By Jorge Casuso

May 22, 2025 -- The community verdict is in on including housing on the 192 acres of open land slated to be converted into a "great park" when the airport closes at the end of 2028.

According to the highly anticipated results of an online survey released by the City Wednesday, "community members were divided on whether or not they would like to see housing on the future site."

"While options that showed no housing (OPTION A) or the smallest amount of housing demonstrated interest over options that showed more," the survey states, "more than half of survey respondents indicated support for some housing on site to help generate revenue for park elements."

The online survey that closed April 28 had 4,984 responses. Of those,
approximately 2,000 responded to the housing section of the survey.

Of those who responded, 53 percent do not support housing, 35 percent support general affordable housing and 24 percent support market rate housing.

When asked which of three housing types they support, 53 percent again support no housing, 44 percent support rent-housing, while 26 percent support including for-purchase housing.

The survey also asked to rank three sizes of land that would be used to build affordable housing, assuming it is balanced with "revenue generating housing types."

As with other questions, more than half -- 51 percent -- of the respondents do not support housing on the site.

Meanwhile, 24 percent support "a moderately-sized land area dedicated to housing with a mix of building heights" ranging from mid-rise to high-rise multifamily buildings.

Another 21 percent chose a smaller land area with taller buildings, while 21 percent chose a significant land area dedicated to housing with building heights ranging from "low-rise townhouses to mid-scale multifamily buildings."

A total of 712 respondents commented on excluding housing from the site (OPTION A), with many noting that voters in 2014 approved a ballot measure that dedicated the land exclusively to parkland.

"Numerous comments emphasize the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a significant park space," while many viewed it "as financially unsustainable" and "a missed opportunity during a housing crisis."

Of the 470 respondents who commented on including some housing on the northeast corner of the site (OPTION B), many "reluctantly" accepted the option as the best compromise.

Some were concerned high-rise buildings would cast shadows on the park, while others worried it would cause traffic congestion or create a "disconnected, isolated residential pocket."

Of the 465 respondents who commented on distributing housing on three sites around the park (OPTION C), many said the option creates a balanced approach that would create mixed income housing.

Many, however, "emphatically oppose any housing," with many critics arguing that "Santa Monica already suffers from insufficient park space, excessive traffic, and overdevelopment."

The final option, which includes five sites flanking the park (OPTION D), found strong support among those who view the option as providing the most housing for residents of "diverse income levels" and a unique opportunity to build affordable housing.

Meanwhile, "a substantial number of commenters" strongly oppose the option, arguing it leaves "too little space for an actual park."

Some respondents to the option frequently mentioned "traffic congestion, infrastructure demands and environmental impacts" as reasons for rejecting the "housing-heavy approach."

The survey was released two weeks after housing and parks advocates faced off over the future of the airport land ("Airport Rift Widens, Raises Fears," May 7, 2025).

A total of 3,451 respondents provided their zip codes, of which 2,613 were from Santa Monica.