Monsters continue to invade Burlingame

Approximately two years back, it seems, both the Burlingame City Council and the Planning Commission agreed to take another look at Burlingame's floor area ratio ( FAR.) As far as I know, that has yet to happen. Will they? Should they? (Photo above is an example from my neighborhood taken just days ago.)

Comments

[Mike]

Seems like a lot of the controversy surrounding new construction arises out of issues of "towering house" envy. The FAR's here are very similar to other 'urban' suburbs in Palo Alto, Marin, and the Sunset (in SF).

The reality is that many of the houses in Burlingame Park, Easton, and Washington were built in the 1920s-1930s, are reaching the end of their economic useful lives, have significant foundation issues, aren't up to code, and while they may be charming, are architecturally insignificant. Not to mention the plethora of people either not keeping up their houses, letting weeds take over yards, allowing perma-parked cars, and taking various liberties with questionable taste (two examples: an astro-turf lawn and metal animals dangling from roofs).

The newbuilds (in general) seem better vs what they are replacing (many are actually old tract homes) and enhance the value of our existing real estate/community. I think the community would be better served by enforcing existing codes, focusing on beautification, and having the planning commission encourage more differentiated floor plans and 'indiginous' architectural styles (e.g. how many "Cape Cod" homes are really supposed to exist outside of New England)? By having lower FARs, builders will be encouraged to build "down" by putting in basements. This now happens quite regularly in Palo Alto and there are a few examples in Burlingame -- but maybe that's the ultimate solution: "what you don't see, can't make you feel inadequate".

[Vince]

Agree with the earlier comment.

My wife and I have been in Burlingame for about 7 years now, first renting then buying a condo. With a growing family, we'd love to have a bigger place and remain near downtown (we love being able to do everything on foot rather than getting in our cars) but the inventory in many of these areas is mainly older 2 bedroom, 1 bath craftsman style places that don't suit our needs well. We aren't looking for a huge "monster" but something with a bit more space would be nice.

[Old Bushmill]

This monster is ugleeeeeee. Stop the madness.

[fred]

A two story home? Oh, the humanity!

[jennifer]

Agree that many communities have the same issue, and it is particularly a problem when communities have mostly older subdivisions with small lots and a 50ft. frontage. Homes like the one shown above are going to be really nice looking when complete- the PC really has done a good job of making sure there is a high standard, but that really isn't the issue for me. It is that many of the larger homes do not follow the traditional rhythm and proportion of the street, I'm referring to built-up space vs. open space (beyond that provided by most driveways). It goes beyond architectural preferences. A home this size would look much better situated on a double lot with more space around it. But alas, that would be prohibitively expensive in Burlingame, and the way people live now emphasizes an indoor lifestyle much of the time- certainly much more than that of previous generations.

I love the expression "towering house envy". I've never heard that before. While sometimes that may be true, I tend to think that "privacy envy" is probably the more likely expression. There is no privacy in Burlingame; it probably was already in decline, sometime in the 1980s. To me, the most unfortunate part is that there is little to no space left to plant substantially sized trees that would help set these houses down, and provide at least some screening for the neighboring homes.

[fred]

There are plenty of two story houses on this block and this house has a driveway to the backyard and the detached garage. Typical Burlingame home, it seems.

[jennifer]

I'm not talking two story vs. one story. This is not an issue of height,-- lots of tudors in Burlingame, and these are generally 2 stories, sometimes a half story more. (The one pictured seems to be "french"). I'm talking about 'built up space- mass' vs. open space where there is some light, "air" and plantable areas that amount to more than a couple of feet. It's an issue of proportion.

[fred]

I've been in many houses in that neighborhood. It's quite lovely and there are trees lining the front yards and streets. However, I have never seen one that has a yard that might consider large or spacious and somewhat often they might be considered small.

I'm missing your point, but honestly, I'm more concerned about the land grab of parking spaces on Burlingame Avenue.

[Mike]

Aren't the "declining height envelope" (ie the "light plane") requirements set by the ordinances and enforced pretty rigroustly?

Would also propose there should be an ordinance addendum to housing styles allowed: No "Chafauxs" or "Garage-Mahals"

[Joe]

I don't have a set of numbers, but in my attendance at a variety of Planning Commission meetings and a few appeals to the City Council, the declining height envelop requirement appears to be the easiest variance of all to obtain. Again, I don't have the data on everything, it's just my observation.

[Two Cents]

These extremely large homes look so silly when sitting on a small lot. No yard and barely any room to breathe on either side of the property lines.

Go check out the monster on the corner of Poppy and Columbus. Not only is there hardly a back yard, the owner had all the trees removed on the curb side (Columbus). Nothing is left to soften the look of this imposing, cold structure.

There are good and bad ways to add to existing property. It just takes good design and respect for the neighbors who most times do not have any more sunlight or privacy when these homes are built. Many of these new homes are built by developers who will never ever live in the homes but build for spec.

Go take a look at this home on Concord. The 2nd story has a balcony in the back that looks directly down to the neighbor's house on the corner of Concord and Bloomfield. How did this ever get through the planning commission?

Many people are downsizing from a large home to a smaller one (empty nest, etc.) and would like to stay in Burlingame. I just don't agree that every new "old" home that comes on the market must be torn down for these monsters.