As I walked through what COC now calls the “Central Commons” area, I was struck, for the 1000th time, how ugly the first generation of COC buildings are. You know what I’m talking about, the concrete monoliths that were the unimaginatively named C & M buildings from the early 1970s until about three years ago:

In 2009, the College renamed its buildings after people and local canyons, rather than letters of the Alphabet. I give you Bonelli Hall

I say ugly because, objectively, who could love that architecture? It’s stark, cold, purely functional and doesn’t fit in with its surroundings or the environment at all. It’s a beige box PC when what you really want is an iMac.  It’s so out-of-place it’s as if a slate-gray, used and weathered 1973 Volvo was dropped into a Ferrari showroom. It looks like something out of East Germany. It’s almost brutal, isn’t it?

In fact it is! This style of architecture is known as “Brutalism,” and if you’ve ever attended public university or community college in California, you’ve probably spent time doodling in a class held in a Brutalist-inspired building. Here’s what Wikipedia says about the Brutalist style:

Brutalist buildings usually are formed with striking repetitive angular geometries, and, where concrete is used, often revealing the texture of the wooden forms used for the in-situ casting. A common theme in Brutalist designs is the exposure of the building’s functions—ranging from their structure and services to their human use—in the exterior of the building.

…

Brutalism gained considerable momentum in the United Kingdom during the mid twentieth century, as economically depressed (and World War II-ravaged) communities sought inexpensive construction and design methods for low-cost housing, shopping centres, and government buildings. Nonetheless, many architects chose the Brutalist style even when they had large budgets, as they appreciated the ‘honesty’, the sculptural qualities, and perhaps, the uncompromising, anti-bourgeois, nature of the style.

The LA Times adds:

Brutalist buildings are heavy, monumental and defiantly unbeautiful. Their concrete surfaces are intentionally left exposed. Their ambience is austere.

Brutalism evolved as a revolt by certain European architects against a more widely accepted elegant design of the 1940s called Corporate International Style, which glorified “glass box” construction in a style that emphasized lightness, anonymity and rectilinear precision.

Brutalist advocates shunned it, however, maintaining that the International Style was an elitist fashioning that ignored the cold, harsh realities of post-World War II working-class life.

Brutalism also caught on in California from the 1960s-1970s, about the time COC was being built. So it’s no surprise that during California’s great higher education boom in the 60s and 70s, COC was built in this then-popular architectural style,  thus introducing Brutalism to our little town.

As I walked through COC on Saturday, I realized that Brutalism had followed me everywhere. From the cold halls of the C building at COC to Stevenson Hall at Sonoma State University where I did my undergrad work:

When it first opened in the late 1960s, SSU had the unfortunate nickname of "San Quentin North"

to SSU’s Darwin Hall, where I took science courses:

and all the way to CSUN’s library, where I spent hours studying for my graduate program and where I’ll receive my degree this May:

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I think you can find Brutalist-influence in other SCV structures built around this time too. Take for instance our Civic Center, christened in 1973 which I think shows hints of Brutalism even at it embraced California’s other architectural meme, red tiled roofs:

and perhaps even CalArts’ main building:

I realized by the end of our walk around COC that I found these old concrete structures endearing and special even as I think they’re ugly and out-of-place. Given a magic wand in which I could replace them with something that does fit in, I don’t think I’d do it. They reflect on a zeitgeist so different from what we’re in now that I ‘m glad they’re here to remind us of the past.

And I think it’s really cool that there’s a little bit of European inspired socialist-utopianism even here, in the conservative, individualistic SCV.

If you love -or love to hate!- the Brutalist style, here is a great Tumblr feed with loads of pictures

Katherine & Caroline Squires (sisters) made the trek to Downtown LA yesterday to fight the first phase of Newhall Ranch, Landmark Village. Katherine and I once went on a tour of the Santa Clara river valley (I wrote about it way back in 2006) and she’s a neat lady, very sharp, and quite passionate about preserving the environment. After reading her account about how she and others who were treated, imagine how you’d feel if you were at the Hall of Administration yesterday:

We just got back from the Los Angeles County board meeting in downtown.  We were there for the hearing on the proposed Newhall Ranch’s ‘Landmark Village’ development project along the Santa Clara River.  Having spoke at other government meetings in the past we knew going into it that the odds were stacked against us and we would not receive much support from our elected leaders…we just didn’t know that it was going to go down as one of the worst experiences we have ever had with our county government.  We thought it was common knowledge that a public hearing is scheduled in order to have our elected leaders hear the public and consider their input,  allowing citizens this ONE opportunity to speak their mind…but here is the reality:

We dropped what we needed to do today (work, etc.) to drive almost 2 hours to downtown through stop-and-go morning traffic (insert eye roll here).  When we arrived we were informed that the 9:30 a.m. meeting would actually start an hour and a half late.  Naturally, you could understand how delighted we were to have risen so early to be there on time.

While we waited patiently for our turn to speak, we had the pleasure of watching the Board Members be awarded praise for their great deeds in the community.  They accepted compliments and kudos from a variety of individuals and delayed the meeting for another half hour while they patted themselves on the back.

We were in for a shock once the hearing actually began.  The first thing Mayor Antonovich (this is what he insists on being called) proclaimed was that each speaker would have just 60 seconds to give their comments…instead of the usual 3 minutes.  We both questioned why Antonovich had not warned us sooner about this major setback.  He declared that he was enforcing this rule because there were so many people commenting.  However, in reality, it wasn’t a ridiculous number of people who wanted to speak.

We all had to quickly re-draft our remarks while we were hustled to the podium to speak.  We all came prepared with 3 minute presentations.  The fact we were given such an insignificant amount of time to speak with virtually no warning seemed to be a deliberate ploy to undermine the public commentary.  We could not listen to our fellow speakers because we were quickly racing to change our comments.  This was very unfair…especially when the first people speaking, those in favor of the project, were given unlimited time.

As the members of the public spoke to the Board we were accorded very little respect.  While concerned citizens poured their hearts out, Antonovich chowed down on snacks, had multiple side-bar conversations with his assistant, and at one point even left the room while someone was speaking!  He didn’t excuse himself first, rather he just stood up and left.  The person speaking didn’t know whether to continue or not, as it was unclear if anyone was even in charge of the meeting at that point.  The speaker questioned whether or not the meeting could even proceed legally, seeing as how there were only 2 of the 5 Board Members in the room.  The speaker was told to continue!

The behavior of the other Board Members was no better.  One of them appeared to be flirting with two young ladies at his side.  The other Board Members drifted in and out of the room while people were speaking or slouched in their chairs looking indifferent and bored.  It was embarrassing to witness such unprofessionalism and frustrating that they demonstrated such inappropriate behavior.  Could you imagine if your workplace followed such an example?  Antonovich failed to demonstrate any respect for the process.  We wanted to say something to him regarding the inherent contempt for the citizens evident in this situation however, that would have wasted precious speaking time!  It takes longer to microwave a hot pocket than we were given time to speak!

The silver lining was that a plethora of environmental organizations were there to combat all the developers (the people in suits) that were in the room: Heal the Bay, The Audubon Society, Sierra Club, SCOPE, Friends of the Santa Clara River, Center for Biological Diversity, and numerous concerned citizens.  They gave very detailed comments as to the problems associated with this project.  We were impressed with their ability to quickly revamp their comments and give their evidence with grace and professionalism in such a hostile setting.  The Landmark Village project has lasting and detrimental consequences for our valley and our neighboring cities and it deserved more than an hour of the Board Members’ time.

We ask you, who gets up at the crack of dawn, takes off work, coordinates rides, writes comments, drives through hours of traffic, pays for parking, and gets ready to speak in front of a crowd (most people would rather have a root canal), only to have their speaking time cut down to 60 seconds and then be given no response and even worse…a lack of respect by our government leaders who are supposed to reflect the voice of the people?!

We do and so did the other speakers!  We did it and will continue to fight because it is the right thing to do…it would just be reassuring if our elected leaders would do the right thing as well.

-Katherine and Caroline

“The Squires Sisters”

With a response like that from elected officials, is it any wonder activists resort to the Courts? That’s why I’m never sympathetic when some local water official complains in the media that lawsuits are expensive and hard to deal with. Without access to the courts, these activists -who spend their free time reading EIRs and studying the land- would literally have no way to get their legitimate concerns heard. The system in LA County has always been stacked against them and it continues to this day. 

Also, isn’t ironic that after 24 years of City hood, the Council is beginning to resemble the Supervisors, at least on some issues?

What is being built here? A new ride that takes you all the way to Magic Mountain? The beginnings of a high speed rail line through the heart of Valencia? A crazy art project put on by some overachieving and scary-ambitious CalArts students?  A sphinx in the shape of Dr. Dianne Van Hook, supreme chancellor of COC perhaps?

Nah, I doubt it’s any of those things. The only construction project I know of on that site is the UCLA Film and Television Archive, which has been slated for that location for almost ten years.

You can be forgiven if you don’t recall this project. It’s been several years (like four or five) since I last saw a story about it. The LA Times first mentioned the project way back in 2002:

With the help of a wealthy film buff, UCLA is planning to consolidate the country’s second-largest media collection at a campus to be built in Valencia, university officials said Thursday.

The proposed 60-acre site for the UCLA Film and Television Archive was purchased by the Packard Humanities Institute, a nonprofit foundation in Los Altos headed by computer heir David Packard. Escrow on the land, bought from the Newhall Land and Farming Co., closed last month.

The nonprofit plans to build a new UCLA Film and Television Preservation Center on the site in the next few years to house the archive’s 27 million feet of newsreel footage and 220,000 films and TV programs.

The collection is currently spread among four sites on UCLA’s Westwood campus and at the old Technicolor building in Hollywood, on Cahuenga Boulevard, archive officials said.

The new facility would bring the collection together, and give its 63 employees a single, state-of-the-art place to work on film restoration and preservation, said Tim Kittleson, the archive’s director. It will also host a new master’s degree program in “moving image archiving studies,” which university officials said would be the first of its kind in North America.

A quick check on the ultra-simplistic Packard Humanities Website (seriously was it created with Notepad?) doesn’t even mention the project. And the UCLA Film & TV Archive website doesn’t show any updated information either.

But I’ve not heard any changes in ownership for the property so without any contrary information, I think it’s safe to assume this is the beginnings of the UCLA Film & TV archive.  It’s unlikely the facility be open to the public given the rare materials held inside, but in that Times article Bill Packard says he’d like to build a public screening room, which would be a real treat for us screen and quality-film deprived SCVers.

American ideas about how to live and build communities have changed dramatically over time. For decades, families fled the dense urban grid for newer types of neighborhoods that felt safer, more private, even pastoral. Through their research, Garrick and colleague Wesley Marshall are now making the argument that we got it all wrong: We’ve really been designing communities that make us drive more, make us less safe, keep us disconnected from one another, and that may even make us less healthy.

What’s great about the SCV is that we have examples of both patterns. Newhall, which was built up before and during World War 2, is largely grid patterned, with straight streets intersecting others forming real city blocks. Parts of Canyon Country are like this too.

Valencia, built 30 years after World War 2 -and with the benefit of a new nearby highway & cheap gasoline- was constructed with meandering low-volume streets, cul-de-sacs, and huge artery roads designed to carry all the traffic.

Newhall vs Valencia

Valencia is attractive for different reasons. The street your house is on is almost private, with few people driving on it unless they are your neighbors. And because it’s low traffic, the street becomes usable space to you and your family: I wonder how many kids of my generation got scrapes and bruises playing street hockey, basketball, or football in a cul-de-sac. But Valencia practically guarantees that you’ll be dependent on cars: the street layout makes transit just about impossible, requiring you to hike a mile or more to the nearest bus stop. It also makes us dependent on gigantic arterials, like the superhighway that is Newhall Ranch Road. And finally, if any new developments come to your area, or a small neighborhood road is opened as a cut-through; watch out! Angry people will beat down the doors at City Hall.

All this dependency on cars and big streets makes us less safe as a whole compared to street grids:

“A lot of people feel that they want to live in a cul-de-sac, they feel like it’s a safer place to be,” Marshall says. “The reality is yes, you’re safer – if you never leave your cul-de-sac. But if you actually move around town like a normal person, your town as a whole is much more dangerous.”

Of course stuffy academics arguing about statistical likelihood of getting in a serious car accident isn’t going to change consumer preference that much. That’s why you see in renderings of Newhall Ranch, Newhall Land continues the same patterns it established in Valencia: winding, confusing streets that ensure privacy but make you dependent on cars. The irony is that we live in such communities to isolate ourselves from car traffic, but these communities make us more dependent on cars over all.

Hey, while we’re questioning the underpinnings of American Suburbia, let’s not let the color beige off without comment. Beige is not just the dominant color in men’s closets in the SCV, it’s also the dominant color of development. And Folks in Irvine -practically a twin of Valencia but much larger- are sick of it and have decided to challenge conformity and are even souring on big-box retail:

 As desirable as Irvine is, it’s safe to say the master-planned community isn’t exactly known for avant-garde architecture, something that became clear earlier this year in reader responses to stories about the launching of a city motto contest.

Yuck. Seriously why even bother with the fake windows on the "second" floor?

“Irvine: We Have 62 Different Words for Beige,” one commenter suggested.

“Where Bland is in Demand,” another offered.

“Sixteen Zip Codes, Six Floor Plans,” a third said.

“Sorry, I Thought This Was My House,” yet another reader replied.

You get the idea.

…

“Uninterrupted blank wall surfaces should be avoided along all building facades,” the plans say, and design should discourage features that “hinder pedestrian activity, such as big box retail.”

No dominant architectural style? No big box retailers? In Irvine?

I think this is one area where the SCV is actually ahead of the curve. As John Boston once wrote, in the SCV, you can visit Tuscany, a New England fishing village (Bridgeport) and the Old West (Newhall) all in one day! It can’t be long now until we have some Asian-themed developments pop up.

But still, we could follow Irvine’s lead at least insofar as our shopping centers are concerned. More developments like The Patios, less like Valencia Marketplace & Golden Valley shopping center, ok?

Anyone who knows Master Blogger Jeffrey knows full well that he is a far left wing ideolog <sic> who lives in a high density building complex on the wrong side of town, has few responsibilities, a low paying job, no children, rides around SCV on a bicycle, and believes many more of our tax $$’s should be spent to sacrifice auto traffic lanes for more bike lanes. Nevermind that he once darned killed himself riding his bike into a telephone pole.

It’s all pretty accurate, save for the part about riding my bike into a telephone pole. For the record, I don’t really know what happened when I crashed while riding to my low paying job with few responsibilities, though I’m pretty sure that during the 45 minutes that I was blacked out, I was transported into a bizarre & wonderful future SCV where I faced a critical, life-defining choice.

Aside from that, yes, I do encourage alternate transportation modes and better land use in the SCV. In fact, I had a brainstorm last night while walking around town with my dog and wife and being suspicious of every Prius that drove near me.

You see, the City has got me thinking about Lyons Avenue and zoning with their Lyons Avenue Corridor plan that will be discussed on July 21 in Old Orchard. As Mike said in a comment recently, this is one part of town that could probably benefit from a little density increase. I’m wary because I live here, but it got me thinking: we need more park & public space here too.

And it just so happens we have some really great open space right there in literally the no-man’s land between Newhall and Valencia. It’s enjoyed once a year by hundreds or thousands of people, it’s grassy, cool, and quite large. I’m talking about the green space that divides Orchard Village Road:

Take a step with me into far left ideolog <sic> land for a moment and imagine a modest white picket fence with gates surrounding all or part of both green spaces above. Picture a couple of un-signaled crosswalks on the east and west sides of Orchard Village that would raise awareness of pedestrians in the area. And envision families relaxing in between the streets, on the median there, enjoying a cool summer evening breeze or tossing a frisbee with their kids. Next, picture the businesses that might sprout up in the decimated Ralphs shopping center to service those people.

In other words, picture what we enjoy there every year on the 4th of July. Only year round.

This is a beautiful space that’s we’re already paying to keep up (sprinklers every night, mowing the lawn every week), but we can’t really use it. I know this is radical, left-wing thinking, but I can’t help it. It’s who I am. It would seem to me this would be a very cheap and effective way to increase park/open space land in the Newhall area.

After thinking about this some more and reading all your responses to our initial story on this, I’m struck by how useful and productive our land is in the SCV from a capitalist perspective. Let’s review all the ways in which the land in the SCV has been productive:

First it was used as ranching territory after Henry Mayo Newhall bought it. To some extent, it’s still used in that way, cows still roam land on the Rancho. They may not for long, if Newhall Ranch is built.

Then, at the beginning of the oil boom, folks down in Pico Canyon managed to stand up an oil well and tap crude. An oil refinery followed in what was then the “Newhall Saugus” area. Wealth, for a little while, flowed from the ground.

Then in the early to mid 20th century, the land was used for farming. As SCV old timers remember, onion fields and other produce was grown all over the place. For a long time, this made up the core of the pater familias’ business interests. In some areas, you can still see how the land is used in this way.

Finally, in the 1960s, the land underwent massive change as entire communities were built. I suppose someone, somewhere, at some time determined the land would be even more productive if it held houses rather than patches of agriculture. Their decision to do this was no doubt based in part on the availability of cheap oil extracted from land elsewhere in the world.That continued for decades, a city was born, and voila! 250,000 people live here.

And there was one other productive use of the land: throughout these periods, land in the SCV was and continues to be used for shooting films, television and advertisements.

But now today, someone (Newhall Land?) is benefiting from materials beneath the land again by using the latest technology, hydraulic fracturing.  Here’s how that economic model works according to Geology.com:

Mineral rights also include the rights to any oil and natural gas that exist beneath a property. The rights to these commodities can be sold or leased to others. In most cases, oil and gas rights are leased. The lessee is usually uncertain if oil or gas will be found so they generally prefer to pay a small amount for a lease rather than pay a larger amount to purchase. A lease gives the lessee a right to test the property by drilling and other methods. If drilling discovers oil or gas of marketable quantity and quality it may be produced directly from the exploratory well.

This isn’t a unique story (or even a very interesting one) but it shows that even though the housing market has gone bust and the SCV is nearly built-out,  enterprising people will find other productive ways to use our land. And make no mistake about it, whoever owns this land is getting a cut of the fracking operation, of whatever gas is being extracted from the ground.

I wish the Signal would do some more reporting on this. Who owns the land? Is it really a hydraulic fracking operation? What’s the regulatory approval process for this in California? What chemicals are they using in their operation? Can we expect more of these types of operations on land in the SCV that is difficult to build on? What’s the City’s take on this, do they view this as economic development that should be encouraged?

Over the next three years, the gas company wants to boost production and storage of natural gas from about 2,000 barrels daily on a good day to “4,500 barrels per day on a continuous basis for several years,” state documents said.

It also operates two existing brine-injection wells, which are wells of water saturated with sodium chloride, or salt.

Farming communities in Ohio have voiced concerns over salty water from brine-injection wells seeping into their farmland.

So what is hydraulic fracking? This YouTube video does a better job explaining it than Wikipedia:

So now that we know that it is happening in the SCV, I have some questions. For starters, am I crazy to question the injection of salty brine into our ground when we already have a problem with salty chloride in this valley? And, if the Signal report is accurate, how come it took over a year for us to learn about hydraulic fracking in North Valencia? The first time we heard of this was in a frackin’ letter to the editor last week! Is the City aware of this, and if so, when did it become aware of this? It’s happening just north of a brand-spanking new Cross Valley Connector segment. How about Cameron Smyth, Sharon Runner, or Buck McKeon? Do their offices know about this? Usually our local politicians boast proudly whenever new industry or activity occurs in the SCV, but they’ve been silent as the Gas Company expands its operations.

Stepping back from the SCV & Sempra for a moment, this whole fracking business makes a lot of people nervous. ProPublica, a non-profit journalism firm, has reported on it for years and has entire section of their site devoted to news about fracking. Where to start? How about what we don’t know about fracking:

Drilling companies assert that the destructive forces unleashed by the fracturing process, including the sometimes toxic chemicals that keep the liquid flowing, remain safely sealed as much as a mile or more beneath the earth, far below drinking water sources and the rest of the natural environment.

[But] it remains unclear how far the tiny fissures that radiate through the bedrock from hydraulic fracturing might reach, or whether they can connect underground passageways or open cracks into groundwater aquifers that could allow the chemical solution to escape into drinking water. It is not certain that the chemicals – some, such as benzene, that are known to cause cancer – are adequately contained by either the well structure beneath the earth or by the people, pipelines and trucks that handle it on the surface. And it is unclear how the voluminous waste the process creates can be disposed of safely.

“This is a field where there is almost no research,” said Geoffrey Thyne, a former professor at the Colorado School of Mines and an environmental engineering consultant for local government officials in Colorado. “It is very much an emerging problem.”

Emerging problem indeed. This year, a documentary titled “Gasland” got nominated for best documentary picture at the Oscars. Gasland showed how residents of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania had been negatively impacted by fracking. In one memorable scene, a resident of an area near a fracking well turned on his water faucet and lit his water on fire with a cigarette lighter.

And earlier this year in Arkansas, officials acknowledged that hydraulic fracking could be responsible in part for a scary earthquake swarm -including the largest quake in Arkansas in years- that hit the state.

Fracking in California, however, hasn’t received as much attention until recently. Last week, a bill requiring energy companies to release information on the chemicals used in the fracking process passed and is set to move on to the state’s Environmental Quality committee. In its report on the bill, the LA Times sheds some light on why there is fracking happening in our neck of the woods. It turns out there’s a gigantic oil formation called the Monterey Shale Formation which stretches from Stanislaus County all the way to northern LA County.

I expect we’ll hear more about this in the days and weeks to come. The SCV may have a rich petroleum history but that doesn’t mean its residents are going to let this occur just miles from homes without making a fuss.

Gasland trailer:

and how it appeared just a year or two ago in this aerial shot from Bing maps:

In this shot you can clearly see the old, run down auto yard on the corner of Railroad and Lyons. For years the auto yard was covered on the south side by a ratty old fence and a strip of torn plastic that would flutter in the wind. Now that building and the nasty fence is gone.

The same is true for the dog groomer/piercing shop that sat at the west end of Spruce street. The City went through a lot of hassle to get that property and tear it down; in the end I think the owner walked away with some cash.

When the demolition crew went through the area about a year ago, they managed to leave the old Newhall jailhouse untouched; you can see it in the latest shot cocooned safely out of the construction zone. The building that was immediately adjacent was another car parts store.

And of course the Hart theater/American Legion hall has been spared.

So what will the Newhall library look like once it’s all built out? We’ve already seen the PDF interior renderings (quite impressive with lots of local tie-ins) but what about the landscaping and outside?

I pinged the City and here’s what the site plan looks like:

This being Santa Clarita, where we feel entitled to free & convenient car storage everywhere and at all times, most of the rest of the lot will be parking.

But you can kind of see hints of a nice courtyard area north of the library  between the old jail  house and the American legion building. The south side of the building will but up against Lyons Avenue and face down Main Street.

Indeed, another site plan, this one in color but seemingly older (the parking lot is smaller) shows a courtyard on the northside with a nice water feature:

Intriguingly, this site plan shows an “Obelisk/Feature” on the south side at the junction of Lyons & Main Street. Will this be the location of Laurie Ender’s Ronald Reagan statue? The obelisk from 2001? A statue promoting reading and literacy? A monument establishing Newhall’s dominance and grandeur over all? Your guess is as good as mine.

Early on people were nay-saying the design of the library because the front faces north to 11th street rather than south to Main Street, which the library is supposed to anchor. But there clearly will be a south/Lyons Side entrance to the facility and it looks like plenty of shade and an attractive median to boot. I think that’s a fair compromise.

If you take just a look at the city, they have a population of approximately 177,000. If you apply the LA County standard (which may change if the City decides to come up with their own standard), the City needs 88,500 square feet of library space.  With the three city libraries, there is approximately 45,800 square feet of space.  That’s a deficiency of 42,700 square feet. Even with the new Newhalllibrary, that would bring their square footage to 71,000 approximately. That’s still a deficiency of 17,500.

In closing, the Santa Clarita Valley is vastly underserved by libraries and new facilities need to be built. Stevenson Ranch is a good one by the County. The City should probably build a new facility in the Saugus area as the math shows they’re deficient as well.

I think lstaedtler is right, and, what’s more, I’m feeling bitchy today and this got me thinking…in what other industries and services are we underserved? Here’s a few off the top of my head:

• Movie theaters: Seriously? Two theaters with a total of 22 (maybe 24?) screens serving a population of almost 250,000 people? And, to add insult to injury, they’re both Regal/Edwards, the lowest common denominator of the movies, the Pic ‘n Save of the theater business. No Landmark or Arclight for us “way out there” in the SCV. And yet we willingly open our valley up to the film makers and producers on the other end of the theater supply chain. Thanks for the love Hollywood!
• Consumer electronics: Three Walmarts, two Targets, a Kohls, two Rosses, and a few Tuesday Morning/Home Goods type stores. Plenty of variety for those retail segments, but only one Best Buy. And it’s way up in Saugus served by a parking lot designed by M.C. Escher. It wasn’t always this bad. We used to have a Good Guys and a Circuit City. Soon we’ll have an Apple store. But it’s not enough.
• Men’s clothing: When the Magic Mountain Pkwy Mervyn’s closed, it forced me to branch out and discover that men’s clothing consisted of more than khaki-colored Dockers and High Sierra polos. Yet here again, the SCV disappoints. The men’s clothing section at Macy’s is smaller than the women’s, and specialty men’s clothiers in the SCV are few and far between. We’re not all roughnecks and/or Abercrombie teens up here people. Why do I have to venture south to find a good suit or some moderately fashionable men’s threads? And no, Boot Barn is not acceptable fashion for all times and places
• Good broadband. Time Warner cable is second rate, my AT&T DSL struggles to get 2mb/s, and even AT&T U-verse pales in comparison to Verizon’s FIOS. Who’s pocket do we have to pad to get some real broadband (50+mb/s) in this town?
• Restaurants & Coffee shops.
• Courthouses & civic buildings (they’re working on the former though)

This is going to sound sexist, but if you step back and look at it, the town seems to provide abundant amenities to women, but it doesn’t offer the same level to discerning men. A woman can hit up the Glenn Ivy Day Spa, shop along Town Center  at some of the nicer retailers, go down-market at the Ross to score a deal and finish off the day sipping wine with friends. But for men? Well, if you are the type of man who would wait in line for Transformers 3, drive a stomper truck, and wear Hurley t-shirt over your beer gut to a night of fine dining at the Chilis, then the SCV  has what you need. In fact, you’ll never need to leave.

I know because that man used to be me.

Meanwhile, you can fold up a copy of the Signal into a paper airplane, throw it, and it will likely land at a nail salon, a dry cleaner, monster truck accessory shop, karate dojo, strip-mall church, or massage parlor.

Maybe Apple Computer sees something in the SCV that the other retailers haven’t yet, something that will presage more retail investment in Santa Clarita. Maybe there’s hope for more shopping, dining, and leisure options. But I’m not holding my breath. If anything, the problem is worse than it was just 10 years ago. And now that I’ve become an insufferable snob about what I eat and wear, I notice it more.

You know what I’m talking about. You might have engaged in it yourself. Example: The term “High Density” may have originated in a demographer’s lab, but in the SCV, it may as well be a four letter word.

It’s often used as a polite way to denigrate as sub-human and abnormal not just renters, but people who own condos, townhomes, or other properties that share walls, open spaces, and other resources. Instead of calling such people trashy or poor or smelly or consumers of Goodwill products or making reference to their skin color, we just say we’re opposed to “high density housing.” Toss in a few references to the San Fernando Valley and you’re done! Project dead, point made. “Those people” are to be avoided and kept far away from our safe, conformist suburban bedroom community.

Well now we have a new term for the reactionary lizard brain of the SCV to embrace in this effort to scare us from efficient, environmentally responsible living: flophouses. Reporter Jim Holt, writing a nice account of yesterday’s pointless and violent SWAT raid of a house in Newhall, was handed the novel-if-archaic-but-golden word on a platter by a Deputy who said the Newhall home was like, literally teeming with insects who started fleeing just as the brave exterminators arrived:

“It’s a flophouse with numerous people living there,” Lewis said. “There’s no other way to describe it.”
People seen entering the house apparently escaped out the back, he said.

“OMG a flophouse!” the lizard brain of the SCV said. “What’s becoming of our town!  I remember when the onion fields…the sheep…the cows…” followed by “something something San Fernando Valley!!!!111!” it continued.

Too bad for the Deputy and Holt (who enthusiastically and matter-of-factly embraced the loaded word later on in the story) that the house was anything but flop and its residents were anything but floppers. A Signal commenter quickly pointed out:

This is NOT a “flophouse”. just because the house is owned by younger individuals, it does not necessarily mean its a flophouse. The owner bought the house about a year ago with his hard earned money. What went on there before that it in related. The YOUNG ROOMMATES that live there ALL have full time jobs, 2 of them own a small local business. The facts should be investigated before the slander is printed.

Alas it was too late. Facts be damned, the lizard brain of the SCV embraced the term with gusto and dispatch. It went from rating a 0 on the SCV interwebs to rating like 3000 all in a short 48 hours. Its usage is already being debated here on SCVTalk (where, if the new thumbs up/thumbs down rating could be applied, it would surely break all records), at The Signal and it will be used in the future to describe any single family home being occupied by people who are un-related or even multi-generational families who are, because such homes are not strictly high density but something is wrong with them anyway.

Are you a Master’s College student who rents a house in Newhall with four other 20 something guys? Flophouser! A multi-generational Indian or Pinoy family with gramama helping out with the toddler while mom works? Well, first of all, who would live like that, and secondly, flophouser!

It’s like the SCV’s own “death panels.” A term no one really bothers to think about (or wonder if its usage is accurate) but everyone instantly and emotionally reacts to.

Here’s to Deputy Lewis and The Signal for unintentionally birthing a brand new, SCV-only meme. I’ll look forward to its usage in LTEs, City Council meetings and in rants right here on SCVTalk.