Why Ventura County not develop as much as San Bernardino, or Riverside

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Ventura is moving toward fill in. I know the plan for midtown around the hospital calls for up to 5 story buildings. 1st floor would be store fronts, second floor offices and the upper floors apartment and condo units. The further you get away from CMH the height limit goes down. Ventura wants to maintain the 3 story limit in most of the city and the only reason for higher is to blend the hospital zone in with the mid town area.

[nightlysparrow]

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

Why Ventura County not develop as much as San Bernardino, or Riverside County?
It is as close to LA as either, and I imagine the weather is a lot better, or more similar to coastal LA, OC and even SD.

Would also note that between 2000-2010 per census, only about 69k people moved to Ventura County whereas in the same years San Bernardino County saw an increase of 325k and Riverside an astounding 644k---while LA County had only 300k!

So, less pressure to build. Or is it the chicken-or-the-egg thing?

Population of Ventura County, CA - Census 2010 and 2000 Interactive Map, Demographics, Statistics, Quick Facts - CensusViewer

[Californiaguy2007]

That's a good thing Ventura County is not overdeveloped...I was there just a few days ago and it was so nice to see the greenery,open spaces and of course the mountains,hills and the ocean.

I'm not anti-development,but I don't want our entire Beautiful State paved over with concrete.

[Arizona89A]

Originally Posted by nightlysparrow

IIRC, Oxnard is the only city in the county without slow-growth laws in place, so it's logical that increased density and vertical development will become the status quo there. No choice, as you stated.

It already is, with the smart growth development called The Collection, on 101.

[the city]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

You are correct, jw2, but to be specific: Ventura County has collectively decided by a series of popular votes by the people of all ten cities that development in Ventura County should not pattern the typical Southern California sprawl crap that we see in Los Angeles, Riverside/San Ber'do or OC. Ventura County is not against development, per se, but wants to develop in a way that is counter to sprawl.

So far the results have been mixed. Some people interpret SOAR to mean that VC will remain rural and sparcely populated with slow- or no-growth. The truth is that populations grow, but in a near zero-growth environment, neighborhoods designed for single families end up housing multiple families, increasing population density, traffic and crowding in areas that were not designed to handle it. Another outcome is that rental vacancies are below 2%, meaning that housing costs have shot through the roof (no pun intended). Continuing to build or support car-based arrangements means you can't easily walk or ride a bike to destinations, so everyone who can afford it is still driving a car.

What VC cities are coming around to understand is that we need housing, but a wider variety of it, placed in such a way that puts housing next to daily destinations of life so that we don't have to drive all the time. Single-family houses and the typical two-story apartments that are built without the opportunity for stores and services to be nearby are inadequate for VC's reality in the context of SOAR. Cities cannot expand their boundaries into farmland, so what cities must now do is build taller and with more variety within the existing boundaries. Housing needs to serve all demographic groups (not just families) and be mixed with stores and other services, giving us opportunities to avoid driving for every errand.

There is enough jobs in Ventura County and any new housing should be infill mixed use urban development.

Also let LA build housing for it's people. VC doesn't need to become more of a burb for valley commuters.