Will Sears Turn Into Condos?

(edhat file photo)
By an edhat reader
Apparently, the owners of the Sears building in the La Cumbre Plaza have listed it for sale and it might be developed with as many as 546 high-density housing units, according to The Independent.
What do edhat readers think should happen to the building and space? Do we need more high-density housing? Should it be repurposed and incorporated back into the La Cumbre Mall for shopping or other retail stores?
Comments Penalty Box
1 Comments deleted due to down vote
No Comments deleted by Administrator
75 Comments
-
2
-
2
-
Mar 07, 2019 11:05 AM546?!?!?!
-
1
-
-
Mar 07, 2019 03:30 PMToday's magic number.
-
5
-
2
-
Mar 07, 2019 11:07 AMUnfortunately, 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.
-
3
-
1
-
Mar 07, 2019 11:38 AMIsn'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.
-
5
-
-
Mar 07, 2019 12:01 PMANCHOO - sure, as long as none of the residents of the 546 units drive cars. The traffic here plus the new Target a block away would be insanity.
-
4
-
1
-
Mar 07, 2019 12:28 PMMy understanding is that we are no longer allowed to complain about traffic (I'm being sarcastic). Of course the traffic would be horrible. Seems like the state doesn't care; they are requiring cities to provide housing regardless of the wishes of local residents. I don't like it, but I'd rather it be at Sears than crammed into formerly pleasant neighborhoods.
-
3
-
1
-
Mar 07, 2019 01:45 PMI dont think most of our traffic issues have to do with the people who live in SB or Goleta. The sheer volume of cars commuting into SB on any day dwarfs the number of locals using the roads. All you have to do is drive around town on a holiday or a Sunday, or after 7pm to see what a difference the commuters make on traffic. They are the ones clogging up the streets and highways. Maybe we need to create an entry toll on these folks as they're not contributing equally to our local sales or property tax coffers, but are certainly impacting our infrastructure and our lifestyle.
-
1
-
2
-
Mar 07, 2019 03:29 PMBuild a wall... keep the commuters out. MSBGA, baby.
-
1
-
-
Mar 07, 2019 04:32 PMNot sure that there would be enough parking for that many units. There would still need to be parking for shoppers for any stores left at La Cumbra.
-
-
5
-
Mar 07, 2019 11:40 AMwe don't need housing?
-
4
-
4
-
Mar 07, 2019 11:41 AMYes we need much more low income housing much more..
-
3
-
2
-
Mar 07, 2019 11:41 AMIt would SUCK to live there I used to work there.
-
8
-
-
Mar 07, 2019 11:43 AMBoy 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)
-
4
-
1
-
Mar 07, 2019 11:53 AMI'm agreeing with you here- the city totally needs more $1 Taco Tuesdays.
-
3
-
3
-
Mar 07, 2019 11:44 AMIsn't the police department looking for a new headquarters? Would seem to be a good fit.
-
3
-
2
-
Mar 07, 2019 11:59 AMThat would equate to at least 700 more vehicles... awesome.
-
5
-
4
-
Mar 07, 2019 12:21 PMI think the Police Department would be great there. And, if there's a jail there, doesn't that qualify as "housing".
-
2
-
1
-
Mar 07, 2019 12:39 PMIt's the outskirts of the City, doesn't make sense.
-
4
-
-
Mar 07, 2019 12:30 PMI'm not concerned what goes into that building as long is it is not another over priced up scale supermarket.
-
2
-
5
-
Mar 07, 2019 12:50 PMI 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.
-
3
-
1
-
Mar 07, 2019 12:57 PMIt 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.
-
4
-
4
-
Mar 07, 2019 12:59 PMThere 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.
-
1
-
1
-
Mar 07, 2019 02:28 PMState laws are written only by those we elect to write those laws. We have a poor tract record electing those who quickly throw us under the bus. Let's stop doing this to ourselves. Elect some independent locals whose first job is no longer to sell us out to outside interests. The state is us; it is not some foreign entity that demands we do its bidding.
-
1
-
-
Mar 08, 2019 12:20 AMI think SB has a very good "tract" record! ;-) I'm in a tract. The elected personnel in question re: housing are actually at state level, not local.
-
5
-
6
-
Mar 07, 2019 01:44 PMAssuming 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.
-
3
-
3
-
Mar 07, 2019 02:32 PMYour last comment basically says your opinion is best and everyone that disagrees with you is disrespect and unproductive...I’ll assume you are a PL so I understand.
-
4
-
3
-
Mar 07, 2019 02:45 PMI appreciate constructive opposition. I just think, in general, we have lost the ability (or discipline) to do so without personal attack. Kind of like your reply. I'm not sure what part of my post lead you to the conclusion that my opinion is best. By the way, what is PL? Penny Lane?
-
2
-
4
-
Mar 07, 2019 02:50 PMP L ?
-
5
-
2
-
Mar 07, 2019 01:46 PMWho 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
-
6
-
3
-
Mar 07, 2019 01:53 PMShould 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.
-
6
-
4
-
Mar 07, 2019 02:06 PMI 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.
-
5
-
1
-
Mar 07, 2019 02:19 PMRead 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.
-
8
-
1
-
Mar 07, 2019 02:27 PMwe get a little bit of rain and no one is considering the additional water usage all this housing would draw??
-
4
-
-
Mar 07, 2019 07:38 PMWe had one 45 years ago when SB population was 80,000. What happened ?
-
8
-
3
-
Mar 07, 2019 02:30 PMWe 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.
-
12
-
3
-
Mar 07, 2019 02:36 PMOne 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.
-
4
-
-
Mar 07, 2019 06:07 PMYa know that will never stop them every ones got their own ideas...
-
1
-
6
-
Mar 07, 2019 02:53 PMIt’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....
-
4
-
-
Mar 07, 2019 03:07 PMwe have been required to use those types of water saving devices for a LONG TIME. so everyone you just referenced is already doing that, along with most of the properties in santa barbara already.
-
5
-
-
Mar 07, 2019 08:09 PMYea, they mostly likely live somewhere that isn’t always on a water shortage.
-
5
-
-
Mar 07, 2019 08:17 PMAnd the places they move *from* will stay uninhabited then?
-
7
-
5
-
Mar 07, 2019 03:07 PMThis 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.
-
-
3
-
Mar 08, 2019 08:50 AMPITMIX.......I wasn't aware that we are trying " to achieve a city with fewer vehicles "......
-
7
-
-
Mar 07, 2019 03:10 PMthe 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.
-
2
-
-
Mar 08, 2019 12:13 AMThanks for the info, PStar. Here's the article: ================================================================ https://www.independent.com/news/2019/mar/05/sears-replaced-housing/
-
4
-
2
-
Mar 07, 2019 03:18 PMIKEA! I'm there!
-
5
-
5
-
Mar 07, 2019 03:47 PMIf 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.
-
5
-
1
-
Mar 07, 2019 07:09 PMThat was hilarious!
-
8
-
4
-
Mar 07, 2019 10:16 PMDeveloper or Architect Troll. That is what you are. Market-rate for them is 200% ($159,200 family of 4)+ of the area medium income. They want only the highest income earners. Anyone not earning at least 160% ($127,360 family of 4) of the area medium income need not apply. They don't want to create housing for our mechanics, doctors, police officers, nurses, teachers, accountants... Just look at the Marc. Those owners only wanted to serve the luxury apartment need. They even boosted before the building was sold that a huge percentage of renters had incomes well over $150,000.00. How many of us earn this and why can't any units be sent aside for those people not on Section 8, but earn a decent amount? The City Council disgust me. They won't make decisions that would help our disappearing Middle Class.
Comment has been deleted by edhat
Pages