Monday, August 18, 2014

The City Of Burbank's Visual Preference Survey: "I Know What I Like When I See It!"

Meet the new neighbors
Yesterday I posted a little bit of info about Burbank's "Visual Preference Survey." I also included a couple of clear examples of what it is that people living in the self-styled "Media Capital of the World" did not care to see in their residential neighborhoods.

Today I thought would be a fine moment to bring a few more of these pictures and results out into the open. It really is quite a revealing look at what the unwary might find staring them in the face here on some unhappy day. Which is also when they will finally awaken from their complacency nap and live the dream. Or, far more likely, the nightmare.

And let's face it, with the kind of tasteless gaucherie being painstakingly plotted for the Stone House, One Carter and the Mater Dolorosa sites, not to mention all of those other crammed in confections we are seeing go up at those bifurcated "amoeba lot" projects, it is time every one of us took a long hard look at what could be on our horizons, and far sooner than you might believe.

And let's also face this. Some of this gaudy nonsense is already here. I am certain everybody would have their own special candidates for such a photo survey should one ever be conducted here.

I think it is important to point out that this Visual Preference Survey was the product of the City of Burbank, but done at the behest, and with the close involvement of, a resident volunteer group called Preserve Burbank (link). These concerned folks requested that this survey happen, supplied many of the photographs, with their city government - amazingly enough - joining in. Or at least amazing to anyone living in Sierra Madre.

Considering the amount of City Hall foot dragging we have seen here over completing the General Plan, I would think that an idea such as this would meet with the usual institutional resistance. Helped along by some behind the scenes coaching from the usual suspects, of course.

Hopefully our new and decidedly more responsive City Council could see the light should anyone ask for something similar here. I at least have that hope.

So here is what you will see. McMansions for the nouveau riche, and some nicer places, too. Along with those amazing survey results. Apparently hardly anyone in Burbank likes garbage development, either. And they were very eager, and even pleased, to say just that.


Mod: Below are some houses these Burbank survey respondents said that they liked.


This entire City of Burbank survey can be downloaded by clicking here. There is a lot that I left out, so it is well worth the visit. Forward the survey to your friends. I think they will be glad for the opportunity to check it all out.

Also, some folks yesterday suggested that we collect photos of Sierra Madre's own McMansion candidates and post them here on The Tattler. While I would actually prefer that the City do the deed (I know, fat chance), I am more than up for doing this here should downtown decide they do not want to play with the rough kids.

Send those pictures to me at sierramadretattler@gmail.com. Looking forward to seeing what you've come up with!

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

49 comments:

  1. The worst thing about McMansions is that people, (trailer trash with money) will buy them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a theory that people who move their families into MacMansions actually hate the people in their families. They need all that room so they never have to be in the same one together.

      Delete
  2. There goes the neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A strong, empowered design review component of the plan review process could go a long way toward eliminating the glut of planned architectural eyesores.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right, as long as the majority on the planning commission cares.

      Delete
    2. How in the world did that abomination on Camillo, second house up from Grand View, amoeba lot ever get past the Planning Commission?

      Delete
    3. Great question 4:18. I already sent pictures of that to the Tattler.

      Delete
    4. I think we just have to prohibit lot splits in Sierra Madre.

      Delete
  4. Great idea and an opportunity to demonstrate support. Thanks for suggesting this.
    Just an observation -the lot split = ugly development issue is not new to Sierra Madre. There are many examples from the 1960's and 1970's where ugly apartments were jammed in cheek by jowl with each other. A few little bungalows remain, engulfed by plain block apartments. One of the best examples of an otherwise pleasant street disfigured by overdevelopment is N.Mountain Trail between Sierra Madre Blvd and E. Grandview.
    One of the associated defacements we should capture on film is the street littered with cars because there is insufficient off-street parking included in the overdevelopment. That problem still exists- just watch for parking chaos at City Hall when the Kensington opens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The City never asked that the project be made smaller or increase the parking. Then you have the people who voted yes on it. I don't know who should be shot, the city or the voters.

      Delete
    2. More parking crowding - why does the McMansion on Carter only have a 2 car garage in the plans?

      Delete
    3. 5 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, 2 cars? Yeah.

      Delete
    4. If you'd come to all those Planning Commission meetings you'd know - it was Adele's concession to reducing the massing, original plans were for a three car garage. I learned from Ms Chang that night that I live in a McMansion (2400 sq ft) because I have a three car garage!

      Delete
  5. Does the city really want to know what residents think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No the city doesn't want us to know, but they know we do, thanks to the Tattler.
      This city and others do not care what the residents "think". Only they that gets their attention is when we band together and protest to the point they can't ignore us. We still have the power to kick their asses out of their high paid jobs, our tax dollars only pay a portion of the money they make and perks they get from developers and unions. Stand up for Sierra Madre, residents. We can stop them.

      Delete
    2. Why would they care? They don't live here.

      Delete
    3. To use a term from The Godfather, they just want to wet their beak.

      Delete
  6. 1 Carter marithon is this Thursday at the Planning Commission. Check out thet revisions that include 1,100 sq ft of basement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Planning Commission recommended that these Adele Chang Modern Family houses be half-buried in the ground so they won't loom quite so ominously over the city. Therefore the designation has now changed from "McMansions" to "McBunkers" ...

      Delete
    2. That's a big, expensive concession on the part of CETT Investments. Let's hope the planning commission asks for even more.

      Delete
    3. Link to the plans. Still ugly, but I have to admit it's a lot better.
      http://docs.cityofsierramadre.com/tylercm/eagleweb/downloads/HDP_12_01_CUP_12_08____Staff_Report___610_Baldwin_Ct..pdf?id=DOC180S7.A0&parent=DOC180S7

      Delete
    4. Maybe they could bury the houses all the way.

      Delete
    5. Lol 10:42.
      There are still 5 bathrooms.

      Delete
    6. 11:55 - for the sake of the people who would buy the place I hope the bathrooms are lower than the bunker.

      Delete
    7. Wouldn't they run into bedrock?

      Delete
    8. 12:49 who cares?

      Delete
    9. It was a dry joke, 1:09.

      Delete
    10. Watch out for the aquifers.

      Delete
    11. Wow, isn't it on or near a fault line as well as a flood plain?

      Delete
    12. Oh yes, 3:43. The council of 2004 approved a subdivision plan that ignores all kinds of dangers.

      Delete
    13. I heard one lady who lived in the northern part of town say she didn't mind the development because the houses would provide her with a fire wall. The firemen would have to stop it up there.

      Delete
    14. A 1,100 square foot basement on a flood plain could be interesting. Sierra Madre's first true Olympic sized pool?

      Delete
  7. LET(S) TALK WATER
    1) Are the residents of Sierra Madre aware that the east Raymond Water Reservoir, is shared between Sierra Madre and Arcadia as one common / no segregated water reservoir / a.k.a. a field wide reservoir without separation of division of water?
    2) think of it this way...
    2-a) you have a large glass of water on your kitchen table with two straws, Johnny mayor of Sierra Madre gets one straw and Arcadia gets the other straw,
    2-b) Johnny mayor is not thirsty and takes a knap in his bed - Arcadia continues to sip water / drain water through the Arcadia straw, Johnny mayor finally wakes up and sucks on his straw to find that there is NO WATER LEFT, ARCADIA SUCKED ALL THE WATER IN THE COMMON GLASS THROUGH THE ARCADIA STRAW,
    3) Sierra Madre local government needs to get real!
    3-a) by Sierra Madre shutting off the Sierra Madre Water pumps from October 10, 2013 to present....
    3-b) Arcadia is sucking "ALL THE WATER" from the common glass of water / the East Raymond Water Aquifer dry!
    3-c) Sierra Madre has no ability to save / store water / for Sierra Madre's own use at a latter date / the water is gone --- ARCADIA HAS 8 WELLS LOCATED between Orange Grove & Colorado Blvd which is continuing DRAIN SIERRA MADRE'S WATER / ACQUIFER / FIELD WIDE RESERVIOR (Arcadia Water Wells - 4 wells at Arcadia fire dept. on Orange Grove + 1 well at tennis courts at Baldwin & Orange Grove + 2 wells in Anokia Estates + 1 Mega well drilled at Baldwin & 210 freeway);
    4) FACT
    a) Arcadia is producing Sierra Madre's water,
    b) Arcadia is selling Sierra Madre's water for $1.00 per unit to Arcadia residents,
    c) Why does the residents of Sierra Madre have to pay upwards of $3.00 a unit for the same water?
    d) city hall has spend Sierra Madre Water Enterprise monies on employee's wages, pensions , health benefits... which the tax payers have received no benefit from?
    e) furthermore. by my readings, Earl Richey has asked city hall to provide a copy of Sierra Madre Water Enterprise Checking Account documents, know we know that there is No Water Enterprise Checking Account. City Hall has failed to provide Earl Richey with any documents. NOW CITY HALL IS IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA STATE LAW - BY FAILURE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC RECORDS TO RESIDENTS UPON REQUEST!
    f) Its time that city management & city council be removed from office.

    posted by a 80 year old resident!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn;t know earl is 80.

      Delete
    2. If Earl Richey asked City Hall to provide Serra Madre Water Enterprise Checking Account documents, and there is no Sierra Madre Enterprise Checking Account, then it follows that the City cannot provide the requested document. According to the law, the City is within the law in notifying Mr. Richey that it cannot provide the documents. Fini.

      Delete
    3. Someday Earl will provide proof of his claims and the world will gasp with astonishment.

      Delete
    4. Take a Seroquel and relax old timer. it's not worth it................

      Delete
    5. It's ain't Earl. Should we out this guy?

      Delete
    6. It is not important. All of this All Caps Earl or whoever stuff is a stupid distraction. I just wish it would stop. Sometimes i wonder who he is working for.

      Delete
    7. Stop the madness. Please.

      Delete
    8. When Earl comes up with proof of all of his statements i.e. the city is using the water dept. money illegally to pay Elaine's salary, then I will listen to him. Otherwise it is just a bunch of hot air.

      Delete
    9. An article from May 2014 about wells. The watermaster as a result of this ordered Arcadia to shut down at least one well.
      Arcadia, Sierra Madre in water fight over Raymond Basin boundaries

      Sitting next to Arcadia officials, Holly Whatley, asst. city attorney for Sierra Madre, waits to present her case as the two cities go before the Raymond Basin Management Board Thursday, March 13, 2014 in a water dispute. Sierra Madre accuses Arcadia of stealing water out of their aquifer in the eastern unit of the Raymond Basin. The well in dispute is Arcadia's Anoakia Well. (Photo by Sarah Reingewirtz/Pasadena Star-News)

      Delete
    10. Sorry that it only posted part of the article. It is very informative as to the ongoing disagreements between Arcadia and Sierra Madre.

      Delete
  8. Have any of you asked the wonderful Elaine for any records? Anyone in that office could've given mr. Richly the correct name of the water account. Instead, they decided to play games. I believe there is a post from the glorious Elaine. She and her cronies need to go. If mr. Richly would tell all of us what he wants then we could all go down and ask for them. Wise up people. Earl may have acted up on occasion, or so I'm told, but he is right on here. What work has been done to the water system with all the money? I, for nor, am tired of the colored water, the spots on my shower and windows, my plants failure to thrive, even before the moratorium, my skin dry, my hair dry. I don't even let my dogs drink it. Wise up! Three things face Sierra Madre: lack of decent water, selling out to developers and a lying, evasive if not criminal city government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell Earl to hire a lawyer if he feels he has been wronged. Equating Earl's endless ranting with a solution to Sierra Madre's many water problems is a bit of a stretch for me. Good luck with that.

      Delete
    2. The water problem is a problem for all of us, but Earl is doing nothing to solve it. Only rain will do that.

      Delete
  9. It just isn't Earls problem anymore. If he feels they broke the law he can file a grievance with the District Attorney. But all of the water problem is ours.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rancho Palos Verdes resident files claim demanding $5.6 million refund in taxes, http://www.dailybreeze.com/government-and-politics/20140814/rancho-palos-verdes-resident-files-claim-demanding-56-million-refund-in-taxes

    ReplyDelete