I am sure that most people aren't going to feel bad for LVMH, but it is facing some opposition in trying to bring the first Cheval Blanc Hotel to North America. Last year, Beverly Hills City Council approved the hotel development on Rodeo Drive, but since then, enough signatures were collected that a special election is going to be held later this month for the ~22,000 residents who are registered to vote in Beverly Hills. And from the sounds of it, the results will decide the fate of the project.
As I understand it, there are two mains groups that are upset:
A union representing hotel workers
Local area residents
The official message from group #1 is that they want affordable housing. But there is speculation that they just want the hotel to be unionized. I don't don't, so let's move on to group #2. Why would residents be opposed to this project?
One way to think about this is that LVMH is trying to build a fancy new $2,000 per night hotel in one of the richest cities in the US, on one of its most luxurious streets. So, you would think that there would be a fit and that more than a few rich people would be excited about such a development. I guess this is true — and Council did vote in favor last year — but clearly there are other concerns:
...some people were unhappy a 109-room hotel, framed by Rodeo Drive, Little Santa Monica Boulevard and Beverly Drive, would rise nine stories on one side and tower over surrounding retail and commercial spaces sitting at three and four stories high. Four buildings would have to be razed, and the idea of more traffic coming to the area was unsettling.
It seems to be about scale:
...Cheval Blanc opponents want to keep that small town vibe. “The area is charming and beautiful right now, and, if and when they are able to put that project out there, it will not be. It is very nice to be around low-rise buildings. You can sit at a sidewalk café in Beverly Hills and look across the street and see the hills. It is a very good feeling,” said Darian Bojeaux, an attorney who has lived in the city for 35 years and signed the petitions launching a special election. “Let them build a code-compliant hotel that is three stories high. Let them build something nice that doesn’t ruin the city.”
Here's an aerial of said small town vibe for context (I've marked the number of proposed storeys):
What's interesting about this situation is that it seems to isolate the concerns. Because what is being proposed here is an obviously compatible use. It is a rich thing in an area for rich people. Residents don't seem to be saying that this is a problem. Instead, it is height that could potentially "ruin the city." (Ignore for a second that there's already an office building of similar height across the street.)
What this tells me is that if you're thinking about proposing nine storeys of Ferragamo and Balenciaga, that's probably not small town enough. Saint Laurent needs to be no more than three.
The University area is one of 53 community planning areas in the City of San Diego. And this one, as the name suggests, houses the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), which is at the northern end of the blue transit line.
The last time the University Community Plan was updated was in 1987, and so it's an old plan and it is currently being redone to better align with the City's current strategic plan -- which includes things like "creating homes for all of us" and "championing sustainability."
The final draft community plan won't be available until later this year, but there are two draft scenarios available for download. Here's what Scenario A looks like:
Despite having somewhere around 4,000 employees and being valued at upwards of $15 billion (2021 figure), CloudKitchens remains an incredibly secretive company. In 2020, it was reported that they had spent over $130 million in the preceding two years on properties in about two dozen cities, and this week the Financial Times reported that they have been quietly building "dark kitchens" across Latin America, alongside a new food and convenience goods business called Pik N' Pak.
The way this all supposedly works is that the "dark kitchens" prepare the food for delivery and pick-up takeaway, and any excess space within these buildings is used to store convenience goods like over-the-counter medicines and pet foods. I guess it is literally about picking and packing various items that you can then attach to takeout orders. In both cases, the food and goods are delivered to customers using local app companies such as Uber Eats.
All of this appears to represent a shift in the supply chain for takeout food and various convenience goods. But what I am really curious about right now is what the real estate footprint of this network looks like within our cities. What is the optimal square footage of a ghost kitchen? What radius do they serve? And how does this ultimately change the landscape of our cities? I don't know the answers to these questions, but change appears to be underway. Here's an excerpt from the above FT article:
"...the growth of dark kitchens across Latin America has caused controversy in certain cities. The proliferation in São Paulo, the largest city in the Americas, sparked objections from residents living nearby, with banners against new facilities appearing in well-heeled neighbourhoods. The town hall has proposed local regulation of dark kitchens and earlier this year placed a temporary ban on the issue of new licences. People have complained about noise, smells, smoke and motorcycle drivers — known colloquially as motoboys — waiting outside to collect orders. One unhappy local said his son had been nicknamed “bacon” and bullied in school because of the odour on his clothes, according to Cris Monteiro, a city councilwoman."
Travis Kalanick seems to have a knack for upsetting people and changing the way our cities operate. Although, the same could be said about a lot of other startups.
I am sure that most people aren't going to feel bad for LVMH, but it is facing some opposition in trying to bring the first Cheval Blanc Hotel to North America. Last year, Beverly Hills City Council approved the hotel development on Rodeo Drive, but since then, enough signatures were collected that a special election is going to be held later this month for the ~22,000 residents who are registered to vote in Beverly Hills. And from the sounds of it, the results will decide the fate of the project.
As I understand it, there are two mains groups that are upset:
A union representing hotel workers
Local area residents
The official message from group #1 is that they want affordable housing. But there is speculation that they just want the hotel to be unionized. I don't don't, so let's move on to group #2. Why would residents be opposed to this project?
One way to think about this is that LVMH is trying to build a fancy new $2,000 per night hotel in one of the richest cities in the US, on one of its most luxurious streets. So, you would think that there would be a fit and that more than a few rich people would be excited about such a development. I guess this is true — and Council did vote in favor last year — but clearly there are other concerns:
...some people were unhappy a 109-room hotel, framed by Rodeo Drive, Little Santa Monica Boulevard and Beverly Drive, would rise nine stories on one side and tower over surrounding retail and commercial spaces sitting at three and four stories high. Four buildings would have to be razed, and the idea of more traffic coming to the area was unsettling.
It seems to be about scale:
...Cheval Blanc opponents want to keep that small town vibe. “The area is charming and beautiful right now, and, if and when they are able to put that project out there, it will not be. It is very nice to be around low-rise buildings. You can sit at a sidewalk café in Beverly Hills and look across the street and see the hills. It is a very good feeling,” said Darian Bojeaux, an attorney who has lived in the city for 35 years and signed the petitions launching a special election. “Let them build a code-compliant hotel that is three stories high. Let them build something nice that doesn’t ruin the city.”
Here's an aerial of said small town vibe for context (I've marked the number of proposed storeys):
What's interesting about this situation is that it seems to isolate the concerns. Because what is being proposed here is an obviously compatible use. It is a rich thing in an area for rich people. Residents don't seem to be saying that this is a problem. Instead, it is height that could potentially "ruin the city." (Ignore for a second that there's already an office building of similar height across the street.)
What this tells me is that if you're thinking about proposing nine storeys of Ferragamo and Balenciaga, that's probably not small town enough. Saint Laurent needs to be no more than three.
The University area is one of 53 community planning areas in the City of San Diego. And this one, as the name suggests, houses the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), which is at the northern end of the blue transit line.
The last time the University Community Plan was updated was in 1987, and so it's an old plan and it is currently being redone to better align with the City's current strategic plan -- which includes things like "creating homes for all of us" and "championing sustainability."
The final draft community plan won't be available until later this year, but there are two draft scenarios available for download. Here's what Scenario A looks like:
Despite having somewhere around 4,000 employees and being valued at upwards of $15 billion (2021 figure), CloudKitchens remains an incredibly secretive company. In 2020, it was reported that they had spent over $130 million in the preceding two years on properties in about two dozen cities, and this week the Financial Times reported that they have been quietly building "dark kitchens" across Latin America, alongside a new food and convenience goods business called Pik N' Pak.
The way this all supposedly works is that the "dark kitchens" prepare the food for delivery and pick-up takeaway, and any excess space within these buildings is used to store convenience goods like over-the-counter medicines and pet foods. I guess it is literally about picking and packing various items that you can then attach to takeout orders. In both cases, the food and goods are delivered to customers using local app companies such as Uber Eats.
All of this appears to represent a shift in the supply chain for takeout food and various convenience goods. But what I am really curious about right now is what the real estate footprint of this network looks like within our cities. What is the optimal square footage of a ghost kitchen? What radius do they serve? And how does this ultimately change the landscape of our cities? I don't know the answers to these questions, but change appears to be underway. Here's an excerpt from the above FT article:
"...the growth of dark kitchens across Latin America has caused controversy in certain cities. The proliferation in São Paulo, the largest city in the Americas, sparked objections from residents living nearby, with banners against new facilities appearing in well-heeled neighbourhoods. The town hall has proposed local regulation of dark kitchens and earlier this year placed a temporary ban on the issue of new licences. People have complained about noise, smells, smoke and motorcycle drivers — known colloquially as motoboys — waiting outside to collect orders. One unhappy local said his son had been nicknamed “bacon” and bullied in school because of the odour on his clothes, according to Cris Monteiro, a city councilwoman."
Travis Kalanick seems to have a knack for upsetting people and changing the way our cities operate. Although, the same could be said about a lot of other startups.
The "T" circles are transit stops on the Blue Line (which runs south to downtown and then to the Mexico border), the olive green areas are institutional (UCSD, hospital, etc.), and the purple areas are "urban villages" with densities that go as high as 218 dwelling units per acre (darkest purple). For the other areas, please refer to the legend.
Now let's put this residential density into some sort of context. One acre = 43,560 square feet. So we're talking about 218 homes on every 43,560 square feet of land. For context, our mid-rise Junction House project is 151 homes and our site area is approximately 22,000 square feet (about 0.5 acres). That puts us at roughly 302 homes per acre -- more than what is proposed here.
In total the revised plan could allow for somewhere between 35,000 to 56,000 new homes in the University City area. Not surprisingly, the community has reacted by organizing rallies, such as this one, here, called "Honks against housing":
(I used a screenshot because embedded tweets don’t seem to show up properly in my email newsletter.)
This is, again, not unexpected. And all of the typical things could be said about incumbent residents opposing new homes on top of an existing transit line, next to a major university. But what stands out to me about this protest is its format.
These residents are worried that high-rises will destroy their community. So presumably they are looking to get the word out to as many people as possible. And one of the ways they have decided to do that is stand on the side of a busy road and appeal to people in their cars.
Ironically, I think this actually reinforces the need for an updated Community Plan. Because it speaks to the car-oriented nature of this community and the need for better land use planning around its existing transit stations.
In my view, the line of thinking here should not be, "this is going to destroy our community. How will our roads ever accommodate 35,000 new homes?" It should be, "how do we better plan this community so that our next generation of residents have the luxury not to have to drive everywhere?"
If you'd like to offer constructive feedback on this plan, I'm told that you can email Nancy Graham at nhgraham@sandiego.gov.
The "T" circles are transit stops on the Blue Line (which runs south to downtown and then to the Mexico border), the olive green areas are institutional (UCSD, hospital, etc.), and the purple areas are "urban villages" with densities that go as high as 218 dwelling units per acre (darkest purple). For the other areas, please refer to the legend.
Now let's put this residential density into some sort of context. One acre = 43,560 square feet. So we're talking about 218 homes on every 43,560 square feet of land. For context, our mid-rise Junction House project is 151 homes and our site area is approximately 22,000 square feet (about 0.5 acres). That puts us at roughly 302 homes per acre -- more than what is proposed here.
In total the revised plan could allow for somewhere between 35,000 to 56,000 new homes in the University City area. Not surprisingly, the community has reacted by organizing rallies, such as this one, here, called "Honks against housing":
(I used a screenshot because embedded tweets don’t seem to show up properly in my email newsletter.)
This is, again, not unexpected. And all of the typical things could be said about incumbent residents opposing new homes on top of an existing transit line, next to a major university. But what stands out to me about this protest is its format.
These residents are worried that high-rises will destroy their community. So presumably they are looking to get the word out to as many people as possible. And one of the ways they have decided to do that is stand on the side of a busy road and appeal to people in their cars.
Ironically, I think this actually reinforces the need for an updated Community Plan. Because it speaks to the car-oriented nature of this community and the need for better land use planning around its existing transit stations.
In my view, the line of thinking here should not be, "this is going to destroy our community. How will our roads ever accommodate 35,000 new homes?" It should be, "how do we better plan this community so that our next generation of residents have the luxury not to have to drive everywhere?"
If you'd like to offer constructive feedback on this plan, I'm told that you can email Nancy Graham at nhgraham@sandiego.gov.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog