|
|
Post by nickv on Nov 3, 2007 22:30:00 GMT -8
Okay, I understand that I'm not dreaming a new rail project in Irvine, but I'm dreaming of a transit oriented development project in Irvine in the area of Wild Rivers and Irvine Meadows with a "dream" extension of the proposed Irvine Guideway serving this area. The Irvine Co. has proposed building 3,700 homes/condos in this area. I found out about this some time a few months ago. A few red lights came to mind: 1. Expensive housing, 2. More traffic in the OC and a bit of driving to get to the supermarket. 3. Sprawl What I've illustrated is for sure a dream, but an alternative to filling up this space with homes and condos: -----> Transit Village Map <------ Now can we fit 3,700 housing units into this area without driving out the existing attractions? Let's see: Each mixed use building "block" in the central area on the map is about 250ft x 250ft wide per Google Maps. That's 62,500 square feet per floor. Now if each living space had an average of (a generous) 2,000 square feet of living space (a single bedroom loft can be about 700 square feet), about 30 units plus the hallways, the stairwell, and the elevators would fit on a floor. So, we'll need a total of 124 residential floors. According to the map, there's six buildings marked as residential. Divide 124 floors by 6 buildings, and we find that if those six buildings each had at least 21 floors of residential space, then we can get the target of 3,700 units. That's on top of offering retail, transit, a school, plenty of open space and professional office space. Did I mention that the existing attractions would remain untouched? ....................................... "The time has come for us to take the next step and to provide future housing to meet the needs of the community," Irvine Co. spokesman Bill Rams said. In 2006 the city changed the zoning of the land to allow residential development. The Irvine Co. plans to build about 3,700 houses and condos on the parcel of land, which includes Wild Rivers and Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre, according to an Irvine World News report from last year. The amphitheatre's lease ends in 2017. The Irvine Co. plans to honor the amphitheatre's contract until it ends, Rams said. Before The Irvine Co. confirmed to the Register today that the lease would not extended, Wild Rivers President Mike Riedel, who has worked at the park for ten years, said he was hoping to get at least a one-year lease extension through next summer. "We knew we wouldn't be around forever," Riedel said. Building homes "will create more income for The Irvine Co. than the water park could ever do," he said. Contact the writer: ctran@ocregister.com or 949-553-2959 Source: www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1756146.php(Edit - The Irvine transit project is called the Irvine Guideway) www.octa.net/pdf/102207/irvine.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Nov 4, 2007 21:08:26 GMT -8
I've never heard of a proposed Irvine LRT, is this related to the OC Great Park streetcar system that connects to the Irvine Metrolink station? If that LRT is built, it'd be too bad that attractions such as Wild Rivers and the ampitheatre would be gone, leaving the proposed LRT to be more as a people mover for the residence of the proposed housing complex.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Nov 5, 2007 8:25:31 GMT -8
I've heard "mixed names" on the Irvine rail project: Irvine LRT, OC Great Park street cars... Yes, that's the project. My "dream" that I illustrated is not only the rail line extension, but TOD in that area as well.  Based on what I think and what I've learned in the media, the proposed housing and condo communities will probably be car-centered development, which would replace the attractions in this area with single family homes and condos. We know that means more cars on OC freeways and 4 mile drives to the grocery store. That's something where transit advocates and environmentalists may shake their heads. The point I was brininging about is that it is possible to build 3,700 housing units in this area (that's what the Irvine Co has planned) without affecting the exisiting attractions and better yet, offer jobs and retail in the same neighborhood. The illustration also converts the drive thru portion of Lion Country into a large open space with trails built from the existing roadways. ...and I think that building TOD in this area will bring in big bucks for the Irvine Co in the long run considering that CA HSR will have a station stop in Irvine together with 30 minute Metrolink service. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 5, 2007 12:10:13 GMT -8
Orange County is a County is a County. Los Angeles is building rail based transit in the City. Eventhough Metro does make it out to Long Beach, Pasadena, Norwalk, etc...they still go in/out of Los Angeles, city. Orange County does not have that central area. They have pockets of activity at Tustin Ranch, Great Park, Spectrum, Platinum Triangle, etc... OC's best bet for rail transit is Metrolink, which they have a fantastic plan of 30 minute service. IMHO, they shouldn't plan for light rail, but a stronger development around Metrolink.
Now, if more businesses/condos will be built around Metrolink stations and with better connections to major centers around Metrolink, etc... that would be wild! Of course, an east-west Metrolink line in the OC would be nice (i.e. follow the current 91 line to Fullerton and continue south/west to John Wayne Airport)!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Nov 8, 2007 16:43:56 GMT -8
tonyw79sfv, LAofAnaheim, Thanks for your suggestions. Would a "dream" extension of the Irvine Guideway project fare better than LRT? My dream illustration allows Wild Rivers and Irvine Meadows to remain (Remember I'm dreaming; this is NOT a real proposal. That's why this post is in "The Dream" category). Any thoughts? Info on the Irvine Guideway project: www.octa.net/pdf/102207/irvine.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jan 14, 2008 23:24:38 GMT -8
Tonight, I checked for any updated news on the Irvine Co's proposal to build 3,700 single family homes and condos south of the Irvine Spectrum Center near a hillside. The project will result in the demolition of an existing water park and children's camp in Irvine. I found nothing new, but learned that this housing project is getting strong local opposition by browsing through several blogs, e-petition sites, and other discussion boards. There were at least 1,000 e-petitions accounted for. The children's camp even had their own petition drive going. I did send e-mail requests to those managing the petitions as well as to the staff of the children's camp to voice their opposition to the Irvine City Council and Mayor. ................................................ Email: To Whom it May Concern: I am a member of a transit advocacy group which promotes smart growth development. First, I would like to commend your efforts with your petition to stop the housing project which would replace the waterpark Wild Rivers. It is to my understanding that the Irvine Company has proposed to not extend the lease of the waterpark Wild Rivers following the 2008 season due to a housing shortage in the area of the Irvine Spectrum. To my knowledge per the press, the Irvine Company will replace the attractions on this property with 3,700 units of housing. I strongly suggest you contact your e-mail petition list and request them to do the following: 1. Contact the Irvine City Council and voice your opposition. cc@ci.irvine.ca.us <cc@ci.irvine.ca.us> 2. Contact Wild Rivers Mangement and voice your support for continued operation of the waterpark. A copy of my request is below together with an alternative housing idea for the area to the address the needs of the Irvine Co for your use as a template. Be sure to change the wording around and include your thoughts too. The housing idea that I have is transit oriented development in the large parking lot area; what "Transit Oriented Development" means is people could live there, run their errands, work there, and be entertained (two entertainment attractions plus the Irvine Spectrum are already there). Follow this link to view the discussion thread and illustration of the village idea: Again, I thank you for your continued efforts to stop this housing project. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 15, 2008 11:35:47 GMT -8
I'm not a fan of this project. Why build housing at Wild Rivers/Irvine Meadows. If they want 3,700 units in a "urban-like" setting, this should be built near their Metrolink station. Right now, it's just parking garages/lots, etc... Tustin/Anaheim/Fullerton have done it right, it needs to continue with Irvine as well. And, they can integrate this with their trolley in 2012.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jan 15, 2008 19:42:26 GMT -8
I don't understand their logic myself. Ask the Irvine Co that question. "OC is job-rich and needs better housing"...That will be their answer. However, I strongly oppose how the Irvine Co is addressing this problem. More on that later... LAofAnaheim, here's the problem. There are many jobs in this area, both professional and service-based. There are expensive homes that provide housing for the professionals. High salary professionals and executives can afford to live where they work. However, there are very few homes for the service-sector employees. These are the workers who work in the downstairs sandwich shops, change the lightbulbs, man the parking toll booths, mow the lawns, and polish the elevator buttons. Add to that the thousands of service-based jobs in the entertainment center. I've read an article that the job/housing imbalance in OC is worse than even the Inland Empire! The Irvine Spectrum area basically offers very little housing for the service-based worker. There are now two apartment communities in the center itself: The Village and The Park. There are also two apartment communities near Sand Canyon Rd and I-405: Quail Meadow and Quail Ridge. Rents start at around $1,600-1,700 for a single bedroom per month. Not every job is going to pay for that bill with money to spare. Now compare that to these units and these units in Downtown LA. See how many more units (for under $1,000 monthly) there are in LA? This is what Irvine really needs! The Irvine Co.'s plans pretty much run counter to this deal and this is why I strongly oppose it. The development is totally car-centered, it will wipe out the existing attractions, and the nearest existing major grocery store at Sand Canyon and the I-405. Chances are the homes and condos will also be out of the budget range of service-based workers. From what I've read, that's the plan because the Irvine Co argues that the needs of future housing needs to be addressed....Forget the future, the needs of housing is now!... and the housing I'm talking about is housing for the many of many service-based workers who can't afford to live in Irvine. I strongly support the current TOD plans around the Irvine TC (if there will also be low cost units too), but I also believe that even with this development, there will still be a huge shortage of housing for the service-based employees of not only the Irvine Spectrum area, but the Irvine Business Park and South Coast Plaza areas near John Wayne Airport. Building expensive housing in the Wild Rivers area in lieu of lofts just doesn't make any sense. There's just too many service-based jobs in the Spectrum area. I strongly believe there is a much better alternative than placing even more expensive housing in this area. The apartments and lofts, I believe, is a better alternative; and having the grocery store and the doctor's office there would also make sense. Blog posters have also envisioned a little "downtown" for this area which will also provide big bucks for the Irvine Co, which many believe that's the whole reason why the wealthy firm is planning this project. |
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jan 16, 2008 22:45:14 GMT -8
This is just another example of misguided sprawl disguised as density.
Why are they trying to build another Downtown at the southern end of Irvine ?
Irvine already has a Downtown area, between Jamboree and MacArthur. It's in close proximity to John Wayne Airport, South Coast Plaza, the UC Irvine main campus, and numerous office towers like Taco Bell, Conexant, Tri Plaza etc.
They need to build more housing in and around the main financial district. It's much more dense, and would have better transit access to throughout.
The Irvine spectrum is just a hip nightspot, surrounded by low rise office parks. It was intended to be exclusively car-centric. The Irvine Company's vision has historically been car-centric, with homes tucked away in long driveways and cul-de-sacs not within walking distance to work or shopping.
Housing is never marketed as affordable.
To the students and faculty of the UC Irvine campus, it is all but totally un-affordable. Hi density housing should start near the University, where it is sorely needed. Students driving to and from school make for a large chunk of the 405 traffic debacle.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 17, 2008 10:01:01 GMT -8
Nope. This is infill so it's the opposite of sprawl. It's about a mile or so from a Metrolink/Amtrak station and at the junction of two different freeways. I can see Irvine wanting to have an affordable housing component of this project, but opposing this project because you'd prefer to see the density somewhere else or because the homes are more expensive than you'd like is not a persuasive argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jan 17, 2008 13:15:35 GMT -8
Just to make things clear on what's going on...Here's the Irvine Co's proposal: 3,700 single family homes and condos are proposed to replace the attractions and possibly invade the neighboring undeveloped hillside. The project is marketed as Laguna Crossing. Here's a map indicating the project location. As I said, chances are it will be car-centric, unaffordable for support staff employees, and the nearest grocery stores are a 4-5 mile drive away each way. That's the project I strongly oppose and there is strong local and community opposition to this project. The mixed-use, infill development which will replace the giant parking lot in this property is my idea (not a real proposal) in which I'm still gathering feedback and making changes per the attached map. A condition to this idea is an expansion of the Irvine Guideway into this area. As BlueLineShawn posted, the propoerty is only 1 1/2 miles away from the Irvine TC. The center will be redeveloped to serve Amtrak, 30 minute Metrolink service, the Irvine Guideway, and the 28-mile BRT Line to the employment centers near the airport. I'm trying to get a solid alternative together to give to Wild Rivers Management, Irvine Meadows, and Camp James so that they have some sort of a solid argument against the Irvine Co's proposed plans and their logic behind it. This will increase their odds for lease exstensions. Thousands of people use these attractions now and would like to continue to use them. The attractions are on the line of having to relocate because the Irvine Co wants to "provide future housing to meet the needs of the community", and IMHO, make more money on the property they own. It is certainly true that the Irvine Co's development history is clearly car-centered and unaffordable to support and service-sector employees. Look at the results over the course of time. The recently upgraded freeways leaving the Irvine area, even the SR 133 toll road, are messed up during the PM rush hour. I was also raised in Irvine and the family was forced to move further south due to the lack of affordable housing rents. People are not going to want to live like this forever. People like us need to stand up and tell the Irvine City Council that the Irvine Co is not in a position to run the entire city just because they're rich. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 17, 2008 16:32:30 GMT -8
Huhhh??? Are you sure that you're not misunderstanding my response? I understood that your idea was separate from the Irvine Company proposal. The Irvine Company development is adding housing inside the city limits of Irvine where there is currently no housing. This is why it is infill and not sprawl. It is also about a mile from the Amtrak/Metrolink station.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jan 17, 2008 17:01:59 GMT -8
Oops! Sorry about that!
I just wanted to make it clear to the other posters though. I edited that last post.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jan 20, 2008 22:10:59 GMT -8
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"... We're all familiar with the reasons people don't hop onboard transit at a time like this.
Even if housing is built near a Metrolink station with 30 minute headways (hopefully to Burbank), it won't mean alot of new residents will ride. Maybe just a small fraction.
Development needs to be pedestrian friendly and accessible. If Irvine Co. wants to build mostly single family houses. People won't ride.
If housing isn't affordable to accomodate service jobs. It means more traffic will come from the Inland Empire, and clog the freeways even more.
They need to build it so the horsey drinks the water. Based on Irvine's record on housing. That won't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 24, 2008 5:06:45 GMT -8
What if park & ride stations are better ridership generators than TODs? |
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jan 24, 2008 9:51:35 GMT -8
Good point; however this area is starving for low cost housing for support staff and other low income workers; therefore TOD with affordable housing might be the better option. Parking structures are being built at the Irvine TC so that the surrounding land can be used for TOD instead of parking lots.
Unfortunately, I have not seen any report on the TOD projects taking place around the Irvine TC to offer low cost housing. The proposed single family and condo developments which is proposed to replace the waterpark and the neighboring park certainly do not look like they will be within the budget of the service-sector employee.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jan 24, 2008 22:50:13 GMT -8
Park and Rides help get more Irvine residents to board Metrolink. But what about the many who must commute to Irvine ? Jobs have traditionally outnumbered housing. And scarce affordable housing creates an imbalance of jobs to homes. Long commutes on the 91 are the result. The city should either add:
1. More Affordable housing. OR
2. More transit connections to Metrolink station for commuters coming into Irvine.
The concept of affordable housing in a dense TOD pedestrian environment, runs totally counter to the Irvine philosophy of the sprawling urban ranch.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 24, 2008 23:15:24 GMT -8
I live in downtown and wanted to get to an office bldg in the Irvine business complex (405 & 55). You know how ridiculous it was that the nearest Metrolink station is 5.5 miles away from a corporate plaza. If the train station was w/in a mile at least, more people would take the train like I did into Irvine. I had to take a bus to complete my journey. A 30 minute ride. Ridiculous. Irvine needs to position its jobs/housing at transit centers, and keep a small park-n-ride (i.e. 100 spots) for drivers; like that of the Newhall station.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jan 24, 2008 23:58:38 GMT -8
 I believe the local communities need to be better educated on TOD. It's not all about density, but how the development is designed. If the community becomes more supportive of TOD, then the chances of the city changing from its view of car-centric development will be greater too. |
|
