{"id":462714,"date":"2025-12-21T18:42:12","date_gmt":"2025-12-21T18:42:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/462714\/"},"modified":"2025-12-21T18:42:12","modified_gmt":"2025-12-21T18:42:12","slug":"in-the-debate-over-density-a-communitys-sense-of-place-matters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/462714\/","title":{"rendered":"In the debate over density, a community’s sense of ‘place’ matters"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Vela<\/a>A rendering of the controversial proposed tower in Pacific Beach. (Image courtesy Pacific Beach Planning Group)<\/p>\n

San Diego (and southern California) face a watershed moment in our quest to build more affordable housing near the sea. We are in, let us call it, a \u201czeitgeist design moment,\u201d when intersecting concerns \u2014 environmental protection of our precious coastal zone, community character in low- to medium-density beach towns, social justice, and the right of all citizens to housing \u2014 collide. <\/p>\n

\"Opinion<\/a><\/p>\n

This has created a maelstrom of decision choices that challenge elected officials, planners and designers. A buzzword that continues to pop up in these debates is \u201cdensity.\u201d How much is acceptable and where?<\/p>\n

But, glaringly absent in these conversations about affordable housing, density and land use, is the question of \u201cplace.\u201d We cannot look at a new building proposed for a given location merely in terms of its height, floor-area ratio, or the number of affordable units, or even what it looks like from the outside. <\/p>\n

We must also consider the larger context, the types of nearby commercial establishments, the scale of existing buildings and homes, and their relation to the street, how people move around, and the mix of land uses, neighborhood institutions, cultural landmarks, and local ecological features \u2014 in short, the overall quality of the \u201cplace\u201d where a building sits.<\/p>\n

The critical question should not only be about how much density is added, or how high a building will be built. It should also be about where the building will be located. What is the character of the community \u2014 what is the current \u201csense of place\u201d derived from the relationship between the scale of buildings and the streets around those buildings, or, at ground level, the stories embedded in its people and culture?<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the decision-makers and critical public agencies that decide on whether a new project is approved, typically don\u2019t take \u201cplace\u201d into account. Indeed, the question of community character and place is often completely missing in their deliberations.<\/p>\n

Case in point: the 23-story residential\/commercial tower<\/a> proposed for 970 Turquoise Street, near the intersection with Cass Street in north Pacific Beach. Los Angeles-based developer Kalonymus LLC<\/a>, proposes to build a 240-foot tall tower on this site. The mixed-use tower, as proposed, would include ground-floor shops, a parking structure on floors 1-5, 139 \u201cvisitor accommodations\u201d on floors 6-14, and 74 residential units on floors 15-22, with 10 of those units for low and moderate-income housing, and the other 64 as market rate units. <\/p>\n

The developer is relying on a complicated interpretation of the California Density Bonus Law<\/a>, which allows for bonuses beyond what land might be zoned for when affordable housing is proposed, along with bypassing regular local environmental regulations, traffic and other impact reviews. Further, the developer is layering in the bonus of additional commercial development, in the form of \u201cvisitor accommodations,\u201d proposed as \u201ccommercial\u201d uses.<\/p>\n

The response to that development proposal by California\u2019s Department of Housing and Community Development stayed mainly focused around existing zoning regulations and the Density Bonus Law. It questioned the excessive non-residential floor area (eg. the 139 visitor accommodation units) in the proposal that it surmised would lead to \u201can absurd outcome that does not further the fundamental purpose of the State Density Bonus Law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Let me be very clear here \u2014 Pacific Beach does need to densify and add more housing in the coming decades. But how much density and what kind of structures are appropriate in this corner of town? Let me be further clear that a 23-story tower at this location in north Pacific Beach is fundamentally incompatible with this site, using common sense principles of design and urban planning. <\/p>\n

The soaring tower is out of sync with the scale of the surrounding low- and medium-density buildings around it. City Council member Joe LaCava was spot on when he stated that \u201cI just found it unbelievable that somebody would propose something like this in Pacific Beach.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pacific Beach will inevitably need to move toward building more housing at medium density: four- to five-story mixed-use buildings in the future. But, a 20-plus story building would disturb the rhythm and street life in this northwest corner of a beach community, by imposing a minaret-like structure upon a space filled with gentle medium- and low-density residential and commercial buildings. <\/p>\n

The Turquoise Street site lies adjacent to the overlay coastal zone from the state Coastal Act of 1976. Further, the proposed tower violates the city of San Diego\u2019s 30-foot height zoning limits put in place through Measure D for all locations west of the I-5 back in 1972. That measure has been challenged in the courts in other places like the Midway\/Sports Arena district, but Pacific Beach is a very different kind of place.<\/p>\n

The only two high-rise buildings in Pacific Beach \u2014 the 12-story Pacific Towers at 4944 Cass Street, and the 12-story Capri By the Sea on Ocean Avenue \u2014 were both built prior to the 1976 Coastal Act and stand out as odd anomalies \u2014 reminders about the tradeoffs between density and preservation of the coastal zone.<\/p>\n

Again, there is no question that San Diego needs more housing, and especially in the coastal communities where affordable apartments are impossible to find. The median monthly rents from Ocean Beach to La Jolla range from around $3,000 at the low end to upwards of $8,000 on the higher end. So, yes, the remedy is to find creative ways to build housing, which the state has tried via Density Bonus Law, or the more recent Senate Bill 79, which proposes to build higher density residential construction near public transit.<\/p>\n

But, the city of San Diego and other municipalities need to establish guidelines for what I will call \u201cappropriate density.\u201d What scale of development, at what density is compatible with the place it is being proposed for? The city (and the larger region) should clearly define where what might be termed \u201cgentle density\u201d (four-to-five stories) is appropriate \u2014 in communities like Pacific Beach, for example. <\/p>\n

Rose Creek Village, currently under construction on Garnet Avenue is an example of good medium-density design. So, even projecting into the future, a megalith tower is not the right fit given the community character for the northern Pacific Beach coastal neighborhood setting. <\/p>\n

But, there certainly are locations where higher density buildings above five stories would fit, such as along major transit corridors like Morena Boulevard, El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue. And, of course, there are locations where very high-density development above 10 stories is appropriate to the character of a place, particularly in urbanizing core destinations \u2014 downtown San Diego, parts of Mission Valley, the Golden Triangle, and so forth.<\/p>\n

So, yes, let\u2019s build more affordable housing, but do so in a way that respects community character and sense of place. We don\u2019t need developers engaging in clever maneuvers to add what is essentially high-cost housing, but calling it \u201cvisitor accommodations\u201d and placing it in the commercial land use category. <\/p>\n

Senate Bill 92<\/a> was signed and will go into effect in January to put a stop to projects using the Density Bonus Law to justify luxury hotel-type development attached to affordable housing projects. Most importantly, we need to clarify that \u201chousing\u201d as a built form must be connected to the scale, character and sense of place of the community where it will be located.<\/p>\n

Part of Pacific Beach\u2019s charm is its mix of low and mid-rise, street-friendly buildings, cafes, shops, restaurants, homes that define it as a community and create a vibrant, welcoming atmosphere that is also good for San Diego\u2019s tourism economy. A 23-story high-rise tower threatens to disrupt this delicate balance, imposing a sharp contrast to the neighborhood\u2019s modest scale and intimate feel. A tall tower contradicts the essence of what makes Pacific Beach unique \u2014 a community built on accessibility, social interaction, and environmental awareness. <\/p>\n

As we navigate the challenges of adding affordable housing stock in our coastal zone, we must prioritize developments that harmonize with and preserve the qualities of a \u201cplace\u201d that residents cherish.<\/p>\n

Lawrence Herzog is a writer, photographer and lecturer in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning<\/a> at UC San Diego. He has written or edited 12 books about cities, sustainable development and urban planning. He lives adjacent to Pacific Beach in Bay Ho.<\/p>\n

READ NEXT<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A rendering of the controversial proposed tower in Pacific Beach. (Image courtesy Pacific Beach Planning Group) San Diego…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":462715,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5134],"tags":[852,5229,1582,276,9364,210953,34971,7065,24152,3549,7264,210954,210955,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-462714","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-san-diego","8":"tag-affordable-housing","9":"tag-america","10":"tag-ca","11":"tag-california","12":"tag-density","13":"tag-density-bonus-law","14":"tag-high-rise","15":"tag-housing","16":"tag-pacific-beach","17":"tag-san-diego","18":"tag-sandiego","19":"tag-sense-of-place","20":"tag-turquoise-tower","21":"tag-united-states","22":"tag-united-states-of-america","23":"tag-unitedstates","24":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","25":"tag-us","26":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/462714","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=462714"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/462714\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/462715"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=462714"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=462714"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=462714"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}