Our Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow (SMa.r.t) articles have, over the past 12 years, collectively presented a critical analysis of the extensive development transforming Santa Monica. While critical of current development trajectories, SMa.r.t. offers a framework of recommendations for a more balanced and resident-centric urban future for Santa Monica. We have consistently argued that the ongoing overdevelopment is detrimental to both the livability of its residents and the delicate coastal environment. We have described Santa Monica as a beach town under siege, where rapid, and often state-mandated, development, combined with council ideology, prioritizes corporate profits over the well-being of its long-standing community and the sustainability of its unique character.
A major concern in many of our articles is State-Mandated Housing Densification. These mandates require Santa Monica to build 8,895 new housing units over an eight-year period, a staggering 430% increase from prior requirements. This is not merely a quantitative concern; we see it as “an urban experiment based on highly contestable assumptions” and view the increase in required housing density as an existential threat to the city’s established fabric and quality of life.
The loss of local control and democratic process is deeply troubling, with unelected and unaccountable state technocrats dictating local land-use decisions, effectively sidelining local residents. Meanwhile, ideologically driven councils over the past 15–20 years have fallen in line with the state and failed to push back. This erosion of democratic input leaves residents, who bear the consequences of these changes, systematically marginalized in the decision-making process regarding their city’s future development.
We have consistently pointed out how increasing development strains existing infrastructure without corresponding improvements. For instance, recent downtown development has added housing units and hotel rooms, increasing the downtown population without a commensurate increase in open space or critical infrastructure capacity. This imbalance suggests a future where the city’s resources and services are stretched thin, and, coupled with PAL (Police Athletic League) lawsuits and unfunded pension liabilities in the hundreds of millions, has left the city teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.
Perhaps the most personally felt impact of overdevelopment and increasing density is the quality-of-life deterioration experienced by residents, with complaints centering on a growing list of urban woes: increasing homelessness, declining public safety, unbearable traffic congestion, and pervasive overdevelopment. These issues combine to create a sense of an eroding quality of life, and we are all feeling the loss. The transformation of our once-distinct beach town is rapidly accelerating, replaced by development that residents and visitors alike find unappealing and alienating. This shift fundamentally alters the very essence of what has made Santa Monica a desirable place to live.
We have also highlighted the environmental damage stemming from overdevelopment:
- Solar Access: New high-rise constructions cast extensive shadows, shading neighboring buildings and preventing them from generating their own solar power, directly undermining sustainable energy efforts.
- Open Space Deficit: The existing downtown area already suffers from inadequate green space for current residents, making the prospect of thousands of new inhabitants even more concerning for environmental quality and recreation. Yet the council says no to a town square park at 4th/5th & Arizona in favor of hotel and commercial development.
- Unsustainable Design: New mixed-use and commercial projects are not required to be net-zero and are therefore not environmentally sustainable, reflecting city building practices that prioritize rapid development over environmental responsibility.
The City Council is either complicit or prioritizing developer profits over the genuine needs and well-being of residents. Concerns about the Council “giving away public land to out-of-town developers” further underscore this perceived misalignment of interests.
Over these past 12 years, S.M.a.r.t. has consistently written to:
1. Inform the General Resident Population
- Empowering Residents: We have issued direct calls to action, urging residents to become actively engaged in city planning and decision-making processes. There is a fundamental need for greater public awareness and meaningful participation.
- Transparency and Accountability: Our SMa.r.t. articles have pointedly critiqued the City Council, implicitly demanding more transparent governance and greater accountability from elected officials regarding development decisions and public land allocation.
2. Correct Negative Impacts on Quality of Life and the Environment
- Limiting Height & Density: We, and the 2010 LUCE (Land Use and Circulation Element), have called for strict controls on the scale and intensity of new construction as essential for preserving the city’s unique character, mitigating traffic congestion, and ensuring “room to breathe” for residents. Sadly, these principles have been ignored by the city council(s).
- Prioritizing Local Character and Sense of Place: This is not anti-development; it is a call for responsible development, one that prioritizes maintaining Santa Monica’s distinctive beach community identity. This means actively resisting the erasure of its unique charm by generic, high-density development. Is it slipping away? Maybe. But perhaps not, if you let your voice be heard.
- Infrastructure Planning: Instead of allowing existing infrastructure to be strained by unchecked development, the city should address deficiencies and invest in necessary upgrades before or concurrently with new development. Common sense.
- Community-Oriented Planning: Development that genuinely benefits the local community, potentially favoring locally driven projects or those with tangible community benefits, is likely already lost due to state mandates. But the council remains culpable for years of failing to push back.
- Unwavering Focus on Sustainability: We have consistently called for long-term environmental sustainability and resilience, including proactive measures to address climate change impacts and responsible resource management.
- Reclaiming Civic and Architectural Culture: We know residents want a civic environment where urban design and architecture actively contribute to the city’s positive identity and aesthetic appeal, rather than being dictated solely by developer profit or a broke city scrambling for income.
- Addressing Crime and Traffic Holistically: By identifying overdevelopment, traffic, homelessness, crime, and a deteriorating lifestyle as key drivers of resident concerns, we have consistently recommended that the city implement comprehensive policies and planning strategies, ideally, a single citywide master plan, to effectively mitigate these critical urban challenges. This has never been done. Instead, it’s been handled, as Johnny Cash sang, “One Piece at a Time”, and you are living with the results.
- Preserving and Creating Parks and Public Spaces: The need for more parks and playing fields is real. We have written about Memorial Park and others, but for those trying to convince residents that the beach doesn’t count as urban open space? Absurd. And for those who believe closing the airport will be transformed into a big park, you are not paying attention to reality. If closed, it will doubtless be extensively developed. You can easily access recent City Council meetings to hear discussions of thousands of units and state mandates that will be imposed if closure occurs. Don’t be deceived: if you cherish open space, you will support keeping SMO as an operating airport.
- Long-Term Strategy and Living Within Our Means: SMa.r.t. has made numerous recommendations for fiscally responsible planning that prioritizes the city’s enduring economic health over immediate, potentially unsustainable, gains from aggressive development. This serves as a caution against growth that could lead to further financial instability or place undue strain on essential city services.
This article, in large part, is about the Responsible Development SMa.r.t has been advocating for and writing about for 12 years, unfortunately, with few successes to inform and override the financial power of developers and the ideological blindness of our City Council. So what are you going to do about it?
SMa.r.t. advocates for empowering local residents through greater public engagement, implementing sensible limits on density and height, diligently preserving the city’s unique local character, investing strategically in infrastructure, and embracing truly sustainable planning practices.
These recommendations collectively aim to safeguard Santa Monica’s quality of life and ensure its long-term environmental and economic well-being. As residents, we hope you will all join us in that effort.
Bob Taylor, AIA
For SMa.r.t.
Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow
Dan Jansenson, Architect, Building & Fire-Life Safety Commissioner; Robert H. Taylor, Architect AIA; Thane Roberts, Architect; Mario Fonda-Bonardi, Architect AIA (ex-Planning Commissioner); Sam Tolkin, Architect, Planning Commissioner; Michael Jolly AIRCRE; Jack Hillbrand, Architect AIA, Landmarks Commissioner; Phil Brock (ex-Mayor); Matt Hoefler, Architect NCARB
