By Michael S. Klein
Ruthann Lehrer (“Time to save the pier cnce again”, Feb. 28) is a committed and energetic supporter of historical preservation, and is herself a valuable resource for the City, including her influential service with the Landmarks Commission. Those of us who care about historical preservation value her.
But even supporters of historical preservation can disagree on some issues.
It has been about three years since I served as the chair of the Board of Directors of the Pier Restoration Corporation, but I’m apprised enough of some of the factual underpinnings for the Pier’s position on this issue to provide some counterpoint to her letter.
Ruthann wants to preserve the current look of the Pier and particularly the precise current placement of the Pier sign. But the Pier sign’s location isn’t historically fixed. In fact, it has been moved several times, most recently in 1950. Check the Santa Monica Historical Society or the PRC itself. Both have pictures showing the Pier sign about halfway down the hill from the top of the Pier.
And, according to Ben Franz Knight, the Pier Executive Director, the entrance to the Pier itself has been changed even more recently, in the late 1970s or early 1980s.
And, speaking of history, alternative five ignores what may be the primary historical part of the Pier, what one might call the Pier “experience.”
First off, since its very first days, people have always been able to drive to the Pier.
And since the Pier sign was first erected (by the then named “Pier Businessmen’s Association” in 1940), people have always been able to drive under the Pier sign. That too is part of the history of the Pier.
Beyond that, the Pier is the terminus of Route 66, the cross-country highway justifiably celebrated as a historical resource in its own right. The end of Route 66 has always been the Pier, and, at the end of that route, for cross-country travelers as well as locals, the “cherry on top” was always the ability to drive under that iconic Pier sign. Once you had done that, you had made it — you had crossed the entire continent to the sea!
So, a landmark historian could fairly say that the alternative 5 not only is not supportive of historical verity, but in fact, runs counter to it, not only for the Pier itself but also in the larger context of Route 66!
The approved alternative from the PRC, alternative two, would very slightly move the sign, but, unlike alternative 5, would preserve the historical essence of the Pier and its sign (and Route 66), including that culminating experience of driving under the sign to the sea.
The Pier Board’s preferred alternative would also maintain the Pier’s viability as a tourist attraction by continuing its accessibility to visitors from far and near, an important factor for what the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau will readily tell you is still the primary tourist attraction in town – the Pier draws visitors literally from all over the planet.
And perhaps best of all, although perhaps somewhat counterintuitive, the Pier Board’s proposed alternative would significantly reduce traffic through town. How?
Well, alternative Two would direct most cars down a new (but very low profile) ramp to the 1550 lot adjacent to the Pier. Then, those cars leaving the Pier could exit onto PCH and the Freeway instead of going back through town and getting in the way of all of the rest of us. That would take a significant portion of Pier traffic off our city streets.
In addition, unlike Alternative Five, which would turn away cars from the Pier entrance, after which they would then presumably drive around in circles trying to find parking or trying to navigate the confusing and circular route down to the 1550 lot, Alternative Two would take them directly to parking and get them out of their cars.
By virtue of these two factors, Alternative Two is a significantly better plan for those of us concerned about traffic – and who isn’t?
The bottom line? Nobody needs to suggest that the Pier is threatened. It isn’t, and it doesn’t need to be saved again. But it can’t hurt to polish it up a bit, enhance pedestrian safety, and make it more easily accessible and better.
And that may even enhance the real historical experience.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 5, 2007. Read the original PDF.