Professor Horst Rittel of UC Berkeley’s School of Architecture coined the term “wicked problems” to describe planning challenges in constant flux with many moving parts and stakeholders. He taught that effective problem-solving requires defining the “solution space” by identifying as many parameters as possible. More parameters identified means a smaller solution space and more focused solutions.
However, state laws and political pressures, along with ideologically driven city council members, have resulted in significant height and density increases throughout our 8.4 square mile beachfront town. Where is the analysis that defined this need? Why is supporting data impossible to locate?
We know it’s physically possible to build tall and dense. But the fact that we can doesn’t mean we should. Without analysis showing demonstrated need, this isn’t problem solving—it creates more problems and demonstrates that excesses result from poor planning.
The Density Dilemma
Why increase density? Unlike small beach communities such as Hermosa Beach, we are a major tourist destination. Where is the Planning Department’s analysis showing need for increased residential population and market-rate housing? Why do state laws allow developers to circumvent local zoning codes?
California Department of Finance charts (https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2025/) consistently show Santa Monica in the top ranks of the state’s 400+cities for high residential vacancy rates—generally around 10%, currently 5,200+ vacancies. Where is the analysis indicating this isn’t enough? While there’s definitely a lack of truly affordable units, without subsidies, developers only provide 10-20% deed-restricted affordable housing, crushing our environment with unaffordable market-rate units.
Downtown’s Decline
What remains downtown for residents? The Apple store, maybe. Otherwise, just national chains, vacant storefronts, a dead Santa Monica Place shopping center, and traffic ‘calming’ that has become a major stumbling block. Ironically, years ago, the California Chapter of the American Planning Association awarded Santa Monica accolades as a “Great Place in California,” claiming downtown thrived because city planners recognized fifty years ago that lively pedestrian activity was key to maintaining a thriving shopping district. Perhaps the jurists didn’t drive down from Sacramento to look.
Fewer local mom-and-pop shops offer anything unique. There’s no central plaza or park offering community activity, except possibly the winter ice rink—in jeopardy given the City Council’s continued entertainment of massive projects on that site. For movies, it’s easier to go to Marina del Rey, Westwood, or Playa Vista.
Not Family-Friendly
The city council continues advocating more downtown housing, but why? There’s no elementary school downtown, and none proposed. Who is this housing aimed at? Singles? There’s no apparent intent to attract established families. There is no public open space except streets, balconies, and rooftops—hardly conducive to family life, with no green space or open play areas within safe walking distance for small children.
Downtown, with its Times Square-style flashing billboards, is not kid or family-friendly. Other than the fact that we can build tall, there’s no documentation showing why we should.
Commercial Mansionization
In the 1980s, Santa Monica’s single-family zoning code was rewritten to prevent “mansionization”—large homes on small lots built to maximum height without setbacks and facade articulation. All gone now with new state laws allowing splitting a single-family lot into up to ten lots, each with a unit plus ADUs. Truly incomprehensible, yet championed by our current city council majority, consistently favoring developers over residents. They have to go!
Recently approved and built mixed-use projects show little or no “front yard” setback (wider sidewalks) and no paseos between buildings or articulated facades allowing sun and air to reach passageways or occupants. Instead, we see boxes maximizing sites with repetitive breaks along front elevations, but little concern for side elevations blocking light and air. Lincoln Boulevard, especially north from the freeway, is the ugly poster child of wall-to-wall five-to-eight-story buildings—a testament to developer greed and enabling politicians. Why is the current administration, local and state, so intent on this non-sustainable path to change our beachfront community into just another dense urban environment?
A Regional Resource
Santa Monica is a beach community that can, in a way, be likened to New York’s Central Park. We are a natural resource of fresh, cool air and sun for the greater region. People come seeking relief from oppressive valley heat, downtown metro areas, and the east side. It’s time to step away from the notion that Santa Monica is merely a developers’ golden goose to be built out to the maximum. Can you imagine infilling Central Park with high-rise “walkable” neighborhoods? New Yorkers wouldn’t stand for it. Why do we?
While we continually hear from development proponents that it’s all about affordable housing shortages, “affordable” is merely a buzzword for moving large-scale market-rate projects through approval with promises of token affordable units. Council members and planning commissioners seem willing to ignore negative impacts as long as a few units are called “affordable”. But its clear development is not about creating affordable housing because developers have just been exempted from providing ANY affordable housing units required for their developments until 4-5 years AFTER they get their market rate projects approved, and maybe never actually gets built. Meanwhile, developers profit, and residents’ quality of life is diminished.
Conclusion
We have a responsibility we’re not fulfilling: protecting our beachfront environment and the relief our low-rise beach town provides to the greater region. People come to enjoy our beaches, blue skies, and fresh ocean air—not to visit just another dense, congested, traffic-clogged metropolis.
As our land is already built out, increased density can only occur by building taller, contrary to positive environmental impacts of maintaining Santa Monica as a low-rise town. Increased development is like chopping down the rainforest, chipping away at the low-rise openness and blue-sky beach town Santa Monica provides its residents and those seeking relief from heat and dense urban life. Building taller and denser, killing sunlight and fresh ocean breezes that currently define our town, would be no different from living in the Amazon and destroying the “lungs” of the entire region.
The design process requires defining a problem—a need—and then solving it. Where is the analysis that defined the need to increase our beach town’s density? It seems clear that increased density is the problem, an imaginary need serving economic interests, with outcomes being increased traffic congestion, pollution, demand on city services, diminished livability, and burdened residents facing quality-of-life loss and higher costs.
Just say no to the mansionization of Santa Monica.
Bob Taylor, AIA For SMa.r.t.
Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow
Robert H. Taylor, Architect AIA; Dan Jansenson, Architect, (ex-Building & Fire-Life Safety Commissioner); Thane Roberts, Architect; Mario Fonda-Bonardi, Architect AIA (ex-Planning Commissioner); Sam Tolkin, Architect, (ex-Planning Commissioner); Michael Jolly ARE-CRE; Jack Hillbrand AIA, Landmarks Commissioner Architect; Phil Brock (SM Mayor, ret.); Matt Hoefler, Architect NCARB; Heather Thomason, resident activist.
For previous articles, see www.santamonicaarch.wordpress.com/writing
