How should old lumberyard/tractor property on Sebastopol Plaza be developed?

[scamperwillow]

That entire property belongs to Ron Basso. The tractor place is only using part of it. I am guessing he is renting space from Basso. Most of the property is a falling down mess. That is not what I want facing my main plaza in town. Basso will be developing it at some point whether the tractor guy likes it or not. This planning meeting was to get a sense of what the community would like to see there. The plan is to create a brochure that the city will give to potential developers with ideas that the community can support. This is hopefully to avoid a long protracted battle like the one with CVS so developers can have an idea in advance what is acceptable to the community.

Lois Fisher gave an excellent presentation about town plazas all over the world to give us ideas. As I've often said before, best to get involved in this stuff rather than whine from the sidelines on Wacco. (No offense intended to anyone.)
Marty

I'm a bit confused about the "fun event" announced for planning re. the lumberyard/tractor site. I certainly see the point of long-range planning for the downtown area, and doing so for the Pellini site prior to shit hitting fan might have prevented lots of headaches. But unless I'm mistaken, there's a business operating there. Are we intending to establish a precedent for targeting properties that are in use for the sake of pushing developers to find "better" uses? How about a dog-grooming salon where Main Stage West is doing that useless theatrical stuff, or Payday Loans in place of Mimi's?

Cheers, in a puzzled sort of way—
Conrad

[Richard Nichols]

Well podfish, I like junkyards also, considering I do junk art. Junkyards have thier place, but maybe not right in the middle of town.

funny, I kinda like junkyards - gives us the rural, hillbilly look. I find too much flavor of a suburban paradise makes an area uninviting; signs of people's activities are interesting. I actually like the approach to Santa Rosa from the south on Santa Rosa Blvd -- so I guess I've just blown my credibility as a civic design critic, eh?

[jewelbridge]

Point taken.

Well podfish, I like junkyards also, considering I do junk art. Junkyards have thier place, but maybe not right in the middle of town.

[Dixon]

Most of the property is a falling down mess. That is not what I want facing my main plaza in town.

I hear this sentiment from a lot of people. But I think that your, or my, or anybody's aesthetic preferences are, or should be, irrelevant to what someone does with his/her private property. When the "community" is allowed to make aesthetic rules, old stuff with an individualistic or lived-in look/feel tends to be replaced by soulless, slick, homogenized stuff--what I call "corporate culture". Whether you like that stuff or not, I'd argue that the property owner's right to have it his/her way should trump other people's aesthetic preferences. (I do support the community's right to enforce anti-pollution and anti-noise rules etc., but that's a different issue.)

[Dixon]

Well podfish, I like junkyards also, considering I do junk art. Junkyards have thier place, but maybe not right in the middle of town.

I'm tempted to suggest that the middle of town might be the best place for a junkyard. Seeing what happened to the stuff we bought years ago, then discarded, might make us more thoughtful about what and how much we buy today.

[tommy]

I wish they'd take down the cyclone fence around the lovely antikeey tractor/lumberyard. it's hard to see the cool funky old stuff when you're driving by.

There seems to be an implied theme that you can fight reality in this thread.

A couple of spaces in the Barlow I like are eating outside, & looking at the green grass at the Community Market - the view & the food is much more appealing than the same chicken & dal & parking lot view at Whole Foods, tho Whole Foods does have a more appealing parade of unusual people & attire. Also sipping tea outside at Taylor Maid, eating outside at Woodfour, or Zazu if you can find something beside beef & pork on their menu.

[oliviathunderkitty]

This has the seeds of a great idea. First, I must say that I fully support the tractor sales guy and feel sad that he may feel people are trying to push him out. He should come first.

But, onward.

What if the cyclone fence were replaced by trees and/or big planter boxes and then some of the space he does not use served as an outdoor museum of sorts celebrating our agricultural heritage. Some public art could be commissioned to honor apples, grapes (yes, grapes, they have long been a part of this place), hops, olives and more, with old equipment and such. I've seen similar displays in Chile (not in public places but on large estates) and they work beautifully.

I wish they'd take down the cyclone fence around the lovely antikeey tractor/lumberyard...

[scamperwillow]

Dixon, have you heard of planning? zoning? design review? The community DOES get to have a say on what is constructed in the center of their community. I shudder to think what we'd have without those regulations. For one thing, CVS would have been allowed to build their very first ugly shopping mall design in the very heart of our downtown. AND create worse traffic nightmare than we already have.

I hear this sentiment from a lot of people. But I think that your, or my, or anybody's aesthetic preferences are, or should be, irrelevant to what someone does with his/her private property. When the "community" is allowed to make aesthetic rules, old stuff with an individualistic or lived-in look/feel tends to be replaced by soulless, slick, homogenized stuff--what I call "corporate culture". Whether you like that stuff or not, I'd argue that the property owner's right to have it his/her way should trump other people's aesthetic preferences. (I do support the community's right to enforce anti-pollution and anti-noise rules etc., but that's a different issue.)

[scamperwillow]

This could be wonderful Michele, but I am guessing the property owner is hoping to make a bunch of money selling that prime real estate. What I would love to see is two or three story buildings with residences on the top floors and retail and eating places on the first floor - with lots of outdoor dining. Having people live downtown would add a lot of life to the area. Especially at night when things are so dead. Affordable apartments that young people and seniors could afford.

...What if the cyclone fence were replaced by trees and/or big planter boxes and then some of the space he does not use served as an outdoor museum of sorts celebrating our agricultural heritage. Some public art could be commissioned to honor apples, grapes (yes, grapes, they have long been a part of this place), hops, olives and more, with old equipment and such. I've seen similar displays in Chile (not in public places but on large estates) and they work beautifully.

[Dixon]

Dixon, have you heard of planning? zoning? design review?

Of course I have. Do I detect a note of sarcasm in your question?

The community DOES get to have a say on what is constructed in the center of their community.

It certainly does. I'm saying that the community has the right to overrule the property owner based on real concerns about things like traffic problems, but not on aesthetic grounds. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, and there is no way a plot of land could look that wouldn't look good to some folks and bad to others. The property owner should not be overruled on aesthetic grounds alone.

I shudder to think what we'd have without those regulations.

Your shuddering is your problem. A property owner's right to decide what to do with his/her property should not be abrogated to keep you from shuddering. And if the property looked the way you want it to look, someone else would be shuddering at that.

For one thing, CVS would have been allowed to build their very first ugly shopping mall design in the very heart of our downtown. AND create worse traffic nightmare than we already have.

Reasonable concerns about practical issues like traffic are fundamentally different from aesthetic preferences.

[Richard Nichols]

Funny how these conversations keep morphing (is that a word?) and I enjoy it as long as things don't turn nasty and mean as in the Palm drive ranting. Anyway, about aethetics. I'm not an archetect or a planner, but I don't think its asking too much for a building for in some way reflect the surroundings. FL Wright did that, but then that was then.

An example is the "file box" house on high street, which in a modernist city would fit right in, but doesn't reflect the craftman cottages all around it. I don't buy the aethetics is subjective arguement.

Of course I have. Do I detect a note of sarcasm in your question?

It certainly does. I'm saying that the community has the right to overrule the property owner based on real concerns about things like traffic problems, but not on aesthetic grounds. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, and there is no way a plot of land could look that wouldn't look good to some folks and bad to others. The property owner should not be overruled on aesthetic grounds alone...

[Dixon]

An example is the "file box" house on high street, which in a modernist city would fit right in, but doesn't reflect the craftman cottages all around it.

If you're implying that there's some sort of reasonable social obligation to "fit in" visually, and especially if your position is that that presumed obligation is important enough to trump a property owner's self-determination -- well, you certainly haven't made your case.

I don't buy the aethetics is subjective arguement.

Then could you give an example or two of aesthetic judgments that are objective?

[podfish]

If you're implying that there's some sort of reasonable social obligation to "fit in" visually, and especially if your position is that that presumed obligation is important enough to trump a property owner's self-determination -- well, you certainly haven't made your case.

Then could you give an example or two of aesthetic judgments that are objective?

you're making two orthogonal arguments here. The first of your observations is political/social. The other is semantic - and I'd say that aesthetics are arbitrary, but I wouldn't say subjective. People use specific aesthetic principles that can be clearly expressed - whether that's enough to call them 'objective' is the semantic question. The 'subjective' part seems to me to be whether you agree with a specific aesthetic, not inherent in the definition of an aesthetic itself.

Richard, is this morphing enough???

[Richard Nichols]

I'm not implying any of that, but a community has an obligation and a right to require some responsible actions of a property owner, otherwise zoning we mean nothing and we could have junk yards, bars, car repair, hotels etc. any where.
Aethetic judgements are niether objective or subjective, but more along the lines of community sensibilities.

Anyway Dixon, swat something back if you wish, but I'm leaving town. The conversations been fun.

If you're implying that there's some sort of reasonable social obligation to "fit in" visually, and especially if your position is that that presumed obligation is important enough to trump a property owner's self-determination -- well, you certainly haven't made your case.

Then could you give an example or two of aesthetic judgments that are objective?

[Richard Nichols]

Ya got me, I'm way in over my head. I'm going at right angles??? Arrrggg, I'm morphing. Yes, aesthetics are difinitely arbitrary, and communities can have horrible tastes, or not.

you're making two orthogonal arguments here. The first of your observations is political/social. The other is semantic - and I'd say that aesthetics are arbitrary, but I wouldn't say subjective. People use specific aesthetic principles that can be clearly expressed - whether that's enough to call them 'objective' is the semantic question. The 'subjective' part seems to me to be whether you agree with a specific aesthetic, not inherent in the definition of an aesthetic itself.
Richard, is this morphing enough???

[podfish]

Ya got me, I'm way in over my head. I'm going at right angles??? Arrrggg, I'm morphing. Yes, aesthetics are difinitely arbitrary, and communities can have horrible tastes, or not.

it was Dixon's independent arguments I was referring to.... I just wondered if you'd appreciate the morph.

[Dixon]

Yes, aesthetics are difinitely arbitrary, and communities can have horrible tastes, or not.

One person's "horrible taste" is another's beauty, and, unlike in the world of objective facts, there is no basis for saying one is wrong and the other right.

[oliviathunderkitty]

Can't resist weighing in on this. Aesthetics are both subjective and objective. There are objective factors that all can agree on and then there's the personal overlay of whether or not we like something. I can recognize good quality in things I don't like--food, music, architecture, design, whatever--and, if I am honest, can also admit that something I like isn't necessarily objectively good. It's the difference between the personal and the professional. Critics--good critics, who approach their topic with professionalism--do it all the time. Everyone can learn to make the distinction, at least to some degree.

One person's "horrible taste" is another's beauty, and, unlike in the world of objective facts, there is no basis for saying one is wrong and the other right.

[nancypreb]

I did talk to the tractor shop owner. I called him immediately upon learning about the workshop. I asked, "Are you looking to go out of business, or be relocated?" He gave an adamant, "No!" I also learned that that site was vacant for 13 years before he moved into it. He poured over $80,000 into the building just to be able to open his doors. Now, after three years, he's finally recovering from the recession, and looking to start displaying tractors again. (Remember that recession, all you "junk yard" critics?! Some people are still just recovering from it.)

I also attended the workshop. The presentation by Loise was quite informative and should be applied... to the General Plan Update! Which is where this pet project of Sarah Gurney's belongs! The city should not be in the business of brokering selective private investors' properties, doing the leg work to deliver net profits on a silver platter. In fact, there's a lot that Ron Basso could do right now to improve that property according to Loise. 1. Make the west side of the building the storefront (much like Napa Auto Parts finally did). 2. open up that gated area for customer parking, where tractors could/should also be displayed. The city doesn't need a brochure to attract a new developer to achieve these to simple and impactful adjustments.

Then, leave it alone!! Sebastopol USED to be a practical town. With a lumber yard, cement yard, apple processing facility... but no more. Instead we want cafes, high end hotels, and community gardens, holding festivals and parades celebrating an agriculture industry of the past, the practicalities of which (like the need for tractors and parts, lumber, and processing facilities) we don't want to actually SEE because they bring sights, sounds, and smells that are too displeasing to some. We are sending a message to potential investors, "Buy land, leave it to waste away, and we'll deliver your capital gains on a silver platter by brokering the sale for you," and to business owners and potential tenants we're saying, "Start your business here, and once you're on your feet, we'll kick the stilts out from under you for someone/something better!"

There's nothing wrong with thinking about this property and the business that occupies it, but it belongs as part of the General Plan Update process, not a pet project of one council member. And there are those on this special committee who are also on the GPAC, who were also on the hospital BOD, who should be spending their time and energy putting together a plan and brochure to attract someone to open the hospital they closed!!!!

Anyone ask the Tractor guy how he feels? Maybe he would like to keep selling tractors.

[nancypreb]

Meddling is not innocent. Ever see the "Goonies?" Or how about the new movie "Earth to Echo?" The premise of these films are based on developers coming in and destroying peoples homes to put in something "better." It starts with something so seemingly "innocent," but it always comes down to people's lives/livelihoods vs profits! He has every right to be angry. Where do you live and work? What should we do with your home or place of business- certainly something better and far more pleasing than what your doing with it now. That's how HE feels!

Well that's very nieghborly. I guess he knows that a bunch of scruffy walkers would not be buying a tractor anytime soon. Maybe a complaint to city planning about the junkyard would get his attention.
I did buy from them when they were in Graton, but I got bad advice and the wrong item and have'nt been back.

With all that said, the tractor owner has a perfect right to do business there. I don't think the city would do anything to get him out, but why is he so obviously threatened that he has to yell a a group of people? Not good for biz and I do not appreciate his behavior towards innocent people.