Lost Views

Enjoy this view from Victoria and Chapala—it will be lost after the construction.  As noted in the business report, “the largest renovation project in the State Street corridor is the demolition of the old Von’s supermarket on Victoria and Chapala streets, which is destined to become a mixed-use commercial complex.”

About Editor

Publishing since 2005, the mission of the award-winning website is to help Keep Santa Barbara Santa Barbara™. Please bookmark, www.sbview.com

19 Responses to Lost Views

  1. Bill Carson July 20, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    Oh, but our planning process in Santa Barbara is one of the best in the world. Yeah, if you’re planning to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

  2. Anonymous July 20, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    Just another faux Spanish view-removing project sweet-talked through the planning process by Brian Cearnal and his friends. Another mixed-use luxury complex with upscale shops is about the last thing we need in this town. Watch how quickly it turns into Vacation Rentals by Owner.

  3. Anonymous July 20, 2012 at 5:20 pm #

    Was this grandfathered in? Gotta be some lessons learned from the other bankrupt chapala mixed uses

  4. Hmmmm July 21, 2012 at 7:39 am #

    Since when did people ever enjoy that particular view in the past? Take a photo before anything is built, and you can see what is behind it. Do you live in the parking lot of the old Von’s? Or did you sleep on its roof.. Such a lame article. All is not lost, you can see the same view by walking no less than 500 feet around the block

  5. Bill Carson July 22, 2012 at 11:31 am #

    To Hmmmm: The city is losing it’s charm, little by little, block by block, property by property. Death from a thousand cuts.

    • el_smurfo July 22, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

      Seriously…anyone who walks down lower Chapala can see the slippery slope projects like this create. I’m surprised they didn’t require an affordable unit be built within the Arlington tower as a condition of this soon to be empty monstrosity.

      • Anonymous July 22, 2012 at 3:51 pm #

        I believe this project will be filled with affordable units. High end units that wont sell to make up for the mandatory low income units. Good thinkin yeah?

    • Anonymous July 22, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

      Death by a thousand cuts= perfect analogy@!

  6. Anonymous July 22, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

    And the little boutiquey market that will be situated here behind the relocated mural will not serve the local community that once depended on the run-down Vons. Can you spell gentrification despite all the lip service about “affordable” units? The downturn in the economy, ironically, saved Santa Barbara from even more of these mondo-condos.

  7. Cost Plus July 22, 2012 at 7:01 pm #

    City needs to do an audit of their inclusionary housing projects? Did they meet their intended goals/ Or are now the mandated low-income units locked into something that is not even competitive – they could have done a lot better for the price buying a fee simple condo? And did they other market rate units actually provide workforce housing for middle income?

    How are the condo association reserves and management efficacies in these city mandated inclusionary projects. If you don’t audit for results to show what was intended was actually achieved, it is time to pull that law off the books unless one can show they actually achieved all their goals.

    Otherwise to continue this sort of failed housing scheme will rot our city from within, if it has not already. 17% is now claimed for the number of housing units no longer in the free market in this town. 17% of housing units are now subsidized by the rest of us and also form a very important voting block for their own self-interests. That alone should scare enough other voters in this town to stop this nanny-state take over of Santa Barbara.

  8. Anonymous July 24, 2012 at 10:02 am #

    Ah yes…..the famous gathering and meditation spot at Victoria and Chapalla. What are they going to do with the benches and overlooks from that corner that were used by everyone to appreciate the views of the mountains? Sad to see that all lost. I would have much preferred they left a run down Vons and overflow parking lot.

    • el_smurfo July 24, 2012 at 10:17 am #

      The Vons was likely the last one which had not been upgraded in town due to the uncertainty of it’s lease? I’m sure the folks in Manhattan once had a similar attitude as you regarding views…

  9. ViewingSB July 24, 2012 at 10:53 am #

    Completely dishonest post, I can photoshop any corner to make it a narrow point of view and pronounce that a spectacular view. The editor should publish a actual photo standing on the corner as someone actually see’s it and then people can HONESTLY decide whether its a lost view.

    • el_smurfo July 24, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

      Just drove by there in the near lane of Chapala. The mural is now relocated to the Chapala side with no observable setback. When the main building goes up, I’m pretty sure that entire view is toast and we’ll have one more mixed use behemoth collecting cobwebs.

  10. ViewingSB July 24, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

    Before the Victoria St Theater people could see the Arlington clearly, before the Vons they could also, the Arlington blocks my view of the mountains when I am standing on the sidewalk in back of it….whiners. The courthouse also blocks pedestrians views of the mountains from the corner of Figueroa and Anacapa give it a break.

  11. el_smurfo July 24, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    You’re comparing Santa Barbara classic architecture like the Courthouse, Arlington and even the Vic to this urban planning wet dream?

    • ViewingSB July 25, 2012 at 10:09 am #

      Smurfo not so much that as a comment on the hysterical and misleading spin the View can put on things at times. I was trying to write like I was putting a oped entry together here. To post a picture saying a view will be lost that if you stood within a 20 x 20 foot zone on a street corner and squint just so on one foot and now it will be gone, and then trying to back that up with a photograph edited to block out the actual view a pedestrian would see is ridiculous. When you stretch the bounds of reasonable debate by presenting misleading arguments as the view is doing on a lot of these projects with their exaggerated bias they come across as hysterical and shrill. I like the site but some of the red herrings they throw out make the edhat commentators who hope for a peoples republic look concise and urbane in comparison.

  12. el_smurfo July 25, 2012 at 10:24 am #

    I’m afraid all modern media has been taken over by hysterics and logical fallacies. I do like the balance and in depth reporting here, but agree some off the “caught the vapors” headlines for a little rubber on a curb corner is tiring. Sadly in SB, trying to balance out the hysterical “for the children” rhetoric of the plover patrol seems to cause you to ratchet up your tone to match.

    • ViewingSB July 26, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

      while we don’t always agree Smurfo I almost always enjoy reading your take … “hysterical “for the children” rhetoric of the plover patrol”… as a example of why I enjoy your posts.