Re: “Building Heights Should Reflect the Community Character in Uptown” [See Vol. 6 Issue 2]

In a city of 1.3 million, the second largest city in California and the eighth largest city in the United States, I find the fact that Mr. [Barry] Hager and Mr. [Luke] Terpstra want to live in a “village” to be quaint and romantic at best, and at worst elitist and damaging to the Uptown community.

So what is it that the anti-height, anti-growth advocates want? What is the outcome and what is their vision for Hillcrest and Uptown into 2050?

“Character” is a word thrown around a lot. Although, advocates have been unwilling, or unable to define “character,” let alone make the connection between building height and character. There are plenty of ugly, one, two and three-story buildings in Uptown. One only needs to walk around Uptown to realize that building height, clearly, has little impact on preserving “character.” Architecture and urban design guidelines, on the other hand, would have a significant impact of character, yet no one from the anti-height, anti-growth group has addressed those issues.

Then there is the fear mongering. Words like “massive development,” that Hillcrest should be “scrapped and re-developed,” the fear of 150 – 200 foot-tall buildings, and that Uptown will become like Downtown. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is advocating for any of these. To assert otherwise, is to see boogymen behind every corner, and is an attempt to scare the public.

As for those buildings that have been developed since the IHO has been in place, the new Vons Mission Hills received an Onion award. Not too many people like it. Sadly, 301 University Ave. is now another drugstore chain. Just what Hillcrest needed to maintain “community character!”

The Uptown news article [see “How Tall?” Vol. 6 Issue 2] cites that 25 people voted on the Hillcrest Town Council resolution. 25 who, we are told, represent the voice of the Hillcrest community. It is the same HTC-25 who have taken regressive stances against smart growth, against sustainable development, against bicycles, who are pro-parking, pro-automobile, and whose members have opined that climate change isn’t something Hillcrest really needs to deal with. The HTC has become the “Tea Party” of community organizations in Hillcrest. I doubt that most residents in Uptown, a community known for its progressive politics, would agree much with the HTC-25.

The fact is that Uptown will continue to grow. If we don’t come up with a responsible plan to manage that growth in a way that is socially, environmentally, and economical sustainable, we will have failed future generations and ourselves. There are established, good urban design principles that can help guarantee that Uptown becomes a people oriented, walkable, beautiful, productive neighborhood. Sadly, those principles have become the victim of petty politics-as-usual among Uptown community activists. I hope the Planning Department and City Council can rise above that and see a better future for Uptown.

—Walter Chambers (via sduptownnews.com)

Re: How tall? [See Vol. 6 Issue 2]

The fight of height seems to be the proxy battle with the city over appropriate funding for infrastructure resources to allow Hillcrest to grow well.

Until then, the business environment in Hillcrest will struggle to find the patrons it needs to economically boom.

—Eric Brown (via sduptownnews.com)

Re: How tall? [See Vol. 6 Issue 2]

With greater height comes greater parking issues. I would actually double that height limit to an additional 30 feet on condition that 50 percent of that height increase must be used for a public parking garage. Let the neighborhood grow, but responsibly.

—George McGinnis (via sduptownnews.com)

Re How Tall? [See Vol. 6 Issue 2]

Yup! I’d say that’s about the way it happened. Thanks for letting it be known that the discussion was pretty well exhausted with all sides having a say before we voted. Good reporting Dave and Hutton.

—Hillcrest Town Council Chair Luke Terpstra (via sduptownnews.com)

Re: A field guide to San Diego houses [See Vol. 6 Issue 2]

Classifying house styles is “confusing, contentious and controversial”, because it’s a matter of opinion; unlike classifying birds. Robins and humming birds fall into distinct classifications, but the style of a house reflects the fashion when it was built. If more than one style was in fashion, the house might be a combination of styles. For instance, a Craftsman-style house can have Colonial Revival-style pillars holding up the front porch. If a house combines too many styles to fall neatly into any one category, we simply say it’s “eclectic.”

Houses, unlike birds, frequently change their style over time with changes in fashion, and more importantly, changes in how people live in a house. A dark Craftsman house is painted Colonial Revival white when Colonial Revival becomes the prevailing fashion, wood siding rots and is replaced with easier to maintain stucco, and the front porch is enclosed to give the owners more room.

Ironically, even the idea of “restoring” a house by removing the history of changes that have taken place is a fashion.

An excellent book on how buildings change over time is, “How Buildings Learn,” by Stewart Brand.

—Sharon Gehl (via sduptownnews.com)