I both do and don't agree with you. I'm with you that a lot of the "Spanish" architecture going up around town looks cheap and post-modern. But the alternatives we get served seem worse. The big stucco box with black windows and grey siding masquerading as "modern" when they're just soulless crap (and are the same "architecture" seen going up in every city in America) seems like what we get served when we opt out of Spanish. It's the architecture of everywhere and nowhere. I'd love to see more buildings playing into other styles that are relevant to our history (Cota mentioned in this post is a win in my book), but imagination seems lacking. I'd rather we not end up a sloppy hodge podge. Look at Goleta. The architectural clashes and mishaps around the big commerce hub at Storke and Hollister seem like a lesson in everything that can go wrong with creating any meaningful or memorable sense of place (or in this case, failing to do so completely).
I could not agree more with BW!
I love the building on Cota. For me, it's a very successful example of architectural styles that are fitting of the town but not Spanish colonial. I adore the corrugated exterior. It lends character and texture our urban fabric needs. I'm in favor of keeping a largely Spanish colonial look for Santa Barbara, but buildings like these slot in well and are a cut above the black and white generic block architecture that unfortunately seems to be proliferating.
There's a world of difference between actual historic structures - which are wonderful, to be celebrated and preserved - and whatever that 1533 State Street proposal is though. There's a difference between an architectural style, and simply slapping a "theme" on a modern structure. Take that last rendering of the proposal - the view from Arrelaga. I guarantee what happened was that an architect was handed off the massing model of the building, and was told "add a bunch of Spanish Revival stuff to this." It's a jumbled incoherent mess, like a three year old decorating a birthday cake. It's like they are playing a game of bingo, trying to check off every type of detail for this style. Tile roof? Check. Exposed beams in the eaves? Check. Iron work? Check. Breeze blocks made from terra cotta tile? Check. Arches? Check. A tower? Check. The issue I have is that so many of these new building made like this have this stink of inauthenticity to them - like a cheap kit car pretending to be something better than the chassis it's built on. If you look carefully in this town, you'll see endless examples of this - architectural details that are serving no point beyond theme. Balconies that are decorative only, so small no one can even stand on them. Concrete painted to look like wood. Towers no one can reach. Seriously, what's the point of that tower in that render? It doesn't even have windows. So while I wholeheartedly agree that there's lots of wonderful Spanish Revival architecture in this town, I find these modern structures with a theme slapped on them only cheapen those actual historic structures. Also, as someone who cares deeply about more than one style of architecture, it's maddening to see this Borg like takeover of the town by one single style, at the expense of others. If you dig up old photos of 834 State Street, where the current BofA now is, you'll see it was a lovely piece of mid century modern architecture. Go to page 42 here:
https://issuu.com/santabarbaramuseum/docs/noticias_17_4_winter_1971
Someone, at some point slapped a new "theme" on it. Why? That's not historic preservation, it's the creation of a theme park, to the level that Disney imagineers would be proud of. Like, what's the purpose of the space between that front wall with the arches and the original? The back fascade only makes sense when you realize a new theme was slapped on the existing structure. Or take a look at pages 26-27 from the same link. I think the original is a really cool piece of history. It's been given the same treatment. I don't fault the developers one bit on this - they're simply looking to minimize the number of hoops they have to jump through to get a permit, and they know that the various design review boards won't object to some vague Spanish Revival theme. But I truly think this approach dilutes and cheapens the actual structures worth preserving. Instead of getting something that might be exciting to look at, we get something bland, generic, designed purposefully to blend into the background. All of this becomes a self reinforcing loop, where the more of these we see, the more likely we are to see more of them. It's not historic preservation, it's the creation of a theme park.
Spanish style is why I came to Santa Barbara not boring at all. It makes this place unique.
I went to Alma's soft opening and then again last night . ( The food was better during the soft opening when Chef Ramon Velazquez was there ). I was thrilled to have Alma open in my neighborhood. I love both Corazon restaurants and was hoping some of their menu items would be available at Alma.... mainly the fabulous ceviche which I have delivered to my home at least twice a month ! So I was disappointed, realizing that Ramon wanted to have a different " concept " at each of his locations. And the only real complaint I have is ... what are those tasteless cardboard things they call chips ?? Served with the great guacamole and almost every other dish that requires chips. So while I support all things Corazon , I think I will still be ordering out from the Public Market location. And hoping that those brilliant ceviches will find their way over to Montecito .... and that the chips contain at least some masa ! I know Alma is just finding its feet .... things will improve and most of the items on the menu are delicious. I'm still excited about Alma being close by and wish them great success .
I don't think they can survive in Summerland or the Funk Zone. I used to be afraid to go to the Mexican food trucks I would see around town. Now I love them and I'm sure I won't get Montezuma's revenge. . . unlike some brick established places. Like Rudy's on Montecito street, the closest place to sit down to my apartment. It's like a pre-colonoscapy eating there. Sorry.
re "neat office building at 25 W. Cota Street". Does this serve as an example for old buildings that were not worth saving, but can be made worse by an awkward expansion?
OMG, the size bulk and scale of the four story building over the former Cantwell's is awful! It should be "birthday cake" style, with one floor stepping into another, as they recede from the street. But the true horror of this design is the second floor condo's that are behind the current building. Those poor owners will look up at two stories on their lot line while now they have beautiful mountain views.
Hoping that this gives 'White Caps Beach Club' enough time to defrost their lobster. There is nothing more disgusting and weird-tasting than a lobster roll with half-frozen chunks of lobster.
Agree !
Couldn't agree more ! Keep up the criticism of the over-over-the-top "elevated" @#$%$ "special occasion" dining choices we have locally. Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoise on steroids.
(Remember what happened to another Public Market expansion, the Thai restaurant where Locals is now, everything was ~20% higher)
agree !
On the plus side for those two projects - hooray more housing. On the minus - more generic "Spanish Revival." Am I the only one who thinks the more ubiquitous this style becomes, the less special the actual historic structures become?
Why can't they reduce the height of the 1 hot springs ? It seems too imposing.
Fabulous pictures!
I have my reasons - but with articles like this, you make Siteline indispensable! Kudos --
This is soooooo cool! Also - everyone should watch Chimp Crazy. Best thing I've seen in ages.
“Food safety isn’t the only concern. The pop-ups frequently use open flames and propane along the roadside, next to dry brush, without regard for fire safety.
Constituents have sent images of hot grease and food waste dumped on the ground.
I am particularly worried about the traffic hazards posed by roadside vending. The pop-ups often set up in high-traffic areas, including busy intersections where foot and vehicle traffic converge, or along roadside shoulders that should be providing space for drivers to take evasive action but are now occupied by the equipment, tables and cars of customers.
Cars double-park in traffic lanes and pedestrians dash across busy highways to get to the pop-ups. They are an attractive nuisance that sooner or later will lead to a tragic accident.”
Noozhawk article
I am speaking about the 2 in the SYV that are not permitted. I am going off the recent Third District Sup report- I have witnessed them setting up, dumping liquids at both the christian school location and the 154/Edison 4 way stop- sometimes they set up by Mattei’s Tavern. No license, no permits, not local. Not paying into same system that Taco Roco, California Tacos, Burrito Loco, Rudy’s, Eddie’s, Hitching Post, Industrial Eat’s and many others in SYV do- and that is wrong
Christine!
Who said the night time food stands are non licensed? Or any of the other things listed? The issue is the current restroom is not ADA compliant.
You cannot operate a food truck, food cart, or any other kind of mobile food business without a mobile food facility permit. As for the sink and restroom: California Retail Food Code Section 114315 states a food stand to operate within 200 feet of an available sink/restroom.
There are different permit and licenses for a restaurant. Buildings/restaurants with on-site food consumption (tables and chairs) must have a restroom. Restrooms must be ADA compliant if built after 2004.
The person that started White Caps is new to the restaurant biz. Living and learning.
Has anybody ever seen a bowl of chowder for $19??
The $72 12oz ribeye seems especially egregious, but top to bottom that menu is overpriced. Those are special occasion price points, at a place that seems pretty mid market.
Totally agree! Absurd. I will not be going there.
Too bad they no longer offer the grilled local halibut! It was their best item!
