So, this is a drawing of my house. It's a normal, Carmel Valley house, which is about 27 feet tall. How would this compare to the One Paseo residential tower? Just look! This is to scale, with the size information taken from the DEIR. Can you believe they're talking about putting this in Carmel Valley?
5 Comments
Where's the sun?
Submitted by Anonymous on
Where's the sun? The 3D Google earth rendering makes it clear that One Paseo may be a dark place. The tall buildings and poor orientation block most of the winter sun, and by about noon most of the sun is gone from one side of the so-called main street! And in CV, dark can be cold to cool being so close to the ocean.
One Paseo
Submitted by Anonymous on
No,no,no, to One Paseo. We can not let this happen to our community. The 150 foot tall residental towers are replusive. The zoning is for 500 sq ft and Kilroy is asking the city for a veriance to allow 1.8 million sq ft with 600 residental homes. Again No !!
Greedy Developers in our Community
Submitted by Anonymous on
They are not community partners since they lied about the impact with their PR spin. No integrity. Kick these guys out!
One Paseo
Submitted by Anonymous on
We can't let them take Carmel Valley, Hostage! I have lived in CV for 17 years. We already have traffic that has to use Del Mar Heights road, due to NO, North Bound Ramp for I-5, and NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. So we are going to see another 600 plus multi family units built. I don't think so. I'm not against something being built on the site, but for no more square footage than it's planned for, by the city of San Diego. The 500,000 square feet is enough, no more than that should be allowed! Please Don't Allow THE DEVELOPERS, give Carmel Valley a HEART ATTACK instead of a heart, which was mentioned in Carmel Valley News. NO! NO! NO!
Density and local vs. global environmental impact
Submitted by Anonymous on
I appreciate that the the One Paseo development will be big - much bigger and taller than anything Carmel Valley has to date. I can imagine that if this was planned for my neighborhood, and my house was literally in the shadow of a planned 10 story highrise, I would not be pleased. However, the alternative to density is sprawl. Higher residential densities mean less miles driven, more walking, more feasible access to public transit, and an overall smaller carbon footprint. The alternative is for people to live farther from city centers, spend more time driving, adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and congestion to our freeways. It is documented that people residing in high density urban environments have a smaller carbon footprint per capita. How do we reconcile the global benefits of higher density residence plans with our aversion to changes in our neighborhoods? Wherever change happens, it happens in someone's back yard.
Add new comment