February 24, 2024 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

SMa.r.t.- High Rise or Park at Our City’s Center?

In 2010, Santa Monica’s Redevelopment Agency purchased multiple parcels of land at

4th and Arizona. The purchases were made to facilitate the goals set out in the City’s Bay-
side District Plan – “‘encourage uses that will generate pedestrian activity’ in the downtown district….” The purchases created a contiguous parcel totaling 112,000 square feet in the heart of our Downtown. The future of this City-owned land is currently under study.

In 2013, the acclaimed architect Rem Kool-haas was retained to design a large commercial complex on City-owned land by the City’s developer. The current design is the result of ongoing review by both residents and City Staff. The end result is a slightly reduced ver-
sion of the original plan. The next hurdle in the approval process is the adoption of the proj-
ect’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This is scheduled to take place next month by the City’s EIR consultant who will be looking at the three alternatives below:

1. A 12-story (129’ high/ 420,000 sf) com-
mercial development with 28 percent open space at the sidewalk;

2. A 4-story (50’ high/ 90,000 sf) commer-
cial development with 75 percent open space at the sidewalk;

3. A 2-story (30’ high/12,000 sf) with limited commercial space and 90 percent open space, all at grade.

Note: All three projects include three-levels of subterranean parking.

In comparing these three alternatives, the main difference is that the second and third options would prioritize the public open space over the building itself. The net effect of scheme 2 would be to replicate what defines many iconic cities – a large, open urban plaza at their center. It would be a place where both tourists and residents could gather for public events, theater, music or perhaps to share a coffee as they discuss their day or plan their visit.

Scheme 3 would consist primarily of a large park.

It has been said of Los Angeles: “When you get there, there is no there there.” Let’s not let this moniker define our City as well. A large public space in the center of our downtown would reinforce our City’s priorities – nature, community, and culture. A large commercial project in the same location would do the opposite.

Perhaps the best argument for a town square or park is that this property already belongs to our City, and hence its residents. The stated goal, when the City purchased the land almost a decade ago, was to create “‘pedestrian activity’ in the downtown district.” The current com- mercial complex, with mostly private tenants and modest space at street level, will do the opposite. The Residents must not stand idly by as this publicly owned amenity is usurped for private, commercial use. It should remain in the public sphere, like our beaches and promenade, to be enjoyed by all, taking advantage of our temperate climate and enhancing our beach town ambiance.

There are many other reasons as well why this property must become a refuge from City Life rather than an enduring symbol of its demise. The proposed project will further the destruction of our public sphere and natural environment only to replace it with an unsustainable building that will block the sun and ocean breezes, create traffic and produce more pollution rather than fresh air.

One asks why the City Council would propose such a large commercial project that will provide minimal civic benefits to our residents? This is our last chance for a town square in the heart of our City. It’s time that the priorities of our city’s leaders and staff align fully with those of our residents.

Of course, there are also other reasons why the project, as currently proposed, is a bad

idea. It will further overload our infrastructure– from water and power to garbage and traffic, to a lack of open space and schools for a growing downtown residential population. It will block sunlight and ocean breezes and create shadows, and “canyonize” the adjacent streets.

The proposed project will do nothing to improve the scarcity of parking in our downtown and will likely make it worse. Compared to the Hines project, this development is both denser and taller, by far. It almost has the same area as Santa Monica Place but on a parcel 1/3 the size.

The two alternatives proposed by residents would enhance our City’s downtown. Both alternatives prioritize open space over towering buildings. Both would create an “active pedestrian environment” justifying the reason for the City’s original purchase. Both would reduce our carbon footprint while providing needed public parking in the heart of our City. Both would provide opportunities to experience nature and cultural events in the open air, a defin-
ing feature of our beachfront community.

The difference between these two alternatives is that one is more weighted towards an “urban plaza” with shopping, dining, possibly a public theater or a small, boutique hotel. The other is primarily a park with some low-impact commercial activities along its periphery. For both schemes, the subterranean parking, along with limited commercial development, would defray the costs. Either of the resident’s alternatives would be far better than what is cur-
rently proposed.

How did we get here? Wouldn’t it be better to

promote a project that fosters wellness, social,

and cultural benefits than placing commercial

gain above civic health? This property’s even-
tual use will be a pivotal moment in our city’s

history. A former West Hollywood mayor said,

“Our biggest challenge is to manage our suc-
cess so we can hold onto our values.” If our

City is to start making decisions based on cul-
tural and environmental values instead of eco-
nomic gain, this would be a good place to start.

Should The Plaza at Santa Monica proceed as

proposed, a huge opportunity will have been

squandered. One that is unlikely to come again.

Ron Goldman & Thane Roberts for SMa.r.t.

(Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible To-
morrow)

Robert H. Taylor AIA, Mario Fonda-Bonar-
di AIA, Ron Goldman FAIA, Daniel Jansenson

Architect, Thane Roberts AIA, Architect, Samuel

Tolkin AIA, Phil Brock, Santa Monica Arts Com-
mission. For previous articles see www.santam-
onicaarch.wordpress.com/writings.

SMart 2:24

in Opinion
Related Posts

S.M.a.r.t Column: Gelson’s Looms Large

February 22, 2024

February 22, 2024

Our guest column this week is by SMCLC (the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City). SMCLC is a well-established...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Top Toady Town

February 18, 2024

February 18, 2024

Throughout history, from the ancient Romans and Assyrians to Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, siege warfare has served as an...

S.M.a.r.t Column: The Sunset of Home Ownership

February 11, 2024

February 11, 2024

We are watching the sunset of our historical and cultural American dream of home ownership as we now are crossing...

SMa.r.t. Column: B(U)Y RIGHT

February 4, 2024

February 4, 2024

“By Right” state housing laws that give developers, in certain projects, the ability to ignore codes ‘by right.’ Well, that...

S.M.a.r.t  Column: Serf City

January 28, 2024

January 28, 2024

Homelessness is a problem in California, and nowhere is this more evident than in our fair city, where the unhoused...

S.M.a.r.t  Column: Bond Fatigue

January 22, 2024

January 22, 2024

Last week’s SMart article,  described two critical problems faced by our Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD): the declining...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Peace on Earth

December 27, 2023

December 27, 2023

We are all, by now, saturated with jingles, holiday cards, “ho ho ho’s,” countless commercial advertisements, and exhortations to feel...

S.M.a.r.t Column: On the Clock with Mayor Brock

December 17, 2023

December 17, 2023

I became Santa Monica’s Mayor on Tuesday, December 12, 2023, following a simple “switch of the chairs” transition with outgoing...

S.M.a.r.t Column: SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL 2024

December 10, 2023

December 10, 2023

Position:Seeking Santa Monica City Council Candidate(s) Introduction:Exciting opportunity for the right candidate(s) to work with like-minded Council members committed to...

S.M.a.r.t Column: ARB (NOT Ready to Build!)

December 3, 2023

December 3, 2023

Santa Monica City’s Architectural Review Board (ARB), established in 1974, acts “…to preserve existing areas of natural beauty, cultural importance...

SMa.r.t. Column: We are thankful for….

November 27, 2023

November 27, 2023

SMa.r.t. would like to wish you all a great Thanksgiving with friends and family and also to thank its readers...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Make the City New Again

November 19, 2023

November 19, 2023

When the COVID crisis struck, it cut the city’s income in half, demolishing many businesses and causing widespread layoffs and...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Four Futures

October 29, 2023

October 29, 2023

As well described by Paul Krugman, all cities have a core competency: things they do well or better regionally or...

SMa.r.t column: Beautiful Quartz Countertops Are Hurting Workers and Should Be Banned

October 9, 2023

October 9, 2023

Quartz countertops are super popular because they’re tough and can handle stains, scratches, and heat. But there’s a big problem:...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Architect’s Son Reflects On Civic Auditorium

October 2, 2023

October 2, 2023

Welton (David) Becket (1902-1969), pictured above, backed by a picture of our Civic Auditorium, was the designer of that famed...