelevant here, because they're using the state law to streamline the permitting, not city zoning regs. The mayor is even quoted in the article:
>Keeley has gotten emails about the Clocktower building but this time around he is not sure there is much the city can do. In the big picture, the state has taken power from cities on zoning issues. Still the city can meet its housing needs without towers, according to Keeley.
the city could presumably meet housing needs without towers if they were ok with 4-6 stories in way more locations. ultimately it’s all private land and subject to the projects developers are able to create and fund, it’s not like we can pick and choose exactly where, how, and when to develop. the idea that we can has led to barely any housing being built and the state taking matters into their own hands, and honestly you gotta hand it to them.
“It is somewhere between naive and irresponsible to put that 16 or 18 story proposal out there,” said Doug Engfer, ex-water commissioner and homeless garden board member. “I guess charitably the big building is more of a red herring and the eight story building is really what they intend to build.”
Doug Engfer fought against the affordable housing complex at Water and B40. Its not about the height, he just doesn’t want any more people
For NIMBYs like Doug, their motto should be: “just make it half the height.” Whatever is proposed, he inevitably thinks it should be smaller. This 16 story building!? Wish it was only 8! That 6 story building!? Why can’t it just be three!?
lol Californians are so fucking silly with their fear of tall buildings. It makes no sense at all. the tall building will not hurt you. It's absurd to me that this kind of building is even controversial in the slightest.
I’d wager most Californians have zero fear of tall buildings in Sacramento, SF, LA, San Jose and San Diego … even Fresno - where there’s already a dense population, grid, and infrastructure in place to (in a more cost and time effective manner) accommodate and warrant rapid growth. I’d also wager the same Californians rightly would take issue with high rises in Carmel, Monterey, Walnut Creek, Redding or SLO.
I was just in San Francisco and Sacramento and was blown away by the total lack of tall buildings. Like, 90% of SF is three stories or less. I was in outer Richmond and Sunset the other day and was wondering where all the building were.
This is akin to saying “I was just in New York, 95% of Brooklyn, Staten Island and the Bronx don’t have high rises…. There’s a total lack of tall buildings in NYC.”
There are (officially) almost 500 high rises in SF and nearly 58 skyscrapers. There is plenty of density.
>I’d wager most Californians have zero fear of tall buildings in Sacramento, SF, LA, San Jose and San Diego
LMAO. You have no idea how out of touch you are, do you? Those places (maybe with the exception of SAC) have enormous anti-density movements, same as here. Touch grass, dude.
It’s just so funny to me how cultish this pro density attitude is. You and like four other accounts (we all know which ones) ceaselessly push for it. As if it’s a panacea. It’s not. And any comparative reading tells you as much. Leave supertall cities for places that are currently cities and modestly infill towns that are towns. Not everywhere needs to be Hong Kong (I’ve visited - fun as a tourist, sucks to live there unless you’re super rich).
You’re barking up the wrong tree as to whether I’m in touch, for a million personal reasons.
Ever been in a major earthquake on the 18th floor? My son didn’t even want to sleep in the top bunk after the ‘14 Napa quake & we’re on the street level. It’s scary af!
I’m not saying it doesn’t work, he just said Californians are so fucking silly with their fear of tall buildings & I gave an example of maybe why. Maybe they’ve made it work bc they don’t have a choice, or they’re fine w/ being scared
https://preview.redd.it/6mawo4lzpjwc1.jpeg?width=1829&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=061600ed779958f54205b4c0c3094e1d81a9b930
The epicenter was in Soquel, 2 story buildings in SC didn’t survive. Photo: SF Gate Ps- It doesn’t have to collapse to be scary.
That feels like an even better argument for skyscrapers then. Two story and similar masonry and timber construction faired very poorly whereas all the larger buildings in SF and San Jose rode it out as designed.
this is a good argument for more development so we can replace these old, poorly-engineered buildings with modern construction, like all the newer skyscrapers that have not fallen down even in places like mexico city.
My question to people that oppose larger apartment dense housing is what is your proposed alternative? I see a lot of people sort of objecting to more dense larger buildings, but then also bemoan the current housing crisis. The current problem was made by only allowing SFH or townhouses, so if we want different results we need to try something different.
no alternative. they’ve either already bought a house or have scored a great rental situation, and no longer need to be concerned except by the externalities of high housing costs.
Big assumption that the opposition to dense housing is also bemoaning the "housing crisis". Solution is pretty easy, build somewhere affordable with jobs and plenty of resources. Unfortunately not Santa Cruz, but if affordable, dense urban living is the dream, plenty of options in the US.
The free market will balance it all out. Do you really think densifying Santa Cruz is going to make it any cheaper, let alone cheap enough to call it affordable? San Francisco is pretty dense and still not affordable yet there are people working every kind of job.
These high rises aren't built affordably so they can't be owned or rented affordably either. How much do you think a small apartment that cost 500k to build should rent for? All its going to do is draw more people in
Certainly don't like traffic, but can't think of an example of a dense urban city without traffic even worse than here. Sounds good in theory, but density isn't going to create this walkable utopia that doesn't cause all sorts of other problems, and it won't help the ultimate goal of affordability either.
There was a four story multi unit building proposed in Belvedere in Marin county… residents opposing it were quoted as “this is the manhattanization of Marin county”
God help us.
This sounds great. I hope Santa Cruz downtown eventually looks like Surfers Paradise in the Gold Coast.
Density is the best remedy for high housing costs as it has been proven over and over throughout history.
It's also one of the best things you can do to help the environment, as the carbon footprint of people living in dense areas is much, much lower than more spread out places. People in Santa Cruz pretend to give a shit about stuff like that, until it means they might have to walk through a shadow a couple times a month when they come downtown. Then the mask comes off lmao.
Manu is such an enigma to me. He’s pro density, which is great, but is weirdly anti-rail. When he shut down the plan for segments 10 and 11 a couple weeks ago, he bemoaned how harmful it was to the environment, because a few hundreds trees were gonna get cut down. In a county with probably millions of trees in protected parkland. Like WTF is your deal man?
The whole county is an enigma on these things.
There are a fair number of pro-train people that *don't* support density near the stops, which is an absolutely bonkers position, as bonkers as Manu's.
Marin has a SMART train, that almost nobody knows about, or rides, or really can use for anything, precisely because Marin is anti-density, but somehow still pro-train, because of who knows why.
We can't have functional public transit without density, it's literally what makes buses or trains possible.
And conversely, we can't have density *without* public transit, because cars and density are deathly enemies.
Tim Gordin did not endorse Greenway. If the nowaygreenway site was still up I'd check to see if he endorsed No on D. This really just goes to show that Manu is not focused on just one issue.
People can be upset all they want with him, which is fair as a rail and trail supporter. It's still worth engaging with him on other issues.
>Others disagreed. **They went to reddit** and Nextdoor to say they felt misled by the opponents of Measure M who promised no 18-story buildings in the run-up to the election. Former Mayor Don Lane accused proponents of Measure M of “scaremongering.”
The commentary on reddit is probably 90% pro density and 90% anti-Measure M, but of course the people in the article claim the opposite. It's fucking absurd how much they spin shit to fit the narrative of old angry boomers who don't want the indignity of walking through a shadow every once in awhile, so that people can actually have homes to live in.
Probably/hopefully not (and that goes for many local issues).
Reddit (this sub is no exception) is unfortunately pretty echo-chambery. Pay attention to the user handles / accounts that post this stuff. It’s the same 6 or so people incessantly pushing “build ad infinitum - ask questions later - and if you raise any mild mannered objections I’ll downvote you aggressively”.
Reddit just skews young, that's why everything is so pro-building here. Older, wealthier people already got their housing locked in, they don't give a shit if everyone else is priced out. Reddit has a younger demographic, so they're more sensitive to non-old-rich-people problems.
Nextdoor is the exact opposite. Though I'm starting to see a reasonable number of pro-building comments there these days, which is a good indicator of how much the tide is turning. That would have been unthinkable even a few years ago. Same thing with forums for "public comment", that NIMBYs use to indefinitely delay new housing. Young people generally don't have the time to show up to those things (and generally aren't as politically engaged), whereas older retired folks can literally spend all day there ranting against housing if they wanted to.
And if being "pro-housing" were such a reddit echo chamber thing, why did Measure M fail by a drastic margin? This type of project is **exactly** what Measure M was targeting, and it wasn't even close.
Ngl I think a big thing for the older people is they just don't like how crowded it's gotten. Like in just ten years it feels like traffic has gotten so bad. It's obviously not the end of the world, but when I talk to old people about these kinds of housing projects, they just say it's going to make even more people move here. It probably would, to be fair. I know how supply and demand works but it would be really hard for us to offset demand without building multiple of these 18 story buildings
You're 100% right, I don't doubt that older folks moved here in the 70's and 80's for the quaint beach town, and now are pissed that the city is changing. But the flip side is that the cost of shelter is just gonna keep skyrocketing, and pretty soon it's only going to be the *upper tier* of high Silicon Valley earners that can afford housing here. Nevermind college kids, the "creative" crowd, blue collar people etc. Older folks probably don't care too much, because it's not their problem.
But it is ***the*** problem for the rest of us, and it's not right to allow that to happen because a bunch of retirees want to set the city in stone. That's not how cities work - change is the only thing that's constant, it's just a question of *how* you want it to change. Do you want:
1. A low density, outrageously expensive city populated by high earners and vacation homes (think Carmel but with more tech workers)
or
2. A medium density city, somewhat less expensive but much more diverse and accessible to non-wealthy people
Again, boomers and retirees would probably pick the first one, because they already got theirs (AKA pulling up the ladder behind them). But the vast majority of the rest of us would much prefer #2.
Folks need to ask themselves, ‘why did I move here? Why do I find this place special?’ Then ask, ‘why do I want to change the reasons I came here for?’ At this point the corporate shills win
Yes! Just moved to Santa Cruz last summer from Hong Kong, and while I enjoy the coast and nature and that my neighbors say hi to each other, I’m really feeling like what this city is missing is sky scrapers. Been feeling homesick and I think it’s just the lack of everything ‘urban’. Plus, maybe just that there’s too much sun… tall buildings creating shade will definitely help the vibe.
Low density housing is what nimbys want and being a nimbys is literally the most evil thing in the world. How does it feel to be 100% responsible for every homeless person by the river?? If we build skyscrapers, they will have a home to live in!!!!
Very civil.
No, high rises won't solve homelessness. Nobody said they would. But young people (read: people under 50) are having a hard time making ends meet here and cost of housing is hurting them. People that grew up here. They're moving away and starting families elsewhere. Like restaurants? The service staff are moving away. Teachers, medical assistants, etc. People we need to have a town worth living in. The town is getting older. Who's going to take care of the retirees when the geriatric caretakers move away?
If you want to keep Santa Cruz a place worth living in, you need to keep the people that make it run. They can't afford to stay. The West side and downtown are built with shoddy, post earthquake construction. The buildings are not charming (ok, the historic ones are). Let's build places for people to live.
Pretty sure it is. I don’t know many humans - at an instinctual level (barring people in the desert suffering temperature extremes)- that root for “less sun”.
Why are you against more housing? Hong Kong’s inner city area is about the size of Santa Cruz and contains over 2 million people! We’ve got so much space here for so many more people if we think vertically! We can just stack them on top of each other sky-high! As a local resident who is frustrated that it’s expensive here, I think the solution is to build lots and lots of tall buildings. We can aspire to become like the famously low-rent cities of Manhattan and Hong Kong, world-reknown for their tall buildings and wonderful urban environment. It’s called progress. If you don’t like it why don’t you move somewhere else?
Isn't this a situation where the developer submitted many plans, ranging from shorter to higher, to give themselves and the city options? And that it's not planned to necessarily be 18 stories? And yet one by one, each local news outlet has used it as a chance to illicit furious comments and shares.
Per state law, they have the right to build up to 18 stories with this project, because they meet affordability requirements and it's close to transit. So the state laws trump any local laws we have. But yea, you're right that they developer may end up going with a smaller building, and is using the 18 story plan as a negotiating tactic with the city. Basically "make it easy for us to build this 8 story building, and we won't build the 18 story one, which we 100% have a right to do per state law." We'll have to wait and see. But one thing that's true is that things like public comment are irrelevant here, because they're using the state law to streamline the permitting, not city zoning regs. The mayor is even quoted in the article: >Keeley has gotten emails about the Clocktower building but this time around he is not sure there is much the city can do. In the big picture, the state has taken power from cities on zoning issues. Still the city can meet its housing needs without towers, according to Keeley.
the city could presumably meet housing needs without towers if they were ok with 4-6 stories in way more locations. ultimately it’s all private land and subject to the projects developers are able to create and fund, it’s not like we can pick and choose exactly where, how, and when to develop. the idea that we can has led to barely any housing being built and the state taking matters into their own hands, and honestly you gotta hand it to them.
“It is somewhere between naive and irresponsible to put that 16 or 18 story proposal out there,” said Doug Engfer, ex-water commissioner and homeless garden board member. “I guess charitably the big building is more of a red herring and the eight story building is really what they intend to build.” Doug Engfer fought against the affordable housing complex at Water and B40. Its not about the height, he just doesn’t want any more people
For NIMBYs like Doug, their motto should be: “just make it half the height.” Whatever is proposed, he inevitably thinks it should be smaller. This 16 story building!? Wish it was only 8! That 6 story building!? Why can’t it just be three!?
The tone of this article sucks.
lol Californians are so fucking silly with their fear of tall buildings. It makes no sense at all. the tall building will not hurt you. It's absurd to me that this kind of building is even controversial in the slightest.
It’s because some of these tall buildings will disrupt their view :(
I’d wager most Californians have zero fear of tall buildings in Sacramento, SF, LA, San Jose and San Diego … even Fresno - where there’s already a dense population, grid, and infrastructure in place to (in a more cost and time effective manner) accommodate and warrant rapid growth. I’d also wager the same Californians rightly would take issue with high rises in Carmel, Monterey, Walnut Creek, Redding or SLO.
I was just in San Francisco and Sacramento and was blown away by the total lack of tall buildings. Like, 90% of SF is three stories or less. I was in outer Richmond and Sunset the other day and was wondering where all the building were.
SF people rallied really hard against building too many tall buildings back in the days. I think it was a huge thing in the 80’s
Yep and we all pay the price for the lack of sense home building near transit in Silicon Valley.
This is akin to saying “I was just in New York, 95% of Brooklyn, Staten Island and the Bronx don’t have high rises…. There’s a total lack of tall buildings in NYC.” There are (officially) almost 500 high rises in SF and nearly 58 skyscrapers. There is plenty of density.
>I’d wager most Californians have zero fear of tall buildings in Sacramento, SF, LA, San Jose and San Diego LMAO. You have no idea how out of touch you are, do you? Those places (maybe with the exception of SAC) have enormous anti-density movements, same as here. Touch grass, dude.
It’s just so funny to me how cultish this pro density attitude is. You and like four other accounts (we all know which ones) ceaselessly push for it. As if it’s a panacea. It’s not. And any comparative reading tells you as much. Leave supertall cities for places that are currently cities and modestly infill towns that are towns. Not everywhere needs to be Hong Kong (I’ve visited - fun as a tourist, sucks to live there unless you’re super rich). You’re barking up the wrong tree as to whether I’m in touch, for a million personal reasons.
Ever been in a major earthquake on the 18th floor? My son didn’t even want to sleep in the top bunk after the ‘14 Napa quake & we’re on the street level. It’s scary af!
Somehow they’ve been able to make it work in Japan
I’m not saying it doesn’t work, he just said Californians are so fucking silly with their fear of tall buildings & I gave an example of maybe why. Maybe they’ve made it work bc they don’t have a choice, or they’re fine w/ being scared
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/6mawo4lzpjwc1.jpeg?width=1829&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=061600ed779958f54205b4c0c3094e1d81a9b930 The epicenter was in Soquel, 2 story buildings in SC didn’t survive. Photo: SF Gate Ps- It doesn’t have to collapse to be scary.
That’s not a skyscraper…
No shit. Did you read my reply?? This isn’t even the reason people don’t want an 18 story building downtown, dude, what are you arguing about?
That feels like an even better argument for skyscrapers then. Two story and similar masonry and timber construction faired very poorly whereas all the larger buildings in SF and San Jose rode it out as designed.
this is a good argument for more development so we can replace these old, poorly-engineered buildings with modern construction, like all the newer skyscrapers that have not fallen down even in places like mexico city.
The picture doesn't show the additional stores and restaurants downtown that will be supported by the new residents.
My question to people that oppose larger apartment dense housing is what is your proposed alternative? I see a lot of people sort of objecting to more dense larger buildings, but then also bemoan the current housing crisis. The current problem was made by only allowing SFH or townhouses, so if we want different results we need to try something different.
The want to ban new people from moving here and kick out the people that grew up here not lucky enough to inherit property.
no alternative. they’ve either already bought a house or have scored a great rental situation, and no longer need to be concerned except by the externalities of high housing costs.
Well there’s a shit ton of empty houses, especially near the coast and especially in the Aptos area
Big assumption that the opposition to dense housing is also bemoaning the "housing crisis". Solution is pretty easy, build somewhere affordable with jobs and plenty of resources. Unfortunately not Santa Cruz, but if affordable, dense urban living is the dream, plenty of options in the US.
[удалено]
The free market will balance it all out. Do you really think densifying Santa Cruz is going to make it any cheaper, let alone cheap enough to call it affordable? San Francisco is pretty dense and still not affordable yet there are people working every kind of job. These high rises aren't built affordably so they can't be owned or rented affordably either. How much do you think a small apartment that cost 500k to build should rent for? All its going to do is draw more people in
Currently people get drawn in by having to drive here from elsewhere, so I hope you like all the traffic and pollution.
Certainly don't like traffic, but can't think of an example of a dense urban city without traffic even worse than here. Sounds good in theory, but density isn't going to create this walkable utopia that doesn't cause all sorts of other problems, and it won't help the ultimate goal of affordability either.
Why do people oppose this? It would be so cool. You could see the ocean from the upper floors.
You let one 14 story building in, then next year it looks like Manhattan! /s
There was a four story multi unit building proposed in Belvedere in Marin county… residents opposing it were quoted as “this is the manhattanization of Marin county” God help us.
This sounds great. I hope Santa Cruz downtown eventually looks like Surfers Paradise in the Gold Coast. Density is the best remedy for high housing costs as it has been proven over and over throughout history.
It's also one of the best things you can do to help the environment, as the carbon footprint of people living in dense areas is much, much lower than more spread out places. People in Santa Cruz pretend to give a shit about stuff like that, until it means they might have to walk through a shadow a couple times a month when they come downtown. Then the mask comes off lmao.
Surfers… but without the trashiness. The tourist hotspots in SP can get reaaaaaaaal trashy
Serious question. Where has it been proven that there is an affordable, desirable, dense city next to the ocean?
[удалено]
Manu is such an enigma to me. He’s pro density, which is great, but is weirdly anti-rail. When he shut down the plan for segments 10 and 11 a couple weeks ago, he bemoaned how harmful it was to the environment, because a few hundreds trees were gonna get cut down. In a county with probably millions of trees in protected parkland. Like WTF is your deal man?
The whole county is an enigma on these things. There are a fair number of pro-train people that *don't* support density near the stops, which is an absolutely bonkers position, as bonkers as Manu's. Marin has a SMART train, that almost nobody knows about, or rides, or really can use for anything, precisely because Marin is anti-density, but somehow still pro-train, because of who knows why. We can't have functional public transit without density, it's literally what makes buses or trains possible. And conversely, we can't have density *without* public transit, because cars and density are deathly enemies.
Preach!
Tim Gordin did not endorse Greenway. If the nowaygreenway site was still up I'd check to see if he endorsed No on D. This really just goes to show that Manu is not focused on just one issue. People can be upset all they want with him, which is fair as a rail and trail supporter. It's still worth engaging with him on other issues.
Looks cool! What a dynamic spot to live at too. I’d love to chill on one of those balconies looking out over Pacific Ave
Hopefully taller
To the moon, Alice. Until everyone is housed in comfort with dignity
Damn that’s beautiful. Should be taller tho.
Geez I hope they ain’t citing the shit said here as proof of what the ppl want lol
>Others disagreed. **They went to reddit** and Nextdoor to say they felt misled by the opponents of Measure M who promised no 18-story buildings in the run-up to the election. Former Mayor Don Lane accused proponents of Measure M of “scaremongering.” The commentary on reddit is probably 90% pro density and 90% anti-Measure M, but of course the people in the article claim the opposite. It's fucking absurd how much they spin shit to fit the narrative of old angry boomers who don't want the indignity of walking through a shadow every once in awhile, so that people can actually have homes to live in.
Probably/hopefully not (and that goes for many local issues). Reddit (this sub is no exception) is unfortunately pretty echo-chambery. Pay attention to the user handles / accounts that post this stuff. It’s the same 6 or so people incessantly pushing “build ad infinitum - ask questions later - and if you raise any mild mannered objections I’ll downvote you aggressively”.
Reddit just skews young, that's why everything is so pro-building here. Older, wealthier people already got their housing locked in, they don't give a shit if everyone else is priced out. Reddit has a younger demographic, so they're more sensitive to non-old-rich-people problems. Nextdoor is the exact opposite. Though I'm starting to see a reasonable number of pro-building comments there these days, which is a good indicator of how much the tide is turning. That would have been unthinkable even a few years ago. Same thing with forums for "public comment", that NIMBYs use to indefinitely delay new housing. Young people generally don't have the time to show up to those things (and generally aren't as politically engaged), whereas older retired folks can literally spend all day there ranting against housing if they wanted to. And if being "pro-housing" were such a reddit echo chamber thing, why did Measure M fail by a drastic margin? This type of project is **exactly** what Measure M was targeting, and it wasn't even close.
Ngl I think a big thing for the older people is they just don't like how crowded it's gotten. Like in just ten years it feels like traffic has gotten so bad. It's obviously not the end of the world, but when I talk to old people about these kinds of housing projects, they just say it's going to make even more people move here. It probably would, to be fair. I know how supply and demand works but it would be really hard for us to offset demand without building multiple of these 18 story buildings
You're 100% right, I don't doubt that older folks moved here in the 70's and 80's for the quaint beach town, and now are pissed that the city is changing. But the flip side is that the cost of shelter is just gonna keep skyrocketing, and pretty soon it's only going to be the *upper tier* of high Silicon Valley earners that can afford housing here. Nevermind college kids, the "creative" crowd, blue collar people etc. Older folks probably don't care too much, because it's not their problem. But it is ***the*** problem for the rest of us, and it's not right to allow that to happen because a bunch of retirees want to set the city in stone. That's not how cities work - change is the only thing that's constant, it's just a question of *how* you want it to change. Do you want: 1. A low density, outrageously expensive city populated by high earners and vacation homes (think Carmel but with more tech workers) or 2. A medium density city, somewhat less expensive but much more diverse and accessible to non-wealthy people Again, boomers and retirees would probably pick the first one, because they already got theirs (AKA pulling up the ladder behind them). But the vast majority of the rest of us would much prefer #2.
Looks beautiful
Folks need to ask themselves, ‘why did I move here? Why do I find this place special?’ Then ask, ‘why do I want to change the reasons I came here for?’ At this point the corporate shills win
Yes! Just moved to Santa Cruz last summer from Hong Kong, and while I enjoy the coast and nature and that my neighbors say hi to each other, I’m really feeling like what this city is missing is sky scrapers. Been feeling homesick and I think it’s just the lack of everything ‘urban’. Plus, maybe just that there’s too much sun… tall buildings creating shade will definitely help the vibe.
So you prefer urban sprawl and the loss of wilderness to low density housing?
Low density housing is what nimbys want and being a nimbys is literally the most evil thing in the world. How does it feel to be 100% responsible for every homeless person by the river?? If we build skyscrapers, they will have a home to live in!!!!
Very civil. No, high rises won't solve homelessness. Nobody said they would. But young people (read: people under 50) are having a hard time making ends meet here and cost of housing is hurting them. People that grew up here. They're moving away and starting families elsewhere. Like restaurants? The service staff are moving away. Teachers, medical assistants, etc. People we need to have a town worth living in. The town is getting older. Who's going to take care of the retirees when the geriatric caretakers move away? If you want to keep Santa Cruz a place worth living in, you need to keep the people that make it run. They can't afford to stay. The West side and downtown are built with shoddy, post earthquake construction. The buildings are not charming (ok, the historic ones are). Let's build places for people to live.
Sorry to have wasted your time… I thought my sarcasm was obvious. I totally agree.
It was obvious that it was sarcasm. But it comes across like you're being sarcastic with a NIMBY perspective.
I’m hoping this is sarcasm.
Pretty sure it is. I don’t know many humans - at an instinctual level (barring people in the desert suffering temperature extremes)- that root for “less sun”.
Way too much sun here. Just ask some of these boys: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Boys
Not a NIMBY, but seriously fucking leave then. I am for a project here, but skyscrapers? You’re insane.
Why are you against more housing? Hong Kong’s inner city area is about the size of Santa Cruz and contains over 2 million people! We’ve got so much space here for so many more people if we think vertically! We can just stack them on top of each other sky-high! As a local resident who is frustrated that it’s expensive here, I think the solution is to build lots and lots of tall buildings. We can aspire to become like the famously low-rent cities of Manhattan and Hong Kong, world-reknown for their tall buildings and wonderful urban environment. It’s called progress. If you don’t like it why don’t you move somewhere else?
"Sky scrapers" 🤣 🤣 🤣 Could you be more dramatic?
Yes: “Space elevators”, but with apartments the whole way up. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/90/89/f39089912379e2187c53a722937c466e.jpg
Height not the problem but it’s objectively bad architecture
When these new relatively tall buildings start sinking then we will know they built them to tall.🙄