Wednesday, August 22, 2007

OPINION: No place for kids these days

BY CHERI RAE
It’s been a long summer for my 10-year-old son who has spent much of it in the backyard—playing wiffle ball with friends, building dirt tracks for remote-control cars, relaxing in the hammock, helping me in the garden and just generally hanging out. He loves the view of the mountains, the sounds of the County Bowl, and the general feel of the old-fashioned neighborhood where we live, and easy six-block walk to State Street.

Several times this season, he’s accompanied me on walks around town, and observed the many changes so obvious to anyone, even a kid. But his perceptions of these changes—free from concerns about affordability, land costs, bonus density and modifications—may strike the heart of even the most oblivious planner, architect and developer. From his kid’s-eye view, the new Santa Barbara is no place for kids anymore.
He was astonished to learn that the two condo developments under construction on Chapala Street are homes, not hotels. “Where are the kids supposed to play catch?” he demanded. “In the hallways?” He pointed out that, as far as anyone can see, there’s no place to grow a tomato plant, sit under a tree or have a proper barbeque with a group of friends and neighbors. “Everybody would have to sit inside, while somebody cooks. There’s no place to sit.”
When we passed by the new condo complex under construction at the Granada Garage, he observed what most adults must be too polite to state: “Who would want to live in a parking lot?”
When we discussed that some people might want to live downtown, and that these places might not cost as much as others, he directed my attention to an end unit at the corner of Anapamu and Anacapa, directly behind the Coffee Cat building. “Look at how the windows and the porch look right into that big, huge building. There’s no way you could look out at anything, not even the moon. Mom, if we ever moved here, I would have to run away. This is not a place for kids to live.”
Daniel’s world is very clear and unambiguous. People need to tell the truth or they get in trouble. People need to have enough quiet and enough space to be happy. People need to be able to look out their windows at something, not just another building. People shouldn’t live in buildings, even fancy buildings with red-tiled roofs, if there’s no place for kids to play outside.
Too many times I’ve heard architects and planners brush aside concerns about providing open space for children by referring to a park several blocks away, or a teeny-tiny “tot lot” for little ones. They always fail to address the fact that babies and toddlers grow up and need more space, fresh air and sunshine than can be accommodated in a very dense condo development. And what passes for open space in these buildings is often a little landscaping and a lot of paving where, apparently, kids and cars are expected to safely co-exist.
There’s a lot of talk these days about “nature-deficit disorder,” a term coined by Richard Louv in his brilliant book, “Last Child in the Woods.” The negative effects of children spending too much time in buildings, and too little in nature include obesity, attention disorders, depression and boredom. The book explores the new and quite impressive body of research that indicates that direct exposure to nature is an essential part of a healthy childhood. I believe this book should be read and discussed by architects and developers, as well as every member of our City’s planning staff, and administration. A thoughtful read ought to provoke some serious discussion about how our City’s current obsession with “development” may come at the expense of the long-term health and well-being of childhood development.
My little boy is off to school on Monday, back to Open Alternative School, where he is clearly learning his lessons to develop and apply critical thinking skills as he observes the ever-more-crowded world around him, to become an independent thinker and to point out the obvious—even if adults just don’t get it.
Children know what Santa Barbara’s champions of high-density housing do not: Kids need a place to play.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

To Daniel,

I grew up in White Plains, New York (near New York City).

When I was a little girl in 1928, our class went on tour of tenements in New York City.

Kids in the tenements had no place to play on lawns. They played potsie, stickball, and skellzies on the street. The kids didn't even have hot water to wash with.

All us kids in my class were so sad and so worried for the kids in the tenement. Our class invited a class from the lower eastside for a picnic at our school in White Plains. They came and brought the most wonderful food.

Some of their parents came too, and we asked them why they lived in the tenement. They told us they didn't have enough money to move out, but they were saving all the time. But their kids seemed pretty happy.

Not everyone can afford the nice house you have Daniel. But their kids are nice and good people, and they figure out how to play wherever they are.

Anonymous said...

Using a child's voice to advance your opinion is genius, but a little cliche

Anonymous said...

I agree that most downtown condos don't rise to the Cleaverian ideal of a picket fenced back yard. However, your attempt to try to couch this as a child-raising imperative is a shining example of the arrogance for which Americans are often ridiculed in the rest of the world. Travel to any European city, travel to Japan, or Hong Kong, heck, even go to many parts of New York, and you will see hundreds of thousands of children being raised under conditions that you describe as essentially child abuse. True, kids do need a place to play, but that place doesn't have to be a sacrosanct part of one's own yard. Parks "several blocks away" can give kids plenty of space to play, perhaps even with other kids.

The focus on needing individual yards is why California in particular is buried under sprawling suburbs and choked by freeways. High density housing may not appeal to your little prince of the California Riviera, but it has an essential place in urban planning. To insist on designing otherwise is arrogant and foolish.

Anonymous said...

Most of the kids that grow up in Santa Barbara won't have to worry about not having any open space. Once we decide to strike out on our own housing costs force us out of our crowded little hometown we know and love. Thanks developers.

SantaBarbarian said...

Santa Barbara is no place for kids because it is simply to costly to buy a house, we have plenty of open space for kids and people to enjoy. The only problem, well some will see it as a problem, they will have to SHARE IT WITH OTHERS.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the young man...These condos look like hotels and the "old Santa Barbara" that many of us moved to 30 years ago, is no longer the place we once moved too. I have never seen so much development in over 30 years!! Change in City Hall is a must!!

yeahright said...

If no one "would want to live in a parking lot", then who would want to live in a hospital, eh?