By Christian Boyce Santa Monica
The arguments against Macerich Company’s proposed project for Santa Monica Place are rather straightforward: The project would exceed the currently zoned height limits by a factor of five, would block views of the ocean and mountains, would exacerbate traffic problems in an already jammed downtown area, and would encourage developers to pursue similarly non-conforming projects since it would be plain that zoning restrictions could be ignored if one knew how to play the game. These arguments should be enough to send the proposal to the trash can, but (perhaps due to the sheer audacity of the developers and their proposal) the project is actually being considered. The arguments in favor of this development are that it would serve as a kind of “bridge” between the Third Street Promenade, the Civic Center and Main Street; that it would provide “much needed” open space; that it would offer at least “some” low-income housing, and that it would generate significant tax revenues.
I’m trying to stay positive, so I’ll focus on the proposed benefits. A bridge between the Third Street Promenade, the Civic Center and Main Street? No thank you (so much for staying positive). I’d just as soon we left the Third Street Promenade right where it is — I don’t want to extend that circus in any direction, least of all toward Main Street. Further, they can call three 24-story buildings a bridge if they want to, but I call them something that blocks my view (and yours). In recent years, we’ve lost westward views due to the construction of the new Public Safety Facility and the new RAND Corporation building. If we simply must connect the Third Street Promenade, the Civic Center and Main Street, does it necessarily follow that it can only happen via a project that blocks out the sun?
Open space: I like it, you like it, we all like it. But Santa Monica Place is a stone’s throw from all the open space in the world — we call it “the beach” and “the Pacific Ocean.” It’s open space all the way to Japan, for crying out loud. To me, it looks as if this project would block the view of all of us who won’t live or work in those towers (a decrease in vertically-oriented open space), yet the developers tout the “creation” of open space as a benefit in an area that hardly needs it. They giveth, but first they taketh. I’m not falling for it.
On the subject of affordable housing, there seems to be no satisfying our government’s hunger for more of it. At what point do we say, “This project is about five times too tall, it will block views forever, and it’s likely to louse up traffic for a long, long time? Maybe the trade-off of more affordable housing just isn’t enough for us to back away from our zoning.” At what point do we say, “The addition of affordable housing units does not a worthy project make?”
Revenue: I’m for it, but money is money, and it spends the same whether you generate it on Third Street or somewhere else. Which brings me to the thrilling conclusion: If we must allow Macerich’s non-conforming project, let them build it somewhere else. Don’t let them build it on the Santa Monica Place property. Instead, let them build it on Cloverfield, at the site of the OPCC’s planned homeless shelter, which happens to sit on city-owned land. Put the OPCC’s shelter on the Santa Monica Place property (keeping it within current height limits), and put Macerich’s towers on the Cloverfield property.
Switching the projects creates benefits galore. The OPCC’s shelter would be larger and within walking distance to many of the people it serves, making its services more available and accessible. The Pico Neighborhood would receive a powerful economic shot-in-the-arm from the new development, housing would be created where it’s needed and sustainable, and open space would be created in an area (Pico) that lacks it. Jobs, housing, open space — all good things, and all a whole lot better when the project is properly placed. Granted, Macerich’s project would have to be scaled down to fit on the smaller parcel, but their proposed project is too big to begin with and it could stand some scaling down in any event.
Even from Cloverfield, the view from the towers would be terrific.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 7, 2004. Read the original PDF.