Will Sears Turn Into Condos?

546?!?!?!

Unfortunately, it's not up to us at all. We definitely do NOT need more housing, and certainly not 546 units jammed into that space. But, it's all about the money and those who have it. Bummer.

Isn't the state requiring cities to build housing? If so, this seems like a fine location--it won't ruin any current residential neighborhoods, will it? I hope they retain/provide adequate parking. 546 does seem like a huge number.

we don't need housing?

It would SUCK to live there I used to work there.

Boy oh boy do I hope so. What this town needs more than anything is more $1,250,000 - 1100 sqFt condos right next to the freeway. People who buy these types of properties absolutely love living with mandated low income housing too. They'll sell like $1 tacos on a Tuesday or maybe the city will buy them and gift them to a few lucky "low income" souls? We know how well that's worked out in the past and how well managed those properties are today (/ sarcasm)

Isn't the police department looking for a new headquarters? Would seem to be a good fit.

That would equate to at least 700 more vehicles... awesome.

I think the Police Department would be great there. And, if there's a jail there, doesn't that qualify as "housing".

I'm not concerned what goes into that building as long is it is not another over priced up scale supermarket.

I think it would a very cool retail/residence structure. Imagine shops, restaurants on the first level, below ground parking for residences. Second and third higher residential units. Not more than 3 levels high. Very European.

It doesn't matter that the police department would be on the outskirts of the city. What matters is where the police officers and police cars are.

There has been a law in CA since 1969 that cities must build to accommodate growing and anticipated population growth.
Per CA Department of Housing and Community Development:
"Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan” (also required by the state). General plans serve as the local government’s "blueprint" for how the city and/or county will grow and develop and include seven elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, and housing. The law mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as “housing-element law.”
Short answer: Cities are mandated to keep building more housing, no matter what.
I think turning that location into housing actually seems to make sense. Walk to grocery, shopping, bus stop, etc.

Assuming the rest of the mall would open practical stores to accommodate locals, I think it is a great idea. They did a nice job restoring that building and it does not get many shoppers. Having a live/work/shop development in SB is something I support. Of course, my opinion differs from all the naysayers so I expect plenty of disrespectful and unproductive commentary.

Who owns the Sears Building? The CEO who drove Sears in to the ground???

I would rather see an IKEA in the Sears Building but not a movie theater as suggested previously

Considering the demographics the mall wants, the only thing under $1m would be the construction shed in the parking lot

Should be SBPD HQ and vehicle maintenance facility. Room enough for Fire Dept HQ and other emergency services, plus city Conference Rooms, etc. Might even be worth moving City Hall there, and then selling the downtown City Hall building to Google or Amazon.

I completely agree with YACHT ROCKED: Should be SBPD HQ and vehicle maintenance facility. Room enough for Fire Dept HQ and other emergency services. Freeway close, an obvious choice. We missed out on turning the old St Vincent's Orphanage property at 101 and 154 into a hospital, that was another obviously good location for a worthy freeway-close emergency room but someone decided instead to gobble up the neighborhood around Cottage instead, slowly destroying traditional housing there. Watch the typical politics at work now, what would be best for the citizens will not be chosen.

Read the article, this entire idea is based on a single comment from the owners who are trying to sell the property. NO ONE has expressed interest in building or converting into condos. We're just spinning our wheels here.

we get a little bit of rain and no one is considering the additional water usage all this housing would draw??

We are not victims of "state" mandates - we elect those who write the laws that require these things from us. We have not been well served locally for decades by our own elected officials. Time to elect change; not more of the same old betrayals.

One more time....the city does not have the money to buy Sears or any other large desirable parcel. Plus they have already picked their new spot....it had to be City owned since the only funds available are to build the new station. How 'bout quit beating a dead horse.

It’s not like 700 people are appearing out of this air. They are currently alive and using water somewhere and the majority of the residents most likely already live in SB or the surrounding areas. Shoot it would probably be better since they will be required to use water saving faucets, shower heads etc....

This is a preliminary idea at this point. But realistically speaking, densifying the neighborhood in this area makes a lot of sense. Close to shopping, medical facilities, and transportation corridors. If we are ever to achieve a city with fewer vehicles, this would help a lot.

the independent article that sparked this debate has an interesting point. This mall ( la cumbre ) has 3 owners technically right now. Sears owns their property under the store/ parking lots. Macy's owns theirs/ lots and then the middle area is owned by someone else. Basically all 3 of those owners ( or 1 new owner if sears location sold ) would have to agree on the proposed redesign/ residential change to that portion of the mall. honestly as much as I dont want this to happen because of the greed it will most certainly expose, I doubt all 3 of those landlords/ owners will agree to restructuring that mall into a mixed use residential hodgepodge.

IKEA! I'm there!

If possible of course new beautiful housing should be build there, and it should be market rate housing, not Section 8 housing. New market rate housing means new residents, who pay taxes and who start new businesses and who frequent local businesses. The city prospers. That's real progress.