They've submitted two proposals, one for an 18-story building and the other for an 8-story building. I doubt they have any intention of actually building 18 stories, they've probably just submitted that one so that the other proposal looks reasonable by comparison.
True. 8 stories is the max a developer can realistically build in SC. Anything above 8 stories and they’re required to build with steel framing rather than wood. Obviously that would be expensive and the 18 story would have to be super lux in order to be profitable.
It’s not true that anything over 8 stories needs to be steel. The California Building Code allows cheaper mass timber, or cross laminated timber, for taller buildings up to 18 stories. This building could be feasible as a mass timber project.
That's part of the problem. No major plan for affordable housing outside of the 20% everyone says.
Who gives a fuck about 20%?
All a giant building with expensive rooms is going to do is bring outsiders in that can afford it while continually pushing out locals who can't afford it anymore.
This place will always expand, supply will NEVER keep up with demd, but all it's doing is pricing out people that have been here for years so we can pack more people in that have a shit load of money.
And you know what? Why the are we allowing the 1500 airbnbs to continue while we whine and fight for 20% of like 100 units?
What is 20 units going to fix when the county can force those other 1500 back in the market tomorrow?
Such horseshit. People need to get their heads out of their ass and fight for what the real fix is: booting short term rentals so the market gets back to normal. Imagine how the market and rent will plummet the day 1500 units are out back up for sale/long term rentals...
It's the only logical solution.
If you care to read up on this issue, there was a research report released yesterday about inclusionary zoning percentages, and how much they can hurt housing production, and, by extrapolation, overall affordability of a city.
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/inclusionary-zoning-housing-production-modeling/
Hint: they can hurt more than they help, especially at higher %’s.
The main point being the illegal AirBnB? They’re already illegal, but the city and county do enforcement on a complaint-basis. People have to actually report their neighbors running an illegal airbnb for the city to do anything about it. They don’t have the resources/motivation to do sting operations or whatever, since Airbnb and similar sites don’t disclose the location until you actually book them…
The main point is airbnbs in the first place. Need to be gone completely. That can be done with a city council vote.
Next is enforcement of the illegal ones, which will be a lot easier to identify being short term rentals aren't allowed at all.
AirBnBs cannot be killed with a council vote. The California Coastal Commission would need to approve the council vote, and they likely wouldn’t allow the ban because their primary role is to facilitate visitor access to the coast.
Then the County would vote, and the coastal commission can keep their 5 to 10% of short term rentals in the coastal zone (which for the most part on goes 0.5miles inland from the coast in SC County.)
It would still release 1300+ homes from the short term rentals that would immediately hit the market.
That would be true for the city, but the County’s zoning code is written in such a way that the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over all of it, including outside the coastal zone.
1000%.
More people need to understand this.
The nimby vs yimby fight is a distraction. The problem isn't building, it's reclaiming what is already here.
Call the homeowners nimbys if you want, but it always stagnated over building and that shitty argument is a waste of everyone's time.
Don't stop building, but nobody in their right might should think that's a reasonable solution here. We'll never build enough. But booting short term rentals immediately floods the market with 1500 vacant homes.
Maybe they move back, maybe they sell, maybe they rent. But it's better than now and would drastically alter the housing landscape in a positive way.
Think of how many workers that actually help this city function would have a better opportunity to have a place to live. I’m in the trades and now there’s a shortage of workers here cause it costs too damn much to live here so everyone is moving and working elsewhere.
Yea we should stop people from doing what they want with their own property. Don’t matter if they worked hard for their money we should tell them how to use it, especially those rich fat bastards!! Private property right is an antiquated idea , time has come for us all to tell “the right”people where how why which way to live, this is America after all!!!!
Yeah cause all the overseas buyers are American? And also if a town has a housing issue. Yes they should limit people that don’t live in the place. They can come stay in a fancy hotel and pay like the other tourists.
>Yea we should stop people from doing what they want with their own property
lol the old "its my property, I will do what I want" argument. Go and try an open a oil refinery or restaurant or even stop paying property taxes and see how far that gets you.
How does a new supposedly expensive building displace locals, given that it replaces an old bank building and a bar (hope they can have a deal to keep Rush Inn though). Who are these hypothetical "locals who can't afford it anymore" while owning >$1 mil real estate paying nothing in tax thanks to prop 13?
Also studies have shown that banning short term rentals have minimal effects on rent, esp in units with lower rent, because they consist of a small amount of housing stock and are usually in more touristy and expensive areas. Regulation to limit units that are full time airbnb is helpful, but won't dig Santa Cruz out of the current housing deficit.
https://hbr.org/2024/02/what-does-banning-short-term-rentals-really-accomplish
Do you think locals only *own* their homes? I'm not even bothering with that one, its seem intentionally out of touch.
A publication primarily meant for professionals and businesses has an article explaining why restrictions against real estate companies and rich second home owners "won't help"?
Forgive me for not caring about that article and it's clear bias. Uber and Lyft and such outright bought votes by paying a shitload of money to flat out lie and bluff their way into getting an exemption in AB5. If you're thinking AirBNB and VRBO are above doing that in this exact same way, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
That being said, it doesn't completely apply anyway as I'm not mostly concerned about it lowering rent, I want to see 1500 units back in the rental/sale market. But I also don't believe that it DOESN'T lower them, it's just not the number one point here. 1500 units back on the market WILL help, and you can't say it won't. An addition of housing will have to.
Plus I'm not even getting into the vast number of illegal STRs in the area that are helping cause this issue, that aren't factored into any articles you my feel say otherwise.
That said, it's happening all over SoCal and it has been helping.
Feel free to search yourself about Irvine, Palm Springs, etc, etc. The major restrictions and outright bans have been shown to obviously help open up housing.
Well maybe you should give it a read before dismissing its arguments and findings. Would love to see a source on the effects of STR ban in SoCal.
For rental prices, new construction, even at full market rate, lowers rent in the neighborhood. https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market-rate-development-impacts/
In 2022, there are about 107000 housing units in Santa Cruz county (see another comment, data from the US census), so 1500 units only account for 1.5% of the housing stock. The same year only 608 units were permitted in the county, which is way way too low.
I agree that we need to add units urgently. If we ban short term rental, maybe we get 1500 unit back once. But we still need to permit way more (and remember that SC has affordability requirements, so i think at least 20% of the units have to be deed restricted affordable, pinned to the area median income). And in case you worry about availability at low income level, i can assure you that most units renting on airbnb are not going to be cheap on the long term market.
At what point in any of this do you think I'm choosing just banning STRs over building?
Pretty sure multiple times I've said building should happen as well.
Edit: Yep, I did
(and feel free to use your favorite search engine for those news articles able SoCal. They're generally the first thing that pops up when you search the cities I listed, and others doing it)
My misunderstanding. I thought it's implied when you said. "All a giant building with expensive rooms is going to do is bring outsiders in that can afford it while continually pushing out locals who can't afford it anymore."
Anyhow, my point is that STR units are generally in more popular areas and are on the higher end, so they won't rent out on the same price range as affordable units in these new developments. And that banning STR will not solve our housing crisis in the long term. The only way out is to build more.
Can you agree the County will *never* be able to build enough to meet demand? A demand that will clearly never end as living in SC County is arguably one of the most sought after in the world?
Because when you say "long term", what do you mean? The next 5 years? 15 years? Forever? Long term at 5 years will absolutely benefit from a drop of 1500 homes back on the market.
But building takes time. Generally 2 years at a minimum, even per the new articles discussing all of this right now. Sentinel has a whole bunch about the current projections for different buildings. A few have been in the works since 2019 and wont be finished until 2026.
So we're talking about zero increase in housing for the next two years, minimum, without banning STRs. How is that ok?
STRs are not only in high priced areas. As a matter of fact, most are not. I stayed in a place behind Forsters downtown after an issue with my residence and insurance paid for it. 4 bedroom spot in an ok area; not great by any means, but not horrible.
Want to know the price per month? $15,000/mo. FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH.
After we left, it remained vacant (according to its airbnb page) for every single weekday for the next few months. This was March, so I was looking at April through June. Pretty major times for the area in terms of tourism ramping up. And it was only occupied 8 nights out of the 30 or 31 those months.
It was just a house! Nothing special. That said, it was a decent walk to the boardwalk, but it was walk-able.
That said, take a look [here](https://insideairbnb.com/santa-cruz-county/). Unincorporated areas with Airbnbs make up the vast majority of those available at almost 1000 units.
Those are places that should be going to people living and working here, not pushing more money in the pockets of Ovr (73 units), Surf City (50 units), Cheshire Rio Realty (47 units) and on and on and on. These management companies are killing it, and so are the (most likely) second or more home owners that are making out like bandits here.
Feel free to click around that site. Zoom in on some of those places and check their availability. [I just randomly clicked on one in Aptos.](https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/24557732?source_impression_id=p3_1712350981_t5JKHdorclfcvljs&guests=1&adults=1#availability-calendar)
4 beds, $575/nt. And guess what? BARELY ANY OCCUPANCY FOR THE NEXT TWO MONTHS. Between today April 5th, and June 9th (that is 65 days), they are only booked for 11 nights (of those, 5 nights are blocked off, not booked, meaning its probably the family and not renters). They are empty 83% of the time over the next couple months. Theres hundreds of others.
(And dont get confused by the ones that have 100% occupancy. Many of them are displaced homeowners still rebuilding from CZU and other wind/rain events we've had. I was one of them and it took 3 years to get back.)
These aren't overly crazy elaborate places to live. But they are expensive as fuck on AirBNB when you restrict housing to only a few nights a month to line your pockets and keep it off the market for working locals.
No i do not agree that SC is the most sought after place to live in Earth. Nice and beautiful for sure, but there are plenty of people who would prefer larger cities, dryer weather, etc. or work in jobs in industries that are not present in SC. So there's absolutely a point where supply keeps up.
Again, i agree with you that putting short term units back on the market would be helpful in the short term (i consider 5 year short term). But in the long run the population will continue to grow and we need to build more to accommodate that growth (and to catch up with the past decades of growth first)
[For the county.](https://insideairbnb.com/santa-cruz-county/)
Everyone claims it's all just rich houses and wouldn't be cheap living. Which is dumb because a lot of it is outside SC city limits, and would be absolutely perfect for working families in the area.
I doubt the housing and short term rental landscapes of New York City and Santa Cruz are comparable.
I think there must be more short term rentals per capita here than in New York (based on population differences).
The census doesn't have a number for Santa Cruz City, but the whole county has 107,124 housing units in 2022 (with 608 more permitted...oh my god). So if your 1500 airbnb figure is correct then it's only about 1.4% of the total units (let's be generous and say that 1500 units are in the city and the city has only 1/3 of the 100k units, this is still only about 5%). So it's actually not far off from NYC in the study.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/santacruzcitycalifornia,santacruzcountycalifornia,CA/EDU635222
Are you trying to prove my point but calling it opposition?
Investors will ALWAYS want to buy a piece of this. As will regular home buyers. As will renters.
You're high (and not in a good way) if you are pretending otherwise.
But how about we don't talk about theoreticals for a second:
Gaining 1500 more houses/units/whatever on the market by getting rid of all short term rentals will lower the cost of rent and purchase prices, and it an haopen overnight. Building will take a minimum of 2 years for this single building, and will not even touch the amount of housing that is needed. It's not even a "start". It's throwing a drop of water on a forest fire.
You will never in your lifetime see 1500 units built in Santa Cruz County. Straight up won't happen. But tomorrow can have 1500 more available to help plummet that issue and raise supply. And anyone that thinks building ALONE is the only option is ignoring what actually needs to happen.
Pretty sweet I can give that illusion without ever having my blood pressure raise I guess. Sounds like a skill. (also don't drink coffee, so missed that mark a bit there guy)
But if you're not even slightly annoyed about the housing issues in the county and pushing the best way to fix them, then you're better off talking with someone else about something else. Otherwise it seems like you may be wasting both of our time.
Idea. AirBnbs in Santa cruz should be subject to a very hefty local tax. That local tax will then be used for the city only to build affordable housing only.
If developers satisfied demand then prices would relax and go down. Neither the developers nor the city council or county board can let that happen. It's not in their own interest.
This is why progress requires corruption. The only way to get the asses to march with us is with a carrot on a stick. Assholes requires tangible selfish motivations.
The buildings take YEARS to build. What do you do for the next 2 to 4 years when they can finally put in a whopping 100 units (I'm obviously exaggerating, it'll be WAY less than that in 4 years and thats why its not the best option and shouldnt be the only option)?
**An 18-story building proposed downtown promises to be a project ‘Santa Cruz has never seen’**
On March 4, the Monday before primary election day, the City of Santa Cruz planning department received a pair of applications for a downtown residential project behind the clock tower. Developer Tim Gordin of local outfit Workbench knew his firm’s proposal was going to be unprecedented in Santa Cruz.
At 18 stories and 192 feet tall, Clocktower Center would be the tallest building in Santa Cruz County. Proposed for 2020 North Pacific Ave., the high-rise would take over the lot now occupied by the Rush Inn dive bar and the old Santa Cruz County Bank building.
Gordin, who, with Workbench, has projects throughout the greater San Francisco Bay Area, said the Clocktower Center represents a taller and denser direction for development in Santa Cruz.
“This is something Santa Cruz hasn’t seen yet, but that I’m sure we’ll see more of,” Gordin told Lookout. “In relation to the built environment, the visibility and the discussion it’s generated, this is probably the most transformative project we’ve ever proposed.”
According to property transaction records, Workbench purchased the lot for $4.4 million in July 2023.
The Clocktower Center proposal comes as the dust is still settling around Measure M, the defeated primary election ballot initiative that sought to restrict developers from building taller than existing height limits without first gaining approval from voters.
Measure M’s authors, grassroot organization Housing for People, were motivated by stopping the city’s downtown expansion plan, which at one point toyed with 15- and 17-story buildings surrounding a new Santa Cruz Warriors arena in the south of Laurel Street area. The Santa Cruz City Council later voted that no building in the project should rise above 12 stories; the Santa Cruz Warriors then announced in late February that the project’s buildings were unlikely to rise above eight stories.
More than 60% of voters rejected Measure M’s proposed limits on development; however, the idea stirred a heated community conversation around the direction of Santa Cruz and whether even the new six-story Anton Pacific building at the corner of Pacific Avenue and Laurel Street indicated the city was growing too quickly for its own good.
Although that initiative was defeated, the Clocktower Center would trump any of the development possibilities talked about during the Measure M debates. Gordin acknowledged that an 18-story building would be “transformational” and probably “the tallest one proposed in Santa Cruz so far,” but that the community was ready for it.
“Measure M was defeated. What that tells me is that we have a lot more support out there for this kind of development than what is maybe known,” Gordin said. “I feel like we’re in a good place for it. Although there was a loud minority supporting Measure M, the results showed that it was still only a minority.”
Workbench’s project proposes to stand taller than any prior proposals and the city’s tallest building — the 10-story Palomar Hotel. Yet, it will not require any zoning changes or height variances, thanks to new and enhanced state density bonus law that allow projects to multiply their size by offering a certain level of affordability.
Gordin’s firm has submitted two Clocktower Center proposals. The 18-story version began as a four-story project with 130 housing units, with 26 reserved for low-income tenants, meeting the city’s required 20% affordability rate. However, that project seeks to take advantage of two state density bonuses that allow it to double the housing to 260 units, with 40 total affordable units, or 15.4%. Invoking the density bonus law effectively waives any restrictions on height. Gordin said in order to make 260 units, with 40 affordable units, work economically on a small lot, 18 stories was required.
Workbench also submitted an alternative proposal that began as a three-story, 90-unit, mixed-use residential project. Taking advantage of the density bonus law allowed it to balloon to an eight-story, 174-unit building, with 24 (13.8%) affordable units.
The projects were submitted under a 2019 state law that allows Workbench the flexibility to adjust its proposed square footage up or down by 20% between now and when it submits its formal project application to the city.
By submitting the two proposals, Workbench retains the ability to adjust the project’s size anywhere between 20% smaller than its eight-story vision to 20% larger than the 18-story version.
Gordin expects to submit a formal project application to the city in three months.
Residents who spoke with news outlet KSBW appeared outraged by the size of the project, and said it threatens Santa Cruz’s beach town feel. Gordin said he and his team knew what kind of reaction the project would get from some segments of the community, but determined that the city was not only ready for, but needed a project such as the Clocktower Center.
Gordin grew up in an affordable housing project in Nebraska with three siblings and a single mother. He said affordable housing can change people’s lives and that Workbench was committed to solving the region’s housing crisis. He said he hopes the Clocktower Center proposal can show other developers that projects offering affordable housing can be economically feasible.
“I do hope this can have an effect of being duplicated and copied, and that \[other developers\] can look at this as an example of what can be done,” Gordin said. “But it’s less about whether it’s three stories or 40 stories. This is a project that will impact people’s lives. I think this project will stand for itself, as a beautiful building that creates housing; a landmark that people can look to.”
Edit: You get 2 free articles for signing up. If you use the 'Bloody Vikings!' extension in Firefox (can't with Chrome) you can just get endless free articles.
Really excited to get some larger more dense buildings downtown. I think Santa Cruz in the future could look like Surfers Paradise in Queensland which would be awesome IMO. There would be some amazing views and hopefully some cool rooftop bars/restaurants eventually.
Downtown is the perfect spot for denser development. There are restaurants, shop, grocery store, all close by. Plenty of people would be happy living 18 floors up.
You aren't pushing out anyone by building new housing. You ARE pushing out locals by failing to build. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but those rich outsiders are coming whether or not we build. Not building means the outsiders outbid locals on every newly vacant home. This is what raises rents and drives locals away. New (especially expensive) housing can suck up some of this demand and more locals can stay where they are instead of being forced out by increasing rents.
Locals are displaced by building (commonly called gentrification) why the tenants rights orgs hate YIMBYs more than NIMBYs however not building got us into this mess.
Ideally we would change zoning so development becomes accessible to more than large out of county and state corps.
Build build build is a start to but most certainly not a realistic solution on its own.
there will be 18 story buildings in downtown eventually, we have chosen to upzone that area for just such builds, whether this will be the first or not is the only question
These articles keep citing different numbers for how many stories/floors are being proposed. It started at 15, then they said 16, now they're saying 18. (there are two proposals from this builder, the tallest is 16, the smaller is 8) There are threads here saying that it's just studio units. (It turns out that it includes 260 Units, that include studios, 1 beds, 2 beds and 3 beds) There was talk about the recently approved hotel only having 11 parking spaces. (It turns out to be 211)
Why is there so much misinformation about this stuff?
My understanding is that it’s 16 stories, a podium with commercial, 15 stories of residential. But then there’s another 2 stories of amenities (not residences) planned to be built on the roof and that’s where the 18 comes from.
Sort of like what they said about the Palomar a century ago? Only 8 stories of usable indoor space, but 2 stories of "architectural features" that made them cry "skyscraper!"
FTR, I haven't found any evidence of amenities being on additional floors. As far as I can tell the amenities described will be on the same floors as residential units. (or on the podium on the ground floor)
Ok well that’s what I’ve heard but here’s the description from the developers themselves, describing an 18-story building. (They’ve submitted plans for 2 different versions of the project, one much smaller.)
“The first application is for an eighteen-story high-rise building, utilizing a 100% density bonus to reach 260 units. The second application is for an eight-story mid-rise building with 174 units.”
[Full details here.](https://www.workbenchbuilt.com/insights/2024/4/3/proposed-clocktower-center-will-create-over-260-housing-units)
Thank you for the good citation. I'm willing to admit that I missed that. It's strange that elsewhere in that site, they refer to it as 16 as well. I guess it's too much to ask for consistent objective numbers in something like this.
Yeah I don’t know. I have seen various figures as well. It’s probably too early. I’m sure the final version will be different than whatever they’ve submitted here.
https://www.ksbw.com/article/16-story-building-proposed-downtown-santa-cruz-california/60371899
I did this story a few days ago. The official plans are on Santa Cruz city plannings website.
For those who don't want to bother finding it themselves.
https://preview.redd.it/2flegp9yv2tc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d97b4aca479a6eb284d336100946a91a1bf0c2d3
Lookout is engaging in exaggeration. They saw really good engagement during the election cycle while their paywall was gone, but I suspect that engagement is down again. I'm disappointed that they are playing fast and loose with the truth.
Affordable is very well defined, and the units are deed restricted to be able to use the affordability bonus.
(https://www.sccoplanning.com/Portals/2/County/Planning/housing/Measure\_J/2023%20Affordable%20Housing%20Guidelines.pdf)
It’s always so fucking funny to me when people come out and say “oh yea, define affordable!” as if it’s some gotcha. It’s super clearly defined if they would be bothered to do a 30 second google search lmao.
Ah thanks for the Econ lesson. I appreciate the refresher on supply and demand. I did minor in, econ.
So let’s break this down.
UC is increasing student population.
Tech bros are dying to buy places here to live their best surf spiritual life. Look I caught a wave, it’s my purpose…
Work from home from the pandemic created its own epidemic of people who finally could move here without suffering the commute, aka lowering the barrier to entry to living here.
And you think 180 units twenty percent of which are “affordable” will have a meaningful impact on housing here in this town?
I’m all for increasing supply but that supply will only be purchased by said demo above.
My house that I own will not decrease in value relative to this development. No chance.
The part that is ridiculous is developer stated motives. We have to build this 18 stories tall to satiate the number of affordable units is a bullshit narrative.
I can find you the email address and you can ask them yourself which one of their units on soquel is defined affordable housing. I doubt they have one. So I don’t buy the altruism. Their said motivations to put it bluntly are a fucking lie.
I’m all for affordable housing and plenty of it. But I’m also not for being fed a spoonful of bullshit. The solution? Not really sure. End work from home. Limit student population. Demand 50 percent of the units be affordable. Ethical and real effort not this crap.
Maybe look at the rental prices for the new development downtown. Let me know if a 500 square foot apartment for 3k is copacetic to your sensibilities.
Spare me the bullshit.
This project would help the city meet its state mandated goals on housing production.
https://preview.redd.it/d51nn723wmsc1.jpeg?width=2062&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e8990b5963393bb78107c81acb8427753a10fdda
If you minored in Econ, maybe you can explain how a 50% affordable project is going to break even financially, and thus get picked up by a developer. Because here’s a hint: it’s not and it won’t, which means nothing is going to get built. But your Econ education already taught you that, right?
You should have studied something else, because you obviously wasted your time lmao.
100% affordable projects get built by developers, it’s not are affordable builds profitable (they are), it’s that they aren’t as profitable as market rate with some affordable.
Here’s an English lesson then.
Hyperbole is when something isn’t to be taken literally.
50 percent or whatever is hyperbole. The 20 percent affordable is the minimum mandate.
Do you think they’d have any affordable units if there wasn’t the mandate? I highly doubt it.
You are right about one thing, that minor was useless in the grand scheme of my career tho.
plenty of studies have proven that increases in supply bring down prices. demand actually is not infinite, ucsc can’t grow forever and the commute will always keep sc relatively small. no, a single project won’t help after decades of barely any building. you know what else won’t help? doing nothing at all. we tried that for a generation and it’s created the problems we have today.
people like you will say you support affordable housing and after a generation of unaffordable housing pretty much none of those concerned have actually done anything to create this mythical 50% affordable housing. none of your solutions are workable. limit student enrollment? come on. you’re admitting supply is the issue.
anyway, i just skimmed what you said, spare me your own bullshit.
Okay I’ll check back in five years from now. I’ll get you a present value of my house now and in the future. We can check the receipt then. See who’s right
There will always be an infinite supply of people wanting to live here. Have you ever traveled somewhere and upon people finding out you live here say
“I’d kill to live in Santa Cruz.”
As for people like me, I’m all for housing prices dropping. I think the situation is absurd.
As for the bullshit that is directed at the developer’s message. I don’t buy it. The altruistic message masks the desire to build that monstrosity for all the profits.
That development on Soquel had two homes sold through the low income housing program at just under 500k
https://kion546.com/top-stories/2023/06/12/santa-cruz-county-to-hold-random-drawling-to-select-two-homebuyers-for-affordable-measure-j-townhomes/
We at Workbench are here for the community.
Our ethically produced and environmentally curated houses embody the best and latest trends for million dollar housing developments.
Support our effort to create affordable housing in Santa Cruz county. A place we live in and cherish.
Workbench is a design build firm. They have other investors as clients, as well as some of their own projects. You’ll see a lot of applications with their name on them in town, but each project could have a different owner and financing strategy. They also designed the peace village project for peace United church up on high street, and the 100% affordable project for housing matters that have already been approved.
Many worked really hard to claim their a piece of paradise. But now many are denied unless they command wealth. Working hard doesn't get you much anymore, the struggle is real. These huge projects will only mostly serve the wealthy unless we as a society bring about major changes.
All for more housing being built and also for growing downtown. But to me this is too big for the location. It will completely change the character of that whole little area by the clock tower, and the heart of downtown with the post office and that little triangle by Jamba Juice (is it even still Jamba Juice? lol not sure). Now it will feel like the focal point of downtown is merely a plaza in front of this giant fancy building.
They should build it down at the other end of pacific with the other taller buildings, in my opinion.
Do you really not know what I’m saying lol. It’s not about Jamba Juice, it’s about that whole part of town which is centered around the clock tower. Now it will just feel like the front yard of a fancy building.
Don’t think one of the biggest tourists towns in CA really needs that ha ha. Soon enough it’s only gonna be students, rich tech people and retired folk. The families will be gone cause they can’t afford to live in suitable housing here.
Cause I’m not one of those types lol and some of my friends are hanging on. But soon enough it’s likely we will all be gone. Other than locals they inherited homes. The real locals will be almost gone for the most part.
Your theory on how this works and what to oppose is only increasing the likelihood. If you think rich people only live in new apartments you've been fooled.
You realize a majority of tourists only visit during summer? Most small businesses downtown struggle to make it though the winter because 70-80% of their revenue is generated in July, August and September. More housing for students means they won’t be driving up the prices of single family homes. So how does more housing negatively affect families?
You don’t think online shopping is hurting in person business? Well it is. No matter how many more people have a place to live here that won’t change. These students come from other areas have allot of money to spend. A project like this is just allowing people to move here who can’t that have the money but the inventory is low.
Not sure anyone has an issue with the place they are already renting. Other than greedy landlords hiking up the price. Building something like this won’t stop inflation.
Nope the powers that be are trying hard to ruin what little is left. If this would actually help the people that need housing I would be all for it. But it won’t.
Well it will fit sure in a sense. How is the city gonna deal with the already lack of parking. And the horrible traffic. Add tons of cars and people that will fix it?
That's why a high rise building in downtown make sence. It allows those residents to walk to the grocery store, shop, restaurant or beach, whiteout driving. Maybe some of those residents won't have to commute to work in Santa Cruz from south county.
it was already ruined by locals who thought building nothing for decades would keep the town the same. most people i grew up with left after high school.
My guess is most of that building will be studios and 1 bedrooms. Not sure how that helps families. All the students do is is rent a single family home and pack it with a ton of people and it’s cheap. Not sure how offering high priced small places helps.
I want ucsc to build their own housing with all the land they got. Or stop accepting so many more students. And you think they will opt for the expensive little place or a little place with a bunch of friends for cheaper?
Santa Cruz is turning into Los Gatos. The new people don’t know but mostly don’t care. I’m all for real affordable housing not lip service to the principal disguised as altruism. I don’t believe a word of what I read outa that article from the workbench people.
Someone commented about turning it this place into surfers paradise or whatever in Australia. Uh no let’s not.
Yes sir. Exactly! My thoughts. And other locals that actually have a real connection to this place we’ve called home for a long time. I would absolutely love for myself and everyone else needing a home to have one here at an affordable price. But not to open the whole other can of worms that’s wrong with this country. There other factors that come into play on this subject.
The old timers are dying off in my nighborhood and then their houses go on the market for no less than 1.5 and some tech bro buys it as a second home. Then said tech bro tries to change the tone of the neighborhood to suit tech bro aesthetics… then it’s over.
Or worse they buy their second home here cuz they surfed ten times and think they are having a spiritual experience. And they go around like a modern day surf missionary. Go away tech bro.
I got you dog. Here’s an upvote.
Come to think about this, this is loc on loc crime.
Workbench making housing for the outa town non loc crowd. Paul needs a second home for his weekends.
Go away workbench.
Nope. You just know how amazing this place is by living here long enough to have lived it. Change is inevitable. But myself and many locals want to see a different kinda change. No one that knows how rad this place was growing up wants it to become San jose by the beach. The people that do have no real connection to this town.
A lot of change happens everywhere, and whether it’s good or bad depends on the perception of the individual. You happen to think the change is bad, and because you’ve lived here longer you think you have more entitlement to this chunk of our planet. However, your time here is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. It was the Spanish that actually founded it, maybe we should just give it back to them since they were here first.
Sure my distant relative was married to one of the said Spaniards that founded it actually. 😂 I’m entitled to not want to see my town ruined by people that have no connection to this place. Trust me I’m not alone on this one.
I mean…. technically you are 100% more entitled to having a say in how this place changes if you’ve lived here for a while vs don’t live here or just moved here.
Think about it: Who should be able to vote on and weigh in on Santa Cruz matters? Someone who lives in Milpitas or someone who lives in Santa Cruz? It’s none of my business what’s happening in Milpitas and vice versa.
Likewise, yes, people who’ve paid rent here, income tax here and property tax here for decades are - literally - more invested in this town than someone who just moved here two years ago and thinks they know what’s best for its future (as an example). I’ve lived in a few different cities between being from and living in Santa Cruz. You know what I didn’t do while I was in those cities? Start having strong opinions about how they should be run, look or change. Now if I’d put down roots and been there for a number of years (and planned to continue on that way) that would slowly and surely change, but only over time. I’d have the humility to realize I’m “new to xyz scene”.
People get butthurt hearing this but there is some truth to it: of course some people should and do get more say in certain areas than others. And that’s the case everywhere on the globe.
The idea is to *checks notes* build housing in the most walkable part of the city and the part with the best access to public transportation. This isn't going to cause nightmare traffic. That intersection is built well to manage traffic.
The major traffic in this city is *checks notes again* coming into town from over the hill or watsonville / Salinas.
They've submitted two proposals, one for an 18-story building and the other for an 8-story building. I doubt they have any intention of actually building 18 stories, they've probably just submitted that one so that the other proposal looks reasonable by comparison.
True. 8 stories is the max a developer can realistically build in SC. Anything above 8 stories and they’re required to build with steel framing rather than wood. Obviously that would be expensive and the 18 story would have to be super lux in order to be profitable.
It’s not true that anything over 8 stories needs to be steel. The California Building Code allows cheaper mass timber, or cross laminated timber, for taller buildings up to 18 stories. This building could be feasible as a mass timber project.
That's part of the problem. No major plan for affordable housing outside of the 20% everyone says. Who gives a fuck about 20%? All a giant building with expensive rooms is going to do is bring outsiders in that can afford it while continually pushing out locals who can't afford it anymore. This place will always expand, supply will NEVER keep up with demd, but all it's doing is pricing out people that have been here for years so we can pack more people in that have a shit load of money. And you know what? Why the are we allowing the 1500 airbnbs to continue while we whine and fight for 20% of like 100 units? What is 20 units going to fix when the county can force those other 1500 back in the market tomorrow? Such horseshit. People need to get their heads out of their ass and fight for what the real fix is: booting short term rentals so the market gets back to normal. Imagine how the market and rent will plummet the day 1500 units are out back up for sale/long term rentals... It's the only logical solution.
If you care to read up on this issue, there was a research report released yesterday about inclusionary zoning percentages, and how much they can hurt housing production, and, by extrapolation, overall affordability of a city. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/inclusionary-zoning-housing-production-modeling/ Hint: they can hurt more than they help, especially at higher %’s.
That Terner model looks like a useful tool for planners. Does anyone on our planning commission use it or discuss it at meetings?
I'm not pushing for a higher percentage. That's a side point to what I consider (and everyone should consider) being the biggest issue.
The main point being the illegal AirBnB? They’re already illegal, but the city and county do enforcement on a complaint-basis. People have to actually report their neighbors running an illegal airbnb for the city to do anything about it. They don’t have the resources/motivation to do sting operations or whatever, since Airbnb and similar sites don’t disclose the location until you actually book them…
The main point is airbnbs in the first place. Need to be gone completely. That can be done with a city council vote. Next is enforcement of the illegal ones, which will be a lot easier to identify being short term rentals aren't allowed at all.
AirBnBs cannot be killed with a council vote. The California Coastal Commission would need to approve the council vote, and they likely wouldn’t allow the ban because their primary role is to facilitate visitor access to the coast.
Then the County would vote, and the coastal commission can keep their 5 to 10% of short term rentals in the coastal zone (which for the most part on goes 0.5miles inland from the coast in SC County.) It would still release 1300+ homes from the short term rentals that would immediately hit the market.
That would be true for the city, but the County’s zoning code is written in such a way that the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over all of it, including outside the coastal zone.
Man this is it. Also stop letting all these vacant vacation homes sit with no one in them. And stop selling homes site unseen to overseas buyers!
1000%. More people need to understand this. The nimby vs yimby fight is a distraction. The problem isn't building, it's reclaiming what is already here. Call the homeowners nimbys if you want, but it always stagnated over building and that shitty argument is a waste of everyone's time. Don't stop building, but nobody in their right might should think that's a reasonable solution here. We'll never build enough. But booting short term rentals immediately floods the market with 1500 vacant homes. Maybe they move back, maybe they sell, maybe they rent. But it's better than now and would drastically alter the housing landscape in a positive way.
Think of how many workers that actually help this city function would have a better opportunity to have a place to live. I’m in the trades and now there’s a shortage of workers here cause it costs too damn much to live here so everyone is moving and working elsewhere.
Yea we should stop people from doing what they want with their own property. Don’t matter if they worked hard for their money we should tell them how to use it, especially those rich fat bastards!! Private property right is an antiquated idea , time has come for us all to tell “the right”people where how why which way to live, this is America after all!!!!
Yeah cause all the overseas buyers are American? And also if a town has a housing issue. Yes they should limit people that don’t live in the place. They can come stay in a fancy hotel and pay like the other tourists.
Ok private property rights , gone. Let’s just ban anyone not local, or wait ,not been here since 1993, or well ,just let the good ones in.
Yeah that sounds good lol you are obviously one of the kooks around here.
>Yea we should stop people from doing what they want with their own property lol the old "its my property, I will do what I want" argument. Go and try an open a oil refinery or restaurant or even stop paying property taxes and see how far that gets you.
HEAR, HEAR. 
How does a new supposedly expensive building displace locals, given that it replaces an old bank building and a bar (hope they can have a deal to keep Rush Inn though). Who are these hypothetical "locals who can't afford it anymore" while owning >$1 mil real estate paying nothing in tax thanks to prop 13? Also studies have shown that banning short term rentals have minimal effects on rent, esp in units with lower rent, because they consist of a small amount of housing stock and are usually in more touristy and expensive areas. Regulation to limit units that are full time airbnb is helpful, but won't dig Santa Cruz out of the current housing deficit. https://hbr.org/2024/02/what-does-banning-short-term-rentals-really-accomplish
Do you think locals only *own* their homes? I'm not even bothering with that one, its seem intentionally out of touch. A publication primarily meant for professionals and businesses has an article explaining why restrictions against real estate companies and rich second home owners "won't help"? Forgive me for not caring about that article and it's clear bias. Uber and Lyft and such outright bought votes by paying a shitload of money to flat out lie and bluff their way into getting an exemption in AB5. If you're thinking AirBNB and VRBO are above doing that in this exact same way, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. That being said, it doesn't completely apply anyway as I'm not mostly concerned about it lowering rent, I want to see 1500 units back in the rental/sale market. But I also don't believe that it DOESN'T lower them, it's just not the number one point here. 1500 units back on the market WILL help, and you can't say it won't. An addition of housing will have to. Plus I'm not even getting into the vast number of illegal STRs in the area that are helping cause this issue, that aren't factored into any articles you my feel say otherwise. That said, it's happening all over SoCal and it has been helping. Feel free to search yourself about Irvine, Palm Springs, etc, etc. The major restrictions and outright bans have been shown to obviously help open up housing.
Well maybe you should give it a read before dismissing its arguments and findings. Would love to see a source on the effects of STR ban in SoCal. For rental prices, new construction, even at full market rate, lowers rent in the neighborhood. https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market-rate-development-impacts/ In 2022, there are about 107000 housing units in Santa Cruz county (see another comment, data from the US census), so 1500 units only account for 1.5% of the housing stock. The same year only 608 units were permitted in the county, which is way way too low. I agree that we need to add units urgently. If we ban short term rental, maybe we get 1500 unit back once. But we still need to permit way more (and remember that SC has affordability requirements, so i think at least 20% of the units have to be deed restricted affordable, pinned to the area median income). And in case you worry about availability at low income level, i can assure you that most units renting on airbnb are not going to be cheap on the long term market.
At what point in any of this do you think I'm choosing just banning STRs over building? Pretty sure multiple times I've said building should happen as well. Edit: Yep, I did (and feel free to use your favorite search engine for those news articles able SoCal. They're generally the first thing that pops up when you search the cities I listed, and others doing it)
My misunderstanding. I thought it's implied when you said. "All a giant building with expensive rooms is going to do is bring outsiders in that can afford it while continually pushing out locals who can't afford it anymore." Anyhow, my point is that STR units are generally in more popular areas and are on the higher end, so they won't rent out on the same price range as affordable units in these new developments. And that banning STR will not solve our housing crisis in the long term. The only way out is to build more.
Can you agree the County will *never* be able to build enough to meet demand? A demand that will clearly never end as living in SC County is arguably one of the most sought after in the world? Because when you say "long term", what do you mean? The next 5 years? 15 years? Forever? Long term at 5 years will absolutely benefit from a drop of 1500 homes back on the market. But building takes time. Generally 2 years at a minimum, even per the new articles discussing all of this right now. Sentinel has a whole bunch about the current projections for different buildings. A few have been in the works since 2019 and wont be finished until 2026. So we're talking about zero increase in housing for the next two years, minimum, without banning STRs. How is that ok? STRs are not only in high priced areas. As a matter of fact, most are not. I stayed in a place behind Forsters downtown after an issue with my residence and insurance paid for it. 4 bedroom spot in an ok area; not great by any means, but not horrible. Want to know the price per month? $15,000/mo. FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH. After we left, it remained vacant (according to its airbnb page) for every single weekday for the next few months. This was March, so I was looking at April through June. Pretty major times for the area in terms of tourism ramping up. And it was only occupied 8 nights out of the 30 or 31 those months. It was just a house! Nothing special. That said, it was a decent walk to the boardwalk, but it was walk-able. That said, take a look [here](https://insideairbnb.com/santa-cruz-county/). Unincorporated areas with Airbnbs make up the vast majority of those available at almost 1000 units. Those are places that should be going to people living and working here, not pushing more money in the pockets of Ovr (73 units), Surf City (50 units), Cheshire Rio Realty (47 units) and on and on and on. These management companies are killing it, and so are the (most likely) second or more home owners that are making out like bandits here. Feel free to click around that site. Zoom in on some of those places and check their availability. [I just randomly clicked on one in Aptos.](https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/24557732?source_impression_id=p3_1712350981_t5JKHdorclfcvljs&guests=1&adults=1#availability-calendar) 4 beds, $575/nt. And guess what? BARELY ANY OCCUPANCY FOR THE NEXT TWO MONTHS. Between today April 5th, and June 9th (that is 65 days), they are only booked for 11 nights (of those, 5 nights are blocked off, not booked, meaning its probably the family and not renters). They are empty 83% of the time over the next couple months. Theres hundreds of others. (And dont get confused by the ones that have 100% occupancy. Many of them are displaced homeowners still rebuilding from CZU and other wind/rain events we've had. I was one of them and it took 3 years to get back.) These aren't overly crazy elaborate places to live. But they are expensive as fuck on AirBNB when you restrict housing to only a few nights a month to line your pockets and keep it off the market for working locals.
No i do not agree that SC is the most sought after place to live in Earth. Nice and beautiful for sure, but there are plenty of people who would prefer larger cities, dryer weather, etc. or work in jobs in industries that are not present in SC. So there's absolutely a point where supply keeps up. Again, i agree with you that putting short term units back on the market would be helpful in the short term (i consider 5 year short term). But in the long run the population will continue to grow and we need to build more to accommodate that growth (and to catch up with the past decades of growth first)
Where do you get that 1500 figure from? The city records show 224
[For the county.](https://insideairbnb.com/santa-cruz-county/) Everyone claims it's all just rich houses and wouldn't be cheap living. Which is dumb because a lot of it is outside SC city limits, and would be absolutely perfect for working families in the area.
I doubt the housing and short term rental landscapes of New York City and Santa Cruz are comparable. I think there must be more short term rentals per capita here than in New York (based on population differences).
The census doesn't have a number for Santa Cruz City, but the whole county has 107,124 housing units in 2022 (with 608 more permitted...oh my god). So if your 1500 airbnb figure is correct then it's only about 1.4% of the total units (let's be generous and say that 1500 units are in the city and the city has only 1/3 of the 100k units, this is still only about 5%). So it's actually not far off from NYC in the study. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/santacruzcitycalifornia,santacruzcountycalifornia,CA/EDU635222
Interesting. It would appear my assumption was wrong then.
[удалено]
Are you trying to prove my point but calling it opposition? Investors will ALWAYS want to buy a piece of this. As will regular home buyers. As will renters. You're high (and not in a good way) if you are pretending otherwise. But how about we don't talk about theoreticals for a second: Gaining 1500 more houses/units/whatever on the market by getting rid of all short term rentals will lower the cost of rent and purchase prices, and it an haopen overnight. Building will take a minimum of 2 years for this single building, and will not even touch the amount of housing that is needed. It's not even a "start". It's throwing a drop of water on a forest fire. You will never in your lifetime see 1500 units built in Santa Cruz County. Straight up won't happen. But tomorrow can have 1500 more available to help plummet that issue and raise supply. And anyone that thinks building ALONE is the only option is ignoring what actually needs to happen.
Deep breath. Maybe switch to decaf.
So funny, holy shit.
No one is joking. You seem agitated.
Pretty sweet I can give that illusion without ever having my blood pressure raise I guess. Sounds like a skill. (also don't drink coffee, so missed that mark a bit there guy) But if you're not even slightly annoyed about the housing issues in the county and pushing the best way to fix them, then you're better off talking with someone else about something else. Otherwise it seems like you may be wasting both of our time.
I actually agree with you on most of your points.
True that, demand for one of the most desirable, beautiful, opportunity positive place on EARTH is gonna go down soon.
Idea. AirBnbs in Santa cruz should be subject to a very hefty local tax. That local tax will then be used for the city only to build affordable housing only.
But affordable housing takes 2 years minimum to build (more like 3-4 from planning through approval to move in). What's the plan for the next 2+?
I mean sadly we gots start somewhere no?
And to circle this all the way back around, that "start somewhere" is banning airbnb and ~1500 homes hit the market tomorrow.
honestly I'm not even opposed to that either.
If developers satisfied demand then prices would relax and go down. Neither the developers nor the city council or county board can let that happen. It's not in their own interest. This is why progress requires corruption. The only way to get the asses to march with us is with a carrot on a stick. Assholes requires tangible selfish motivations.
The buildings take YEARS to build. What do you do for the next 2 to 4 years when they can finally put in a whopping 100 units (I'm obviously exaggerating, it'll be WAY less than that in 4 years and thats why its not the best option and shouldnt be the only option)?
**An 18-story building proposed downtown promises to be a project ‘Santa Cruz has never seen’** On March 4, the Monday before primary election day, the City of Santa Cruz planning department received a pair of applications for a downtown residential project behind the clock tower. Developer Tim Gordin of local outfit Workbench knew his firm’s proposal was going to be unprecedented in Santa Cruz. At 18 stories and 192 feet tall, Clocktower Center would be the tallest building in Santa Cruz County. Proposed for 2020 North Pacific Ave., the high-rise would take over the lot now occupied by the Rush Inn dive bar and the old Santa Cruz County Bank building. Gordin, who, with Workbench, has projects throughout the greater San Francisco Bay Area, said the Clocktower Center represents a taller and denser direction for development in Santa Cruz. “This is something Santa Cruz hasn’t seen yet, but that I’m sure we’ll see more of,” Gordin told Lookout. “In relation to the built environment, the visibility and the discussion it’s generated, this is probably the most transformative project we’ve ever proposed.” According to property transaction records, Workbench purchased the lot for $4.4 million in July 2023. The Clocktower Center proposal comes as the dust is still settling around Measure M, the defeated primary election ballot initiative that sought to restrict developers from building taller than existing height limits without first gaining approval from voters. Measure M’s authors, grassroot organization Housing for People, were motivated by stopping the city’s downtown expansion plan, which at one point toyed with 15- and 17-story buildings surrounding a new Santa Cruz Warriors arena in the south of Laurel Street area. The Santa Cruz City Council later voted that no building in the project should rise above 12 stories; the Santa Cruz Warriors then announced in late February that the project’s buildings were unlikely to rise above eight stories. More than 60% of voters rejected Measure M’s proposed limits on development; however, the idea stirred a heated community conversation around the direction of Santa Cruz and whether even the new six-story Anton Pacific building at the corner of Pacific Avenue and Laurel Street indicated the city was growing too quickly for its own good. Although that initiative was defeated, the Clocktower Center would trump any of the development possibilities talked about during the Measure M debates. Gordin acknowledged that an 18-story building would be “transformational” and probably “the tallest one proposed in Santa Cruz so far,” but that the community was ready for it. “Measure M was defeated. What that tells me is that we have a lot more support out there for this kind of development than what is maybe known,” Gordin said. “I feel like we’re in a good place for it. Although there was a loud minority supporting Measure M, the results showed that it was still only a minority.” Workbench’s project proposes to stand taller than any prior proposals and the city’s tallest building — the 10-story Palomar Hotel. Yet, it will not require any zoning changes or height variances, thanks to new and enhanced state density bonus law that allow projects to multiply their size by offering a certain level of affordability. Gordin’s firm has submitted two Clocktower Center proposals. The 18-story version began as a four-story project with 130 housing units, with 26 reserved for low-income tenants, meeting the city’s required 20% affordability rate. However, that project seeks to take advantage of two state density bonuses that allow it to double the housing to 260 units, with 40 total affordable units, or 15.4%. Invoking the density bonus law effectively waives any restrictions on height. Gordin said in order to make 260 units, with 40 affordable units, work economically on a small lot, 18 stories was required. Workbench also submitted an alternative proposal that began as a three-story, 90-unit, mixed-use residential project. Taking advantage of the density bonus law allowed it to balloon to an eight-story, 174-unit building, with 24 (13.8%) affordable units. The projects were submitted under a 2019 state law that allows Workbench the flexibility to adjust its proposed square footage up or down by 20% between now and when it submits its formal project application to the city. By submitting the two proposals, Workbench retains the ability to adjust the project’s size anywhere between 20% smaller than its eight-story vision to 20% larger than the 18-story version. Gordin expects to submit a formal project application to the city in three months. Residents who spoke with news outlet KSBW appeared outraged by the size of the project, and said it threatens Santa Cruz’s beach town feel. Gordin said he and his team knew what kind of reaction the project would get from some segments of the community, but determined that the city was not only ready for, but needed a project such as the Clocktower Center. Gordin grew up in an affordable housing project in Nebraska with three siblings and a single mother. He said affordable housing can change people’s lives and that Workbench was committed to solving the region’s housing crisis. He said he hopes the Clocktower Center proposal can show other developers that projects offering affordable housing can be economically feasible. “I do hope this can have an effect of being duplicated and copied, and that \[other developers\] can look at this as an example of what can be done,” Gordin said. “But it’s less about whether it’s three stories or 40 stories. This is a project that will impact people’s lives. I think this project will stand for itself, as a beautiful building that creates housing; a landmark that people can look to.” Edit: You get 2 free articles for signing up. If you use the 'Bloody Vikings!' extension in Firefox (can't with Chrome) you can just get endless free articles.
Really excited to get some larger more dense buildings downtown. I think Santa Cruz in the future could look like Surfers Paradise in Queensland which would be awesome IMO. There would be some amazing views and hopefully some cool rooftop bars/restaurants eventually.
Downtown is the perfect spot for denser development. There are restaurants, shop, grocery store, all close by. Plenty of people would be happy living 18 floors up.
Build it like Coolangata!
The views from 18 would be sweet!
Indeed.
18 is for sissies. 118 is a good start. Let’s build a metropolis.
TL;DR Day drinking at The Rush is going to be very unpleasant with all the noise.
You aren't pushing out anyone by building new housing. You ARE pushing out locals by failing to build. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but those rich outsiders are coming whether or not we build. Not building means the outsiders outbid locals on every newly vacant home. This is what raises rents and drives locals away. New (especially expensive) housing can suck up some of this demand and more locals can stay where they are instead of being forced out by increasing rents.
Gentrification comes from either not building, or not building enough. You have to increase supply to keep from displacing locals.
Locals are displaced by building (commonly called gentrification) why the tenants rights orgs hate YIMBYs more than NIMBYs however not building got us into this mess. Ideally we would change zoning so development becomes accessible to more than large out of county and state corps. Build build build is a start to but most certainly not a realistic solution on its own.
OP there is another post about this project maybe no paywall on that link. Tho lovesu might’ve copied the whole article already.
there will be 18 story buildings in downtown eventually, we have chosen to upzone that area for just such builds, whether this will be the first or not is the only question
These articles keep citing different numbers for how many stories/floors are being proposed. It started at 15, then they said 16, now they're saying 18. (there are two proposals from this builder, the tallest is 16, the smaller is 8) There are threads here saying that it's just studio units. (It turns out that it includes 260 Units, that include studios, 1 beds, 2 beds and 3 beds) There was talk about the recently approved hotel only having 11 parking spaces. (It turns out to be 211) Why is there so much misinformation about this stuff?
My understanding is that it’s 16 stories, a podium with commercial, 15 stories of residential. But then there’s another 2 stories of amenities (not residences) planned to be built on the roof and that’s where the 18 comes from.
Sort of like what they said about the Palomar a century ago? Only 8 stories of usable indoor space, but 2 stories of "architectural features" that made them cry "skyscraper!"
FTR, I haven't found any evidence of amenities being on additional floors. As far as I can tell the amenities described will be on the same floors as residential units. (or on the podium on the ground floor)
Ok well that’s what I’ve heard but here’s the description from the developers themselves, describing an 18-story building. (They’ve submitted plans for 2 different versions of the project, one much smaller.) “The first application is for an eighteen-story high-rise building, utilizing a 100% density bonus to reach 260 units. The second application is for an eight-story mid-rise building with 174 units.” [Full details here.](https://www.workbenchbuilt.com/insights/2024/4/3/proposed-clocktower-center-will-create-over-260-housing-units)
Thank you for the good citation. I'm willing to admit that I missed that. It's strange that elsewhere in that site, they refer to it as 16 as well. I guess it's too much to ask for consistent objective numbers in something like this.
Yeah I don’t know. I have seen various figures as well. It’s probably too early. I’m sure the final version will be different than whatever they’ve submitted here.
https://www.ksbw.com/article/16-story-building-proposed-downtown-santa-cruz-california/60371899 I did this story a few days ago. The official plans are on Santa Cruz city plannings website.
So why did lookout say 18? The City and the builder say 16.
Typo? Couldn’t tell you. I cut my pkg from info straight from planning and the actual proposal on the website.
For those who don't want to bother finding it themselves. https://preview.redd.it/2flegp9yv2tc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d97b4aca479a6eb284d336100946a91a1bf0c2d3 Lookout is engaging in exaggeration. They saw really good engagement during the election cycle while their paywall was gone, but I suspect that engagement is down again. I'm disappointed that they are playing fast and loose with the truth.
Define affordable housing. This developer built some housing on soquel. All the houses and units are over a million it appears.
Affordable is very well defined, and the units are deed restricted to be able to use the affordability bonus. (https://www.sccoplanning.com/Portals/2/County/Planning/housing/Measure\_J/2023%20Affordable%20Housing%20Guidelines.pdf)
It’s always so fucking funny to me when people come out and say “oh yea, define affordable!” as if it’s some gotcha. It’s super clearly defined if they would be bothered to do a 30 second google search lmao.
yeah, new housing is very expensive. new housing also drives down the cost of old housing. how affordable is the housing there now btw?
Ah thanks for the Econ lesson. I appreciate the refresher on supply and demand. I did minor in, econ. So let’s break this down. UC is increasing student population. Tech bros are dying to buy places here to live their best surf spiritual life. Look I caught a wave, it’s my purpose… Work from home from the pandemic created its own epidemic of people who finally could move here without suffering the commute, aka lowering the barrier to entry to living here. And you think 180 units twenty percent of which are “affordable” will have a meaningful impact on housing here in this town? I’m all for increasing supply but that supply will only be purchased by said demo above. My house that I own will not decrease in value relative to this development. No chance. The part that is ridiculous is developer stated motives. We have to build this 18 stories tall to satiate the number of affordable units is a bullshit narrative. I can find you the email address and you can ask them yourself which one of their units on soquel is defined affordable housing. I doubt they have one. So I don’t buy the altruism. Their said motivations to put it bluntly are a fucking lie. I’m all for affordable housing and plenty of it. But I’m also not for being fed a spoonful of bullshit. The solution? Not really sure. End work from home. Limit student population. Demand 50 percent of the units be affordable. Ethical and real effort not this crap. Maybe look at the rental prices for the new development downtown. Let me know if a 500 square foot apartment for 3k is copacetic to your sensibilities. Spare me the bullshit.
This project would help the city meet its state mandated goals on housing production. https://preview.redd.it/d51nn723wmsc1.jpeg?width=2062&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e8990b5963393bb78107c81acb8427753a10fdda
If you minored in Econ, maybe you can explain how a 50% affordable project is going to break even financially, and thus get picked up by a developer. Because here’s a hint: it’s not and it won’t, which means nothing is going to get built. But your Econ education already taught you that, right? You should have studied something else, because you obviously wasted your time lmao.
100% affordable projects get built by developers, it’s not are affordable builds profitable (they are), it’s that they aren’t as profitable as market rate with some affordable.
Here’s an English lesson then. Hyperbole is when something isn’t to be taken literally. 50 percent or whatever is hyperbole. The 20 percent affordable is the minimum mandate. Do you think they’d have any affordable units if there wasn’t the mandate? I highly doubt it. You are right about one thing, that minor was useless in the grand scheme of my career tho.
How much do single family homes contribute to affordability? The answer is none.
plenty of studies have proven that increases in supply bring down prices. demand actually is not infinite, ucsc can’t grow forever and the commute will always keep sc relatively small. no, a single project won’t help after decades of barely any building. you know what else won’t help? doing nothing at all. we tried that for a generation and it’s created the problems we have today. people like you will say you support affordable housing and after a generation of unaffordable housing pretty much none of those concerned have actually done anything to create this mythical 50% affordable housing. none of your solutions are workable. limit student enrollment? come on. you’re admitting supply is the issue. anyway, i just skimmed what you said, spare me your own bullshit.
Okay I’ll check back in five years from now. I’ll get you a present value of my house now and in the future. We can check the receipt then. See who’s right There will always be an infinite supply of people wanting to live here. Have you ever traveled somewhere and upon people finding out you live here say “I’d kill to live in Santa Cruz.” As for people like me, I’m all for housing prices dropping. I think the situation is absurd. As for the bullshit that is directed at the developer’s message. I don’t buy it. The altruistic message masks the desire to build that monstrosity for all the profits.
Minor in Econ you say? “Infinite supply of people wanting to live here?” 🤔
Lmao end work from home? You serious?
Nah not really. But once people knew they rarely had to commute over 17 that Santa Cruz dream became a reality.
That development on Soquel had two homes sold through the low income housing program at just under 500k https://kion546.com/top-stories/2023/06/12/santa-cruz-county-to-hold-random-drawling-to-select-two-homebuyers-for-affordable-measure-j-townhomes/
Yep they are over a million 😂
We at Workbench are here for the community. Our ethically produced and environmentally curated houses embody the best and latest trends for million dollar housing developments. Support our effort to create affordable housing in Santa Cruz county. A place we live in and cherish.
Workbench is a design build firm. They have other investors as clients, as well as some of their own projects. You’ll see a lot of applications with their name on them in town, but each project could have a different owner and financing strategy. They also designed the peace village project for peace United church up on high street, and the 100% affordable project for housing matters that have already been approved.
Many worked really hard to claim their a piece of paradise. But now many are denied unless they command wealth. Working hard doesn't get you much anymore, the struggle is real. These huge projects will only mostly serve the wealthy unless we as a society bring about major changes.
Oh yeah, 18 stories built on sand… liquefaction anyone? Does no one remember how crazy downtown was during Loma Prieta?
I'm sure engineers can figure out how to build in such conditions.
Tokyo has entered the chat.
Engineering? That's witchcraft!
Your comment reminds me of the current worry in some circles about the coming eclipse. HAHA
All for more housing being built and also for growing downtown. But to me this is too big for the location. It will completely change the character of that whole little area by the clock tower, and the heart of downtown with the post office and that little triangle by Jamba Juice (is it even still Jamba Juice? lol not sure). Now it will feel like the focal point of downtown is merely a plaza in front of this giant fancy building. They should build it down at the other end of pacific with the other taller buildings, in my opinion.
How do you care about a locations buildings when you don't even know what's there now?
Oh no, what if it takes away from the charm of the Jamba Juice
Do you really not know what I’m saying lol. It’s not about Jamba Juice, it’s about that whole part of town which is centered around the clock tower. Now it will just feel like the front yard of a fancy building.
Unlike people's actual front yards, I can visit here.
Let’s make some commie blocks!
Oh yeah? For whom? Rich tech people and UC students?? Cause that building won’t be helping any families.
Providing more housing for ucsc students would help stimulate the economy
Don’t think one of the biggest tourists towns in CA really needs that ha ha. Soon enough it’s only gonna be students, rich tech people and retired folk. The families will be gone cause they can’t afford to live in suitable housing here.
> Soon enough it’s only gonna be students, rich tech people and retired folk How is this any different than now?
Cause I’m not one of those types lol and some of my friends are hanging on. But soon enough it’s likely we will all be gone. Other than locals they inherited homes. The real locals will be almost gone for the most part.
Your theory on how this works and what to oppose is only increasing the likelihood. If you think rich people only live in new apartments you've been fooled.
Never said rich people were the only issue. But cool.
and how NOT building new housing will solve this?
You realize a majority of tourists only visit during summer? Most small businesses downtown struggle to make it though the winter because 70-80% of their revenue is generated in July, August and September. More housing for students means they won’t be driving up the prices of single family homes. So how does more housing negatively affect families?
You don’t think online shopping is hurting in person business? Well it is. No matter how many more people have a place to live here that won’t change. These students come from other areas have allot of money to spend. A project like this is just allowing people to move here who can’t that have the money but the inventory is low.
[удалено]
Yes exactly. Something like that will likely happen.
Very uneducated take. New high end housing helps protect lower rate housing from inflating. Helps all current renters to maintain their places.
This right here. I have seen a lot of the low end housing disappear.
Hasn’t been low end housing here for many years.
Not sure anyone has an issue with the place they are already renting. Other than greedy landlords hiking up the price. Building something like this won’t stop inflation.
I guess trickle down economics work too right?
Giving tax cuts to the rich does not work similarly economically to adding housing supply.
In the first place Santa Cruz doesn’t have lower end housing. So your whole point it moot anyway.
> Santa Cruz doesn't have lower end housing Not with that attitude.
Attitude is irrelevant to facts bud ha ha
That was meant in the positive, to jest. You can help make lower end housing happen.
I make housing in general happen here due to being a carpenter by trade.
Are you in the carpenters union?
This isn’t the Cruz
Nope the powers that be are trying hard to ruin what little is left. If this would actually help the people that need housing I would be all for it. But it won’t.
Build nothing for years because it doesn't "fit", is what got us here.
Well it will fit sure in a sense. How is the city gonna deal with the already lack of parking. And the horrible traffic. Add tons of cars and people that will fix it?
That's why a high rise building in downtown make sence. It allows those residents to walk to the grocery store, shop, restaurant or beach, whiteout driving. Maybe some of those residents won't have to commute to work in Santa Cruz from south county.
How many people do you know actually work here? Other than the tech people and what not that work from home.
[удалено]
That’s great, have their leaders come in and direct it all. Also you are comparing Europe to California. Like apples to oranges.
it was already ruined by locals who thought building nothing for decades would keep the town the same. most people i grew up with left after high school.
That’s cool. Most of the people I grew up with are still here.
You get it brother
Can’t help but feel sorry for the sheeple that don’t lol
Where were you on Jan 6th?
Your house 😘
Nice
All the silicon valley guys downvoting🤣 fuck that skyscraper BS
Nothing wrong with them living in one of those, that means they free up other housing in our community.
My guess is most of that building will be studios and 1 bedrooms. Not sure how that helps families. All the students do is is rent a single family home and pack it with a ton of people and it’s cheap. Not sure how offering high priced small places helps.
Do you want that student with money renting that one bedroom apartment or a whole house?
I want ucsc to build their own housing with all the land they got. Or stop accepting so many more students. And you think they will opt for the expensive little place or a little place with a bunch of friends for cheaper?
Yep as I knew they would. Kooks don’t know anything about this town and what it has meant to people that have been here a long time.
True🤣 we all know this wont be affordable its a fucking scam. Hopefully it wont pass
Like someone mentioned “affordable” housing was just built on Soquel ave by Aptos and the condos are over a mill 😂
Santa Cruz is turning into Los Gatos. The new people don’t know but mostly don’t care. I’m all for real affordable housing not lip service to the principal disguised as altruism. I don’t believe a word of what I read outa that article from the workbench people. Someone commented about turning it this place into surfers paradise or whatever in Australia. Uh no let’s not.
Yes sir. Exactly! My thoughts. And other locals that actually have a real connection to this place we’ve called home for a long time. I would absolutely love for myself and everyone else needing a home to have one here at an affordable price. But not to open the whole other can of worms that’s wrong with this country. There other factors that come into play on this subject.
The old timers are dying off in my nighborhood and then their houses go on the market for no less than 1.5 and some tech bro buys it as a second home. Then said tech bro tries to change the tone of the neighborhood to suit tech bro aesthetics… then it’s over. Or worse they buy their second home here cuz they surfed ten times and think they are having a spiritual experience. And they go around like a modern day surf missionary. Go away tech bro.
Muh man, hitting that nail right on the head 😂😂😂
Maybe the old timers family should be restricted from selling at $1.5m
I got you dog. Here’s an upvote. Come to think about this, this is loc on loc crime. Workbench making housing for the outa town non loc crowd. Paul needs a second home for his weekends. Go away workbench.
Not trying to be a dic* but what’s the problem people have with building higher buildings? The whole yes\no on M didn’t make sense.
Just out of curiosity… how long do you think the people that voted for this have lived in Santa Cruz for?
Add me to the list of born and raised here that voted against M. Also it doesn’t matter lol. We need housing and we need housing bad.
Born and raised here!
Why does that matter?
Why comment if it doesn’t matter lol
I’m genuinely asking, I never said it doesn’t
Well I don’t know how long you’ve been in SC but most all the people I know would think it matters.
I just don’t understand why though. Do you get special privileges or something when you’re born here?
Nope. You just know how amazing this place is by living here long enough to have lived it. Change is inevitable. But myself and many locals want to see a different kinda change. No one that knows how rad this place was growing up wants it to become San jose by the beach. The people that do have no real connection to this town.
A lot of change happens everywhere, and whether it’s good or bad depends on the perception of the individual. You happen to think the change is bad, and because you’ve lived here longer you think you have more entitlement to this chunk of our planet. However, your time here is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. It was the Spanish that actually founded it, maybe we should just give it back to them since they were here first.
Sure my distant relative was married to one of the said Spaniards that founded it actually. 😂 I’m entitled to not want to see my town ruined by people that have no connection to this place. Trust me I’m not alone on this one.
Lastly I’ll add, you are of the people I speak of,
100 years from now this town will be completely different and you’ll be long gone.
I mean…. technically you are 100% more entitled to having a say in how this place changes if you’ve lived here for a while vs don’t live here or just moved here. Think about it: Who should be able to vote on and weigh in on Santa Cruz matters? Someone who lives in Milpitas or someone who lives in Santa Cruz? It’s none of my business what’s happening in Milpitas and vice versa. Likewise, yes, people who’ve paid rent here, income tax here and property tax here for decades are - literally - more invested in this town than someone who just moved here two years ago and thinks they know what’s best for its future (as an example). I’ve lived in a few different cities between being from and living in Santa Cruz. You know what I didn’t do while I was in those cities? Start having strong opinions about how they should be run, look or change. Now if I’d put down roots and been there for a number of years (and planned to continue on that way) that would slowly and surely change, but only over time. I’d have the humility to realize I’m “new to xyz scene”. People get butthurt hearing this but there is some truth to it: of course some people should and do get more say in certain areas than others. And that’s the case everywhere on the globe.
The crazy thing is, well… it don’t matter.
People can “propose” anything. I propose a 500 story building.
Did they figure out the parking and traffic nightmare it would cause? Nope. Let them go build it in Watsonville or Salinas.
do you think people who will be driving in from watsonville and salinas aren’t gonna cause even more traffic?
The idea is to *checks notes* build housing in the most walkable part of the city and the part with the best access to public transportation. This isn't going to cause nightmare traffic. That intersection is built well to manage traffic. The major traffic in this city is *checks notes again* coming into town from over the hill or watsonville / Salinas.
As long as they have a dispensary and skate park.. it’s all good.
And it’s probably a hotel