Yep, sprawl is still happening in many California cities which didn't enact widespread open space protections. Santa Clarita is a good example of one of those.
I’m familiar with the area, the real problem with building more housing in Calabasas is the traffic. The 101 freeway goes through it and is the only consistent road in the city, side streets are either cut off or pushed far out of your way because, the amount of area taken up by gated communities and private roads. During rush hour, the freeway is congested relatively on par with LA (for its size) which is a major problem when you consider the surrounding area tends to catch on fire in the summer. I think the city should build more roads to accommodate a growing population, before expanding number of residence.
If NIMBYs get this blocked, he should sue on the grounds that it violates the fair housing act and the 14th amendment, which it does, and lawyers can cite NAACP v Huntington, New York. It's straight up discrimination
It doesn't matter how big or small a city is there's always idiots saying "we don't need more people". Often those people watch too much TV that tells them bad things are happening but because they don't see it in their community AND they fail to realize the TV man is scaring them just to keep them hooked the watchers assume the bad stuff happens everywhere outside their community.
That lot would be a great place for apartments and condos; imagine living walking distance from a Barnes and Noble and the grocery store. Are there any plans for mass transit to the area, though? I imagine a train to the nearby Kaiser Woodland Hills and the adjacent office buildings would be helpful to keep congestion manageable on the 101. That said, honestly, I think everything west of Topanga Canyon Blvd should be rural farmland, especially around the creeks that feed into the LA River. Locally grown food without the need to transport thousands of people dozens of miles would be a big plus in my book. Great video as always!
Thanks Nimesh! I agree that if we could wind back the clock, no development should have ever been permitted beyond Topanga Canyon. The surrounding open space is just too valuable. That being said, because the area got built out in our time, and there are now tons of offices (and jobs for blue collar services for the rich homeowners) around Calabasas, it should get new condos/apartments to allow young families to live here and not have to commute from the east valley/beyond. Transit wise, the only thing this area is going to see in the immediate future is the G-line conversion to light rail which stops in Warner Center (2.5 miles away)... but if the area actually densifies over the next 15 years, there definitely needs to be some sort of spur-connection or BRT built along Ventura Blvd to get people from here to the Warner Center. Right now theres just an infrequent local bus line connecting to it.
I stumbled on this video and am absolutely floored by your production value. As a Southern Californian I’ve been looking everywhere for up-to-date local news regarding urban planning so this was a great surprise! I recently graduated from Cal Poly with a BA and Masters in Public Policy so if you ever need any help on videos, research, or script writing I would love to help anyway I can.
benevolent capitalism I am always skeptical of a developer who says that they will provide affordable housing, because where I live, in my experience, they find a way around actually following through with it and just pay the penalties.
I wonder if anyone has asked those who oppose anything other than SFH whether they want to allow their kids or grandkids to be able to live in their city without having to have strong 6-figure jobs with a long commute, similar to what their newer neighbors have?
Building lots of housing over time would lower the value of the properties, because affordable housing and high property values are inherently incompatible. The NIMBYs have to lose a little bit of their property value, but the rest of society gains in the long run by having the housing.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer community (snark snark) Calabasas had a wonderful nursery (Sterling’s Nursery). It was a Disneyland of nurseries, with popcorn and a miniature railroad and multiple gardens showcasing a parklike landscape that encouraged visitors to dream and explore. When old man Sperling passed away, his employees wanted to buy the property and continue the business. But the property was a low value taxpayer. The city opted to turn the lot into a high end automobile dealership. Much greater tax income for the area. Literally paved paradise and made it a parking lot (Joni Mitchell’s words)
Why are these rich real estate developers so tacky in their designs? They can accomplish some of what they want but to mix with the surrounding area. It's to ruin Calif more. Even the rich areas aren't immune. Lol I'm on next door to for my Socal Are. I'm down by Newport Beach they did the same here and now they're doing a 1500 unit bldg. That's like projects.
In so many parts of America, I consider these parking oceans with single level islands as the land banks for the livable areas that working age people want these days, while enjoying adjacency to suburban services & schools
I doubt the setting aside 12 units for "affordable" units is being done as a good gesture. The developers are most likely getting tax breaks or a density bonus to build. Same here in NYC, developers basically throw in the "affordable" units to gain tax breaks or to add more units to the project.
Do you think they're primarily angry about the potential impact on their property value? Or do you think it's not about that, like they just don't want slightly less rich tenants in the area? I mean it would still be really expensive to live there lol I think someone mentioned it would really benefit from transit access otherwise you'd need car parking for all those 100 tenants so they can get around, to work. And I've also noticed, one of the side effects of all the restricted CA housing is lots of people sharing one home, kids not moving out, lots of cars in front of each house. And recently, people just leaving CA or refusing to come.. so you could see the nimby and CA government would have opposing incentives.. CA government wants the economy to grow, people to move in, spend money and tax... Nimby want their property to appreciate and keep traffic outside their neighborhood
I’ve heard a lot of people citing that property value reason, but it makes little sense here because almost all the homes are located far from the commons. Plus, good apartments being put into a already nice area doesn’t usually decrease property values.
Disagree that we need to stop the sprawl, I’m fine losing green open space in exchange for high density housing. And why does nobody specifically mention condos? We need more condos so renters can become owners
