The Santa Ana Water Tower: Symbol for Permanence, Reflection of Change

Written for American Studies C112B: American Cultural Landscapes, May 2007

Abstract

The Santa Ana Water Tower is a symbol of the city. It is located prominently at the intersection of the heavily-trafficked I-5, 55, and 91 freeways and in close proximity to major regional attractions such as Disneyland, Edison International Field, and the Arrowhead Pond. It stands tall among no peers in this suburban landscape, a welcome mat and exit door to Santa Ana. That is, despite the city being the county juridical and legislative center, Santa Ana had slowly lost out in the rapid economic growth experienced by most of Orange County since the 1980s. Santa Ana is no longer a point of destination, but a path through which one travels. The tower is one of only few recognizable images that characterize the city as it is experienced today by outsiders- from the viewpoint of the freeways.

Its use as a water repository is no longer significant. While this aging structure no longer contributes to the economy in any measurable way, it holds an important place in the city. This area was once home to rich agricultural lands that stretched along the Santa Ana River. In spite of fertile soils, the semi-arid southern California climate required irrigation and a reliable potable water supply. The 153-foot tower was constructed in 1928 but its presence has outlasted its original intent. The area has become increasingly urbanized and Santa Ana now represents one of the densest urban areas in the nation; the age of agriculture has given way to real estate demands. The city is now home to an overwhelmingly minority population (nearly 90%), a majority of whom were born outside the United States. Santa Ana’s population continues to languish in poverty, and this immigrant population views the city as a place- a transitory point between destinations- and not home. Discontinuities in history due to turnover populations have altered the cultural landscape of Santa Ana, which is richly endowed with a noble past. Although much has been lost in one form or another, there are vestiges that remain that symbolically represent place and meaning. The tower comments on those changing landscapes and through the decisions of the City Council, it has also actively played a role in (re)claiming Santa Ana’s historical role as the center of Orange County.

Santa Ana: From Agricultural Backgrounds towards Urban Center

The Santa Ana Valley was settled for its fine weather and good soil. Citruses, walnuts, and beans were the leading crops, and by 1928 citrus crop yields were estimated at over $22 million, with walnuts and lima beans following closely in value for the county. Processing and packing these crops provided Santa Ana’s largest single industry.[1] Prosperity grown in the fields fueled urban development downtown. Santa Ana had over one-third of all manufacturing establishments and production workers in Orange County in the 1920s. A federal marketing pamphlet cited Santa Ana as the “trading center for 41 cities and towns” of a county that had grown to 118,674 people.[2] By 1924, the city created a planning commission which approved an industrial and zoning map three years later. To support the growing population, the Metropolitan Water District was organized in November 1928. Santa Ana and Anaheim were the founding members, a collaborative effort that sought to supply economy-sustaining water to central Orange County. In 1933, work began on a major aqueduct; in 1928, the Santa Ana water tower was erected at the corner of Poinsettia Avenue and 14^th Street.[3]

Development of Santa Ana: Sedimentation of Class and Culture

The formalization of planning policies was purely the final step towards the formalization of previously informal social and ethnic segregation. The transfer of California to the United States was the result of the Mexican-American War. The presence of Spanish-Mexican descendants continued to play a role in the regional economy, but soon a new class hierarchy developed by the turn of the century. In 1930, 3,700 Mexicans resided in Santa Ana, or roughly comprising 12% of the population. It was during these first three decades that Lisbeth Haas identified as the beginning of the “barrioization” of Chicanos in Santa Ana, a term coined by Albert Camarillo as the formation of residentially and socially segregated neighborhoods. Pedro Castillo, a scholar specializing in the development of 20^th century barrios in the southwest, states that the “most important aspect in the establishment of a new barrio is its relationship to employment.” Indeed, the Delhi barrio was located near the Holly Sugar Factory and the Logan[4] barrio was located within the principal walnut growing, packing and shipping areas.

Logan is within two blocks to the east of the Tower, opposite the railroad tracks (and eventual freeway). It had been a multiethnic working class neighborhood in 1900, where American and European-born residents predominated, occupying 33 of 37 residences. Ethnicity and occupation did not determine the location of households. By 1910, the situation had changed. Chicano households constituted 40 percent of the households. 99 percent of the Chicano workforce was employed in agriculture. Spanish-surnamed residents lived on Lincoln Street and resided next to each other in groups based on birthplace. The boundaries of the barrio were formed by 1920. By 1923 ethnic residential segregation was more complete and commerce had moved within the barrio.[5]

Simultaneously, the 1920s was the time of the development of the great neighborhoods of early Santa Ana designed in high architecture styles. French Park and Willard were had been developed in Craftsman and Colonial Revival Styles, with the remaining lots decorated in Late Craftsman, Spanish colonial, and Tudor Revival. Wilshire Square, Washington Square, and Floral Park, the southern section of Eastside, and the area east of Grand Avenue were all developed in the 1920s, neighborhoods that effectively created a buffer between downtown district and Logan barrio.[6] The segregation patterns developed during this period continues to determine the location choices of ethnic groups in the city, with the majority of whites residing the above neighborhoods, and Latinos and Asians living in and around the early barrios.

Neighborhood-Based Contestations: The Tower at the Epicenter of Ethnic Struggles

The seasonal nature of agriculture is captured by the fact that 90% of women in Logan[7] The temporary nature of employment is mirrored in the view held by many residents that Chicano residency was non-permanent. At the time, schools were segregated along White and Mexican schools. When the Mexican population grew in the 1920s, there was need for more schools and a public meeting was held to discuss the specifications of the new school. An objection was raised by the superintendent against a planned modern school. He agreed that the “fine buildings for the Mexican schools” was a good idea in principle, but warned “the population among the Mexicans has proven so migratory that permanent buildings have not been advisable.” It was the earliest in a long line of cross-cultural battles over education in Santa Ana.[8] were unemployed during offseason.

French Park, one of the “north of 17^th Street” neighborhoods and located two blocks to the northwest of Logan, has historically been one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city. Encompassing 160 historic Victorian and craftsman homes, residents of French Park have been active in the preservation of their homes, community, and way of life. In 2000, the local neighborhood association moved to erect four street barriers to curtail through traffic; one of these barriers is located just down the street from the water tower. One French Court resident complained that the barriers “made me feel that French Park had a long, thought-out plan to make their neighborhood more exclusive- I had a sense of being walled off.” Another speaker of likened the treatment to the Berlin Wall, which proceeded to make one French Park member cringe, “I don’t think we like (the barriers) being compared to the Berlin Wall.”[9] After the barriers were ordered to be taken down by court ruling in 2003, French Park residents fired back by compiling a 201-page report that attempted to show that the barriers have no significant negative impacts.[10]

Controversy arose surrounding the planned development of Lorin Griset Elementary School on a nine-acre site in north Santa Ana. The condemned land had originally been approved by the City Council for the construction of 36 multi-million dollar, luxury gated home community. But a $150 million school district bill was passed to alleviate overcrowding in public schools, and the site was reconsidered as a site for a school. Census 2000 data show that 53 percent of residents in the eight tracts above 17^th Street are Latino, 22 percent are white, and 11 percent are Asian. In addition, the city median age is 26.5, the north Santa Ana census tracts have a much higher median age, 39.[11] In 2003, the West Floral Park Neighborhood Association hosted a series of fundraising concerts, culminating in the hiring of an attorney to file suit against the school district over the contested site. ``Santa Ana very much has a need for high-end homes,'' said Phil Schaefer, a Realtor who lives in West Floral Park. “We have affordable housing all over the city. I do think the district overall is crowded and needs schools. However, this end of town is not really crowded.''[12]

The sentiments echoed in Shaefer’s comment reinforce spatial division held over from original settlement. Robert Munoz, a social worker and Vice President of the neighborhood association, had voted for the bond measure but opposed the site on Farmers Drive. Instead, he advocated for the district to enact eminent domain and demolish blighted apartments. In his eyes, ``It all seems to be coming down to dollars. They say it costs millions to knock down and relocate. It sounds to me like it's more about the money than the children.''[13] This extreme case of nimbyism has produced an unexpected backlash. While advocating for the destruction of communities and potentially disrupting peace in other neighborhoods, fundraising and legal action against the construction of school has disturbed harmony within West Floral Park, itself. “It’s divisive,” says one resident, a former city planner. “We've enjoyed block parties where everyone was welcome. They're turning the concept of block parties and concerts into a political vehicle and that's discouraging.''[14]

From Civic Pride to Political Necessity: Community Organizations and Neighborhood Associations

Civic participation had always been a part of life in Santa Ana. It was the product of the diverse interests of early settlers, reflected in residents belonging to one or more local organizations, not including involvement in church affairs. In the March 29, 1906 issue of the Daily Evening Blade, the Society and Lodge Notices listing identified 30 community organizations. [15]From 1920 to 1924, population doubled. Annexation of lands, influx of wealth, and demand for homes resulted in new neighborhoods erected outside of the dense central district. Communities formed their own neighborhood associations and extended civic engagement to the extent that the period was dubbed the “Golden Age” of community organizations in Santa Ana.[16]

As World War II veterans returned home, many opted to return to southern California, lured by good weather.[17] Subdivision building quickly outpaced commercial and industrial development; Santa Ana soon transformed into a landscape of houses. The promise of the National Highway Act allowed residents to commute to bourgeoning cities to the south, such as Costa Mesa and Irvine. The historic, economic advantages of living and working around the transportation and industrial hub were obliterated with the introduction of highways. By this time, the Metropolitan Water District had established itself as a reliable source for fresh water (placement along Santa Ana River was no longer significant), access to railroad lines were still important (to business) but not critical, and the capitalization of the fertile valley that mobilized hundreds of early settlers had long been abandoned in favor of manufacturing in defense-related industries and the development of political Santa Ana as county seat. Cheap and open lands for agriculture were readily available in Riverside, new homes and large estates were developing in Irvine, and Newport Beach and Huntington Beach afforded close proximity to beach culture. The location importance of Santa Ana as site of work and play, and associated community-building aspects, was reduced to a place of residence; it was during this time when civic involvement dwindled.

Immigration, new resident population, and housing turnover in the 1970s translated into political crises over representation. Underrepresented in city government in spite of holding an overwhelmingly majority in population, the City Council sought ways to increase Latino involvement in city affairs. Latino settlement patterns had regenerated and reinforced barrio culture. This (lack of) distribution meant that divisions based on community lines also reflected minority concentrations. The proliferation of inclusive neighborhood associations between 1986 and 1992 is the embodiment of diverse populations seeking to become more invested in communities, the first sign towards neighborhood stability that has not been present in Santa Ana since the golden age of the 1920s; there are now 52 recognized neighborhood associations that represent virtually all residential city residential areas.[18]

In the formative years, neighborhood associations functioned to voice resident complaints regarding code enforcement, crime, pavement, sidewalks, gutters, trees, perimeter wall repairs, and traffic mitigation. In more recent times, more neighborhoods, particularly those in the marginal areas of town, have incorporated themselves into city decision-making processes.[19] While the barriers debate demonstrates the clout of upper-income neighborhoods, it is also emblematic of a more democratic approach to the forces of governance. "I think we are getting some level of trust," said Little. "Maybe we can do something that is good for the neighborhood instead of doing something that is divisive."[20] In facilitating these discussions, Iliana Soto stressed the need to humanize the process, and enacted ice-breakers to cool the heatedness of the barrier debate. As residents grew more comfortable with one another, they talked about how the city had grown from farming community to urban center, and found commonality in their opposition to the 37-story One Broadway Plaza building planned nearby. This cross-community outreach and brokering towards compromise represents a decided shift towards social equilibrium.

Forging an Identify in Steel: the Tower as Billboard

A measure was recently passed that paved the way for the construction of what will eventually become the tallest building in Orange County, One Broadway Plaza. It is hoped that the project will revitalize downtown to be more business friendly and attract higher end clients. Not coincidentally, soon after the City Council decided change the text on the water tower to read “Downtown Orange County,” a claim defended given historical-geographical country relations. The problem is, however, that Santa Ana is hardly the center of commercial, social, or economic relations for the county; in fact, because of the suburban sprawl landscape which predominates, it is arguable that no city can stake such a claim in a county of over three million.[21]

The move is only the latest of a series of equally bold and ironic statements to be printed on the city’s largest and most prominent billboard. "The water tower is one of the most observed landmarks in the city and beyond," said Councilman Jose Solorio. "What we want is a simple but striking design that features bold and important words. They are all the things Santa Ana wants to showcase."[22] More accurately, these words are symbolic of what Santa Ana aspires to become.

In the past, there have been three different slogans which have been printed on the tower. Until the late 1980s, the script had read “Santa Ana: All-American City,” at a time when minorities had already become the overwhelming majority of city population. A change was made in favor of “Education First,” which drew ire in that the city school district boasts a dropout rate of 30%-35% and consistently rates among the lowest performing school districts in the state. Prior to “Downtown Orange County,” the City Council had decided to promote its investment in arts-related downtown developments by advertising on the tower “Arts & Culture City” of Orange County in 1997. Sadly, the highly publicized creation of artists’ lofts and redevelopment of the arts district did not generate expected returns.

Some argue that the end of the Arts & Culture campaign is a sign that the City Council has given up on the arts-led development in the downtown district. The signature project of the campaign was the establishment of an Artists Village, a nine-square block area in downtown. The plan called for the conversion of turn-of-the-century buildings into artists’ spaces, to revitalize the prized Santora Building, and link anchor institutions such as the Discovery ScienceMuseum, Bowers Museum, Kidseum, and St. Joseph’s Ballet into an “arts corridor.” The return has been marginally positive, having helped stabilize the area, stopping physical decline, and has raised property values. However, tangible benefits are much harder to quantify. Asks one student, Elvia Rubalcava: "So what do they do when they're successful? Jack up the rents?"[23]

Recently, a college course was initiated at nearby Chapman University to examine the impacts of Santa Ana’s Arts & Cultures campaign. What the students have learned is that the arts in Santa Ana are "a terrain of conflict, disagreement, and contestation," says Mark Mattern, an assistant professor of political science, one of two instructors for the course. The Artists’ Village, it is noted, is mostly attended by white middle- and upper-class residents of the region. The low level of Latino participation is blamed on the focusing of traditional high end art, as opposed to locally produced art. "Whose art? Whose culture?" a student asks. City officials, she and others charge, are ignoring the struggling arts and culture organizations of Latino residents. "They're deeply aware of the tensions, dilemmas, and arguments about art and its usefulness in Santa Ana," he says. "They're the first to roll their eyes when city officials say they're surprised Latinos don't participate."[24]

The Santa Ana Water Tower: Metaphor for Permanence, Symbol for Change

The Santa Ana Water Tower is situated at the intersection of downtown and residential neighborhoods, the juncture of railway and highways, at the crossroads of wealthier, established neighborhoods and newer populations; and sits in the crossfire of ethnic struggles as old as town. It stands as legacy to an agricultural heritage, but persists as the epitome of change. Changes in population over the past forty years have led to search for identity- “blessed are the ties that bind,” so are the words sung in Our Town. The need for commonality from an economic standpoint is to capitalize on the unique and fascinating culture that has stirred in Santa Ana; more practically, it serves to bridge cross cultural gaps in order to stabilize tensions.

Neighborhood associations empower formerly voiceless individuals, and the concerns expressed have been directed at what has appeared on the billboard known as the Santa Ana Water Tower. “Education First” led to open questioning on standards, raised the need for reform, and led to the recall of the school superintendent. “Arts & Culture” has sparked increasing interest in the classroom, where the next generation’s inquiring minds actively engage in local politics. “Downtown Orange County,” and One Broadway Plaza, has achieved something greater: it has created a united front of disparate neighborhoods under a common cause. Community formation and civic participation, the hallmarks of early Santa Ana, have come full circle to the city of immigrants.

---

[1] Gladys Alex, Santa Ana’s 100 Years: Prelude to Progress, 1869-1969. Pg 63

[2] Lisbeth Haas, The Barrios of Santa Ana: Community, Class, and Urbanization, 1950-1947. Pg 74

[3] Figure One, Google map

[4] Haas, Pg 75

[5] Haas, Pg 79

[6] Figure Two, (1) Represents Logan, which is bordered by other low-income communities including (24) Santa Ana Triangle and (25) French Court, in close proximity and “sites of contestation” are high-income (even by Orange County standards) neighborhoods of (2) Floral Park and (5) French Park. The area between (6) Lacy and (28) Flower Park is Civic Center. The map shown is that of Central Santa Ana to North Santa Ana.

[7] Haas, Pg 75

[8] Haas, Pg 148

[9] Jennifer Mena, “Still Something between Them,” Los Angeles, Los Angeles Times, Jan 30 2005

[10] UPDATE, Author Explanation

[11] Courtney Perkes, “An Education in Neighborhood Politics,” Los Angeles, Los Angeles Times, May 5 2002

[12] Courtney Perkes. “School Opponents Suing, Seeking Environmental Study,” Los Angeles, Los Angeles Times, January 26, 2002

[13] Courtney Perkes, “Residents Fighting Proposed School Site,” Los Angeles, Los Angeles Times, January 19, 2002

[14] Perkes, “Residents Fighting…”

[15] Diann Marsh, “Santa Ana-- An Illustrated History,” Encinitas, Heritage Publishing, 1994, Pg 94

[16] Marsh, the “golden age” of organizations is the subject of a chapter in the book

[17] Santa Ana’s growth and development in manufacturing is largely attributed to military installations in the area during World War II, including the now-defunct Santa Ana Army Air Base where the Orange County Fairgrounds and Orange Coast College are now located in Costa Mesa, El Toro Marine Air Base (which will transfer lands for development in the coming years), and Camp Pendleton in San Diego County. Soldiers stationed at the these bases were exposed to a largely undeveloped, but promising Orange County.

[18] Stacy Hardwood, “The Dynamics of Immigration and Local Governance in Santa Ana: Neighborhood Activism, Overcrowding, and Land-Use Policy,” Urbana, Policy Studies Journal, 2002, Vol.30, Issue 1; most of the historic neighborhoods are represented by neighborhood associations which bear their respective names: for example, West Floral Park, Floral Park, and Willard each are represented, as well as the likes of French Court and Logan (barrio)

[19] Hardwood

[20] Perkes, “Residents Fighting…”

[21] Among the arguments for other cities as “downtown” of Orange County, Stephen Clark in an April 23, 2006 Los Angeles Times article entitled “Going to Great Heights with a New Slogan” highlights comments from Orange County residents. The list of contenders include Anaheim, home to the county’s most popular attraction Disneyland and home to two professional sports teams (Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim of MLB and Anaheim Mighty Ducks of NHL); Costa Mesa which is home to the South Coast Business District, which is home to the mall with the greatest amount of sales per year in the United States and office buildings that have as much square footage as downtown Dallas; Laguna Beach or Newport Beach which are settings for popular television shows; and Irvine which is home to the county’s own University of California campus and most trafficked airport.

[22]

[23] Peter Monaghan, “Chapman University Students Investigate Art, Community, and Conflict in California City,” the Chronicle of Higher Education, May 29, 1999

[24] Monaghan

Confronting Hardship in Santa Ana: Establishing an East-West Redevelopment Corridor

Written with Ellen Chen, for City & Regional Planning 113A, Economic Analysis for Planning, August 2006

We are proposing one possible solution to curtail crushing hardship in Santa Ana.[1] Our policy is intended to provide the structural means that would allow residents to participate in making Santa Ana economically sustainable; in many ways, we contest that only be investing in the current population can we achieve this end.

Our plan is to keep the community intact by limiting structure demolition, human displacement, and the unnecessary infusion of incompatible communities into the existing socioeconomic fabric.

This is not revitalization: we are not resurrecting a lifeless community;

This is not rehabilitation or renovation: the fix is meant to be permanent and not simply a facelift;

This is a rejuvenation campaign: to breathe life in those communities which have been neglected.

Current Policies

Much of the landscape in Santa Ana is the work of a phase of rapid development from the 1940s up until the 1980s.[2] At that point, the city underwent an unforeseen, accelerated population growth that produced a scenario whereby the number of workers in the city far exceeded the number of jobs available; more than anything, an intense period of immigration from Latin America and Asia introduced new populations that exhausted lands as well as employment opportunities in the city.[3]

By the early 1990s, policies were implemented in an effort to curb economic stagnation as the rest of Orange County outpaced Santa Ana. This did not go unnoticed by state and federal officials, each contributing efforts towards stimulating Santa Ana’s economy. In 1993, 7,100 acres of industrial and commercial lands in Santa Ana were designated as Enterprise Zones (EZ) by the State of California.[4] In 1999, the federal government stepped in and initiated the start of a 10-year agreement, whereby 3.9 square miles in Santa Ana- across four communities- were designated as Federal Empowerment Zones (SAEZ). These policies allocated for businesses located, or expanding into, the region to receive aid through government funding, tax and other monetary incentives.

While the EZ blanketed a sizeable portion of the city with economic incentives for businesses, it did so primarily along city zoning ordinances.[5] The selection of the four federal empowerment zones, meanwhile, took into account socioeconomic conditions by targeting areas with extreme poverty and higher than usual minority populations. The latter’s consideration is a particularly important topic for discussion, as 1997 figures show that only 1/3 of firms in Santa Ana were owned by minorities in spite of Hispanics, Asians, and Blacks constituting 88% of the overall population.[6] The SAEZ, itself, is inhabited by 55,000 residents, of whom 96% are Latino and 98% are minorities.[7] The institution of this zoning was influential in that it was an indicator of increased awareness by outside agencies that the situation in Santa Ana was not purely along economic lines, but social ones as well. However, upon analyzing city zoning ordinances, most of these neighborhoods had already been zoned for housing. While there were opportunities for business start-ups when the SAEZ was first implemented, there are virtually no vacant lots left, nowhere to build except by tearing down existing structures. Eight years into the proposal, the plan has become outdated. Conceptually, the SAEZ opened a new chapter in Santa Ana planning policy. In practice, the proposal fell short of its promise of sustainability.

What is unfortunate is that Santa Ana’s planning department, specifically the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), has failed to carry on the standards espoused by the SAEZ. Working with private investors, CRA has sited most of its redevelopment projects along more exposed communities (located in close proximity to freeways) on the northern, eastern, and southern peripheries of the city, regions where direct economic impact least affects low-income residents concentrated in West and Central Santa Ana. (Image 1) This accessibility makes these lands attractive to potential inhabitants (and employers) who work (and employ workers from) elsewhere, but find the location convenient. The nature of these developments corroborates with this assessment. The language of literature released by the CRA suggests intent to attract middle-to-upper income populations to the city and outside major corporations, effectively pricing out city residents on the possibility of benefiting directly from the developments. (Image 2) In an effort to build a stronger tax base, per city policy, the impoverished have been left to languish in select quarters of severe hardship.

Mapping Hardship in Santa Ana

Santa Ana is situated at the heart of Orange County. It is the physical, administrative, and judicial center of the 9^th largest county in the nation. Five highways are directly accessible, Santa Ana is home to a major Amtrak station, city residents are the biggest users of county bus transit lines, and John Wayne Airport is located two miles to the southeast of the city.[8] The city limits of Santa Ana are unique in that it is bound on each side by physical markers: the I-405 freeway to the south, the 55 freeway to the east, the I-5 and 22 freeways to the north, and the Santa Ana River to the west.

In the city itself, there is a significant degree of internal, spatial separation between economic classes in Santa Ana. In looking at the geography of Santa Ana and 2000 census data, it is possible to generalize conditions in specific regions with relative accuracy. As alluded to earlier, exposed communities (heretofore impacted periphery) are more affluent, have higher education attainment, and more likely to be White (as compared to other communities in Santa Ana). Concentrations of poverty and hardship (heretofore impacted core) are situated in the western half of the city and confined to a central core region. (Image 3) Although these regions are not defined by physical indicators as the city boundaries, the differences are striking, evident at the ground level.

Additional analysis into the impacted core is worth mentioning. These communities constitute a majority of land in Santa Ana, and the significant majority of the population.

Table 1.1 illustrates some key points. The Latino population and adults with high school diplomas are noticeably higher and lower, respectively, than city averages. This is representative of the fact that some communities are especially concentrated with certain populations, shown as a wider, weighted range of percentages. The last two entries in Table 1.1 are indicative of statistics that, though higher than city averages, are indicative of more citywide problems but not necessarily applicable to all communities. For example, given that the national average for individuals living in poverty is 12.4%, the majority of census tracts in the impacted periphery are actually faring better than the nation- and exhibits trends closer to affluent Irvine- than the impacted core, where 32 of 36 census tracts have rates between 16.0%-38.5% and, therefore, more representative of Santa Ana as a whole.[9] In working towards public policy, it is vital to understand that in addressing the issue of hardship, we must do so with recognition that these problems do not reflect the entire city.

Opportunities Abroad, Potential from Within

Santa Ana is an international city that fails to be a major regional economic power. It has a diverse population which comes from other nations to settle in the city but opt to work elsewhere. It is home to the most connected network of highways and transportation in Orange County, but is nothing more than a transit point in the regional economy. The use of the term “abroad” for this section is quite intentional. Santa Ana’s identity owes greatly immigrants from foreign lands, but these residents participate in economies outside of the city and in neighboring cities and region where the social atmosphere is a world’s apart from home in Santa Ana, and home in Mexico, Vietnam, El Salvador, etc.

Orange County’s development is operated on the suburbia model, where the automobile is the unofficial means of traveling for work and recreational purposes. This places Santa Ana’s prime location in to perspective, as it the city is located at the intersection of three major interchanges, and yet the city has failed to capitalize on its geographical advantage. (Image 4) The highways are less a means of getting into Santa Ana than a mode of passing through the city and, for residents, a means of commuting to work outside of the city. The average commute for Santa Ana residents is 27.1 minutes, with the travel time being longest in the center of the city (up to 34.1 minutes), and progressively shorter as one moves to the outer fringe neighborhoods (as low as 22 minutes). In both instances, a commute by car or public transit effectively places the location of work outside of Santa Ana. (Image 5) A survey of the location of a primary wage earner’s places of employment corroborates this hypothesis: only 27.5% of Santa Ana residents work inside of Santa Ana. (Image 6) Data indicates that 85% of workers traveled to work by car, truck, or van, while only 8.5% used public transportation.[10] As such, the ability to travel by personal vehicles provides for the possible mobility to potentially work outside of the county; as presented in the graphic, over 30% of residents work outside of the Orange County.

This tolerance for commuting and wherewithal for traveling great distances also drives capital out from Santa Ana, including in the retail market. Using the same figures as indicators for distance thresholds, we locate potential markets for retail consumption. In particular, we will be looking at the location of shopping centers throughout Orange County, the top 25 shopping centers constituting nearly 1/6 of total retail taxable sales per annum in the county ($6 billion).[11] There was never a doubt that these shopping centers would be located near the highways or major boulevards; as often was the case, these centers were located at major streets and directly accessible to the highway. To take this a step further, we did not dismiss the potential spending power of public transit users and, in doing so, we came up with surprising results.

First, we decided to locate regions where it would be most sensible to use public transit in Santa Ana. Our criterion was simple: owners of automobiles would not drive to their destination if it takes fifteen minutes simply to get to the nearest highway. Using this formula, we triangulated coordinates off the 22, 55, and I-405 freeway to a point in the west-central section of Santa Ana. We then predicted regions where traveling time would be comparable by bus versus an automobile that intends to access a highway, in addition to regions where money saved by using public transit would be a sizeable incentive. (Image 7)

Having diagrammed our predictions, we overlaid the six busiest bus routes in the Orange County Transportation Authority system; our predictions were confirmed. We charted the shopping centers with the greatest amount of taxable sales in the region, and found that seven out of twelve were serviced directly by the five bus lines that run through Santa Ana. (Image 8) If there was a means of capital flowing out of the city for retail spending, our analysis shows one formal way per public policy that facilitates this activity.

Our discussion on retail centers was not coincidental; it was greatly influenced by a landmark study conducted by the Washington-based, non-profit organization Social Compact, Inc. The group examined downtown Santa Ana along with neighborhoods immediately to the west and east of the Civic Center. Utilizing the DRILLDOWN methodology, the group attempts to calculate economic data by identifying hidden populations and economies through adaptive techniques that takes into consideration the unique geography and demographic of inner city neighborhoods. Their findings were significant. The study area had a population 10,000 greater than census data (to 100,000), the average household income was $62,084 ($15,000 higher than 2004 census projections), and the group estimates the informal economy of the region to be valued at $183,000,000. Notably, it is estimated that these neighborhoods spend $341 million on retail purchases, of which, $247 million are spent outside of these neighborhoods; the findings did not specify the details as to where these transactions took place.[12] All things considered, this study serves two important functions: (1) it can be used by the Chamber of Commerce to attract business ventures; and (2) it serves as a yardstick for evaluating potential economic opportunities hitherto un-quantified in other regions of Santa Ana. “This validates what we have known for some time. Using the information in the DRILLDOWN report, I hope we will attract even more retail businesses and investment within Santa Ana,” remarks Mayor Miguel Pulido.[13]

Santa Ana as an Investment Opportunity

Looks can be deceiving. Social Compact’s report brought light on the issue of undocumented residents by showing a discrepancy in the census data and, in the process, measured the sum of theirs and neighborhood residents to the tune of a $183 million informal economy. Likewise, we can look at the housing and employment picture as having potential, brushing aside the unseemly topics of overcrowding and impacts of global economic restructuring on local residents for just one second.

There is a high demand for housing. With a 2% city vacancy rate, new housing developments would prove to be a lucrative proposition. From the city’s viewpoint, policy allowing for new housing is a worthy and just proposition, in the continued efforts to alleviate overcrowding. However, the disappearance of open lands and nonexistent new housing structures are indicative of the high barriers of investment in Santa Ana.[14] The difficulty also lies in the precarious nature of Santa Ana’s social climate: new housing should be inclusive, it should not significantly raise land values (rent), and it should be mindful of current populations. Recent proposals approved by CRA have re-opened a new phase of housing developments in Santa Ana. Unfortunately, these proposals have progressed unimpeded, for they have effectively sidled issues mentioned above by situating themselves in more accepting communities, almost exclusively in the impacted periphery; meanwhile, the housing situation in the impacted core remains at a standstill. Given a conscientious team of affordable housing (re)developers, there is enormous investment potential.

A study by joint scholars from the University of California, Irvine and the University of California, Los Angeles[15] sought to quantify employment patterns for four categories of women in Orange County: undocumented Latina immigrants (ULI), legal Latina immigrants, Latina citizens, and non-Hispanic Whites. They found that nearly 16% of ULI were unemployed, significantly greater than male counterparts and far above the city unemployment rate.[16] In searching for occupations, ULI were employed in only eight job categories, much fewer than documented Latinas and Anglo women. The majority of ULIs hold service jobs (58%), most often working as waitresses, hotel maids, and kitchen workers. Other significant sectors of work include sales (10%), clerical work (9%), and precision production work (9%).[17] Assuming that the proportion of ULI to overall Latina at 20% is representative of the population in Santa Ana, there are as many as 4,000 ULI residents currently seeking jobs.[18] By categorizing demand for employment along key populations in the process of creating new spaces zoned for commercial and industrial activities, Santa Ana can recalibrate its employment opportunities to better reflect the demands of its population. By doing so, it helps alleviate the pressures associated with occupation stability and is an effective means of combating the notion of making ends meet- a central tenet in the discourse on hardship.[19] In terms of business economics, 4,000 and 23,000 available workers are very attractive figures.

Among other things, job creation will cause a geographical shift of resident employment outside of the city, and circulating this labor (while creating new ones) back inside Santa Ana. The shift will allow for capital flow presently lost to outside regions to be redistributed within the city: investment recapitulates investment. However, by concentrating business activities back into Santa Ana, there is the strong likelihood that traffic congestion will deepen. From the city planner’s perspective, the biggest challenge here is negotiating space that is able to handle excess populations while maintaining the integrity of current neighborhoods; in short, it is creating a corridor that will facilitate movement (capital and physical) into the terminal point Santa Ana.

Opening a Second Front

Our proposal calls for the establishment of an East-West redevelopment corridor. A second look at our impacted periphery model shows that the term is loosely phrased- it is less a periphery than a North-South neighborhood concentration. In chronicling development projects outlined by the CRA, this orientation prevails once again. A newly-minted $1 billion light rail line project has been approved that will run from Santa Ana College to John Wayne Airport; in essence, it is the creation of a line that will run down Bristol Street southbound down the eastern heart of the city and reinforces the current pattern of development. In achieving our aims, we seek to diffuse specific regions centralizing economic activities and place them in areas of disinvestment. This matter does not concern shifting supremacy of one location within Santa Ana to the next; rather, it focuses on making Santa Ana, itself, the primary location, as a viable destination capable of supporting populations of consumption and employment. In order to accomplish these goals, it is necessary to look beyond exposed communities and to expose neglected communities to the regional economy.

Our search was operated on the goal of creating anchor communities. We hope that these redevelopment projects will serve as case-studies as indicators for potential growth in these regions. Both sites, Project Proposal Site A (corresponds to SAEZ 3, or Census Tract 744.03) and Project Proposal Site B (SAEZ 4, or Census Tract 748.02), fall under the federal empowerment zones. (Images 9, 10, 11) As empowerment zone neighborhoods, there are business incentives in place that makes these areas attractive for investors; there is no need for new economic zoning policies. In addition, these sites serve a secondary purpose: it establishes an inroad to spur investment in communities with demonstrated need for aid. PPSA and PPSB were selected with regards to establishment of the corridor; the other two SAEZ sites are entrenched in the downtown district and, as such, would be inadequate indicator regions for predicting and measuring project success.

PPSA is our case-study anchor community for the west corridor. It is bordered by two major roads: Fifth Street, which leads into the downtown area, and Fairview Street, which runs north-south along the city’s western boundary. Of particular interest is PPSA’s geographical relationship to nearby cities, all of which are located on the opposite side of the Santa Ana River. The site is located outside the range of major retail centers. Supporting commercial ventures and tracking the outcome of these investments will offer an important gauge by metering the strength of the region’s retail market. We are equally interested in the retail demand by local populations, as well as that population outside of the city. As the area is not directly accessibly by highway, we will examine the feasibility of transit-oriented developments in Santa Ana.

PPSB is our anchor community for the east corridor. While much of eastern Santa Ana has undergone recent development, economic activity in this tract has lagged behind, making this the lone eastern tract that qualifies under our impact core definition. Much of the lands has apparently benefited from the SAEZ designation and can be seen across an industrial landscape; the site, however, consists of an unusually low concentration of housing units. One large plot of land remains. It is located one block to the west of one of the city’s five public high schools, and should prove to be a worthwhile case-study. Our intent is to have mixed-used lands that combine retail stores and affordable housing. Housing is essential in order for this community to become self-supporting. We believe this neighborhood should not fall victim to CRA interests and we consider our design to be a bastion against the disturbing trend of high end housing for populations not indigenous to Santa Ana. In creating this corridor, low-income residents will have access to markets south of the city such as Tustin and Irvine. Conversely, outside residents will have access to businesses in this community, as it is easily accessible from the highway. Given this important geography, success in this tract will be gauged by how well the developments are integrated in the existing community, and to what extent commercial activities attract consumers from areas in surrounding neighborhoods.

Underlying these discussions is a conscious attempt at confronting social issues. We have refrained from delving into sociological concerns, seeing how this is an economics course in the city planning department, but it is important in our estimation to create a platform that takes into consideration the short term, as well as the long term social and economic ramifications. The provision of affordable housing units to be built is essential in allowing residents from all income brackets to have access to good housing. Not only are we advocating for affordable housing, but we are explicitly seeking the building of condominiums, in an effort to increase homeownership rates in Santa Ana, homeownership being an avenue of getting out of poverty. Also, the SAEZ is unique in that the demographics of these districts more closely resemble those residents who rely on city public services. As a whole, the SAEZ is home to 98% of minority residents and given the creation of new retail and office spaces in the neighborhood, the threshold is lowered for minority residents to create new businesses and work towards decreased dependence on unresponsive employment and greater control in personal finances.[20] In essence, it’s the creation of a more stable population that is self-supporting, independent, and provides a better opportunity towards creating a sustainable economy.

Towards a Sustainable Future

We submit our proposal not as a solution to end all problems in Santa Ana, but as a set of alternatives that will serve as indicators for future success. It must be on these terms, as it follows a set of discourse specific to Santa Ana, and the reality of what is being confronted in Santa Ana is unique to this city. Our proposal is not particularly innovative, but offers a different approach towards addressing the social and economic issues that dominates the political climate in Santa Ana. We are cautiously optimistic in our outlook for Santa Ana. There is no reason why the city cannot be a major economic center. The infrastructure is in place, it’s simply a matter matching population potential with economic potential. Investing in high-end, high rise condominiums is not necessary; investing in the low-income population is essential. The city will never become economically sustainable if it has to continually support an underproductive, majority population.

---

[1] Tamara Chuang and Cindy Arora, “Santa Ana Sees Crushing Hardship”: Orange County Register, 6 September 2004. In this article, the writers comment on a report published by the Rockefeller Institute of Government, which released a study documenting the 54 largest (urban) cities with the greatest hardship; Santa Ana had the dubious honor of placing first among a nationwide survey.

[2] This conclusion was derived from looking at when houses were built in Santa Ana. The period listed indicates a period of progressively higher amount of housing units built, up until the decade 1980 when activities slowed. Data was retrieved from city-data.com.

[3] Per 2000 Census data from the Bureau, 98.5% of foreign-born residents come from Latin America or Asia.

[4] The EZ constitutes 4,100 acres of industrial and commercial lands, or, 41% of total city acreage. Information regarding economic zoning is openly available through Santa Ana’s economic development webpage; it provides information for the EZ, FEZ, as well as the city’s designation as a Foreign Trade Zone.

[5] The EZ only allowed incentives for regions zoned for industrial and commercial lands. In doing so, it concentrates economic activities to certain areas of the city, not necessarily compatible with locations that are more appropriate for the business owner.

[6] This data was retrieved from the US Census Bureau. Non-Hispanic Whites represent 12.4% of Santa Ana population.

[7] The SAEZ can be interpreted as regions in more desperate need of aid. It is represented by a larger percentage of minority residents (against city averages), higher rates of poverty, and greater density.

[8] The airport code for John Wayne Airport is SNA, or, servicing Santa Ana; it refers specifically to our city of discussion, in spite of the fact that there is an unincorporated territory known as “Santa Ana Heights” located adjacent to the airport. The region remains unincorporated, although the city of Newport Beach has actively pursued the annexation of said lands.

[9] Whereas the poverty rate in the impacted periphery is below national averages, the percentage of Latinos is significantly higher, while the percentage of foreign-born residents and percentage of adults with high school diplomas are in-line with national averages.

[10] This data is received from the US Census Bureau. For the sake of discussion, single drivers (60.1%) with carpoolers (24.7%). In rounding out the statistics, 2.2% of residents commuted to work by walking, 2.9% by “other means,” and 1.6% worked at home.

[11] Book of Lists 2001, Orange County Business Journal, retrieved from: http://www.resume-online.net/BOLD/shopping_malls.html.

[12] Andrew Galvin, “Spending Power in Santa Ana”: Orange County Register, 7 February 2004. For an image of the study area, please locate in the appendix Image Ia.

[13] Press Release, “Santa Ana Primed for Investment”: the PMI Group, Inc.

[14] Santa Ana is experiencing a 2% land vacancy rate. The city is 27.2 square miles. Only five percent of the city’s housing units were built from the period 1990-2000.

[15] Leo R. Chavez, F. Allan Hubbell, Shiraz I. MIshra, R. Burciaga Valdez, “Undocumented Latina Immigrants in Orange County, California: A Comparative Analysis”: International Migration Review, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Spring, 1997), pp. 88-107.

[16] Chavez, et al, 93/ Santa Ana unemployment rate is 5.8%, as of January 2005

[17] Chavez, et al, 95

[18] The figure is derived from the following formula: 351,967 (Population) * .760 (Percentage of Latinos) * .482 (Percentage of Females) * .199 (Percentage of ULI respondents) * .91 (Percentage of ULI actively seeking work) * .17 (Percentage of ULI unemployed but seeking work)= 3969 Jobs

[19] This phrase was commented on the Chuang and Arora article, to which this paper owes greatly.

[20] The claim for “unresponsive employment” is based on a survey that shows “Concern for Family Member Losing their Job in the Next Year,” to which 45.5% of respondents commented “very concerned” and an additional 24.1% replied “somewhat concerned.” This graph was retrieved from the Dobos presentation and has been included in the appendix as Image IIa.