It Takes a Village?
By Frank Gruber
This week I'm back to writing about land use after a few weeks writing
about the schools. What a relief. It's easier to maintain a columnist's
ironic distance from people who have nothing to complain about beyond
traffic congestion, than it is from parents of kids with autism, or
a school district running out of money.
* * *
As for land use, last week the City Council got back to two of its
major preoccupations of the last few years -- the Land Use and Circulation
Element (LUCE) of the general plan and the City's Civic Center plan,
specifically the housing being developed there on the old RAND property.
The project is known as "The Village." Did the City or the
developer have to call it that?
The Village may include only a village number of households, 325, but
it was never going to look like the popular image of a village, unless
you're thinking Greenwich Village. (And not that, either.) Couldn't
the City have called it something like the Arcadia Block to honor the
famed Arcadia Hotel that once stood tall and proud on the same spot
(more or less)?
"Village" implies a hamlet surrounded by farms, and traditional
architecture, but the apartments and condos planned north, west and
southwest of the new RAND building will not be an exurban new town conjured
up in the middle of nowhere -- there's a neighborhood across Ocean Avenue
already, and a lot of urban history underneath.
The "Village" as a name invites ridicule, but the silly marketing
is nothing compared to the exaggerations of the plan's opponents. My
favorite this time came from council regular Arthur Harris, who likened
the development to Hong Kong.
Have you ever been to Hong Kong, or seen a picture? Check out this
link to a photo gallery of pictures of Hong Kong. None of them
resemble what the City has encouraged the Related Companies and Community
Corp. to build at the Civic Center.
The reason that people like Mr. Harris don't represent Santa Monica
residents, even though they are always speaking for them, and even though
sometimes City Council members treat them as if they do represent other
Santa Monicans, is that most Santa Monicans have a firm grip on reality.
They know that Santa Monica isn't anything like Hong Kong, and that
there is nothing that the City or any developer could do to make it
so.
In any case density is not turning out to be an issue with the Village.
Council members Ken Genser and Kevin McKeown each recounted the history
of the project at the City Council meeting last week.. (see
story) Both of them made the point that the plan, which resulted
from an extensive public process, was, is, and always has been to build
(relatively) dense housing and some local serving retail near both acres
of open space and an existing urban environment.
Council member Robert Holbrook pointed out that although he had had
reservations about the development in the past, the opposition to it
has in fact been muted. Specifically, he said, those residents who opposed
the proposed Macerich towers have expressed no opinion about the Civic
Center housing.
So although the issue in Santa Monica is usually density, in this case
the council seems committed to the program. But the council members
have a lot of time on their hands (insert smiley face) and have to agonize
about something (the sad truth). In this case they are at odds over
height and that most vague of architectural terms, "massing."
A difference of opinion is developing among the council members. Herb
Katz and Ken Genser expressed openness to increasing the height of the
project near the Viceroy Hotel, possibly up to ten stories, to reduce
the amount of development along what will be the extension of Olympic
Drive. This would allow for less "massing" and more stepbacks
there.
Kevin McKeown disagreed. He opposes building a tower unless absolutely
necessary to preserve the development program.
In this case, I side with Mr. McKeown. For one thing, although ten
stories is less tall than, for instance, the Clock Tower Building, five
and six story buildings are appropriate for downtown Santa Monica at
this stage of its urban evolution. For another, the concerns that Messrs.
Genser and Katz have about massing along Olympic Drive and landscaping
are well intentioned but unwarranted.
They want to reduce development along Olympic so that the buildings
that will face the new street will have stepbacks as they go higher,
and so there will be room for more landscaping between the buildings.
Mr. Genser used the Broadway Deli building as an example of how setbacks
can hide a tall building from pedestrians. He's right about that, but
the situations are different.
On the other side of Olympic Drive from the Village there will be an
urban park, not other buildings. There are great precedents around the
world for wall-like, rhythmic facades that frame and define parks, piazzas
and other public spaces. A five or six story façade along Olympic
Drive is not going to make the street dark or unfriendly; instead it
will make people in the park feel more connected to their surroundings.
Similarly, Mr. Katz's concerns about open space within the development
seem unnecessary. An architect true to his generation, Mr. Katz has
always had a soft spot for the modernist "tower in a park"
school of planning.
Given that the Civic Center parks will be so close to the residences,
however, the buildings of the Village won't need to be surrounded by
large amounts of open space and landscaping. It will be more important
that the spaces in between the buildings knit them together into a walking
neighborhood.
In other words, the City should be not afraid to build a real city
neighborhood along Ocean Avenue and Olympic Drive. It's not Hong Kong
that we should be in fear of becoming, but rather bits of Rome or Barcelona
or Siena that we can emulate.
* * *
A few weeks ago I reported that two vacancies were opening up on the
Planning Commission. It turned out that I made a couple of mistakes.
One is that there will be three vacancies at the end of the month, not
two, although one commissioner, Terry O'Day, is coming to the end of
only his first term, and he intends to seek reappointment.
As I accurately reported, two commissioners concluding their second
terms -- Barbara Brown and Darrell Clarke -- occupy the other two positions.
But my second mistake was that I assumed that both of them would be
"retiring." Mr. Clarke has decided to seek a third term. He
wants to continue his work on the general plan updates and other matters.
Under the council's rules, Mr. Clarke will need to receive the votes
of a supermajority of five council members instead of four to gain a
third term.
|
