SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
October 16, 2009· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

One man’s densification can be another man’s quality of life

Image not recoveredmarket-corner1.jpg

In her op/ed yesterday, SCOPE president Lynne Plambeck says One Valley One Vision will:

require densification and subsequent zoning changes that will increase property values for developers but could destroy the quality of life in many neighborhoods.

I like to think of myself as eco-conscious/earth-friendly/of-the-tree-hugger-persuasion or what have you, but I’ve never been able to get behind SCOPE’s mission. And the above quote is why.

They don’t necessarily just see run-away sprawl development as the enemy; they include “densification” as a threat to the “quality of life” in the SCV as well.

But what does quality of life mean? The things I look for in a neighborhood are 1) walkability, 2) proximity to businesses, 3) proximity to parks & amenities, 4) ease of access.

Guess what? Based on those standards, many neighborhoods in Santa Clarita don’t have the “quality of life” I seek after because they make you car-dependent. In contrast, new neighborhoods that are more dense might just meet my standards. And those new neighborhoods just might be more environmentally friendly than your standard suburban sprawl too.

And isn’t that what we’re after? Minimizing the impact on the earth? “No growth” is not an option, and density (in some parts of town) is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, living close to amenities and not being car-dependent is the quality of life many people are after. SCOPE should learn to tell the difference.

 

Comments (7)

  1. spineflower2October 16, 2009 at 10:20 am
    The density SCOPE is opposing is the up-zoning of property without comensurate mitigation in the form of increased infrastructure to support it, including roads, schools, public services, etc. OVOV includes wholesale rezoning of existing property without one smidgen of mitigation. It is a cover for the City and its buddies getting the zone changes that one-by-one project public review would doubtless deny. OVOV is a Trojan Horse.
  2. v-town OGOctober 16, 2009 at 10:36 am
    where does scope stand on EVOO?
  3. spineflower2October 16, 2009 at 7:25 pm
    SCOPE’s position on EVOO is OOH-LA-LA. Same as that cutie, Rachael Ray.
  4. v-town ogOctober 16, 2009 at 8:10 pm
    anyone grow olives out here? maybe EVOO production can get into the next revision of the OVOV. OG Valencia is all about Old Orchards.
  5. spineflower2October 16, 2009 at 9:28 pm
    Most tracts and streets here are named for the trees that were cut down to pave the development. Take my old street: Sycamore Creek. Cut down trees, paved creek. At least they planted a FEW replacement sycamores.
  6. v-town ogOctober 16, 2009 at 9:54 pm
    wait, you mean to tell me Old Orchard = Ex-Orchard?
  7. Madam_SOctober 21, 2009 at 8:36 am
    Nice post, Jeff! It’s great to hear something other than “sprawling subdivisions are the best” out of the SCV. Don’t forget that OVOV is City and County. While City up-zones, rural areas in the County are being down-zoned to balance. Personally, I think that “density” is something people are afraid of because they aren’t familiar with positive examples.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support