Every now and then a topic comes up that we’ve written about before but doesn’t seem to go away. The Miramar condo/hotel project is one such example. Given the recent Coastal Commission approvals and lack of opposition from the city regarding downsizing, etc., as well as the project looming on the horizon, we thought our readers might like to re-read our opinion column from April 27, 2018, more than six years ago. We find that our opinion and observations have remained the same with the information at hand. Here is that column. https://smmirror.com/2018/04/opinion-sm-rt-wall-not-music-eyes/
The Wall (no music in our eyes)
The Fairmont Miramar Hotel has released its revised design concept and, not surprisingly, as shown on several local Facebook pages, the reaction from residents has been one of great concern and opposition, apparently generating several hundred comments. The project is massive and creates a visual barrier, a wall along 2nd Street that effectively separates itself from the adjacent neighborhood rather than changing in scale. It thus gives the impression of telling residents, “Stop, the ocean view and fresh breeze are for our guests and wealthy condo owners, not for you.” You get shade and the wall.
What does our city’s Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) say about this? Well, it says that one of the main goals is to:
“Preserve the character of Santa Monica while improving the lifestyle of everyone who lives here.”
This structure is so at odds with the “character” of our beach community that it is hard to believe that our Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board (ARB), and ultimately our City Council would seriously consider approving it. It remains to be seen how they will respond when confronted with this in the coming days. Unfortunately, their track record of approving inappropriate and/or over-designed projects of late is not encouraging. Consider the Hines project, the Gehry Hotel, and the Santa Monica College “daycare” complex on our Civic Center site, which will likely serve very few, if any, residents. Residents were forced to request a referendum to stop the massive Hines construction project as their protests fell on deaf ears with the City Council. This project, if approved as presented, may not be subject to a referendum as the City has changed its approval process since losing Hines.
Miramar Condo’s project team will argue that as one of three “large” (think “point-designated”) lots, it complies with the new Downtown Community Plan (DCP) guidelines for height and density, but by all appearances, it raises serious questions. Floor area ratio (FAR) calculations are, by definition, allowed to omit a significant number of square feet, such as all stairs, elevators, ramps, mechanical and other peripheral areas… so it’s compliant, but doesn’t describe the actual FAR. While the project states a FAR of 2.61, in reality it would be larger. According to resident responses, height is an issue for most. The DCP allows 130 feet (plus another 16 feet for mechanical equipment covering 20 percent of the roof, giving an actual height of 146 feet). The site is in the Ocean Transition (OT) zone and should it not have been treated with an “overlay” it would have a maximum height limit of 50 feet and would have the 900 foot length broken up by the required wide, open ground-to-sky clearances. It is a very large building for our beach town.
So what does LUCE have to say about scale and heights?
“It is a monument protection concept that provides for an overall reduction in the height of the building.”
Hmmmm. Maybe there is confusion about how to reduce height, but I think it is generally accomplished by reducing height rather than increasing it. And if this project is approved, along with the Gehry Hotel that is the middle of our Ocean Avenue, we are sure to hear from other developers that they too want their piece of the sky. We see in the DCP created by the city that “the Clock Tower is 196 feet tall,” and the 300 foot tall 100 Wilshire building is highlighted, etc., which seems to show precedents that developers can use as justification for requiring maximum heights. The Miramar Condos/Commercial building starts on Wilshire and is 600 feet long along 2nd Street and then uninterrupted for another 300 feet along California Avenue, replacing the existing classic single story bungalows that currently stand there. Essentially a 900 foot+ tall building on its side.
“The LUCE framework introduces the requirement that new developments must benefit the community and not detract from it. Any future project must demonstrate exceptional benefits to the community as well as compatibility in terms of scale, setting and transitions to residential neighborhoods.”
The most common comments on the proposed Miramar are that it belongs in “Miami Beach”, that it is typical of “corporate” and luxury resort areas, that it is “far too big” and “over-designed”, is a “traffic disaster” and does not improve the quality of life of our residents. One concession or “benefit” is that the design opens up and exposes the heritage-listed Moreton Bay Fig Tree. As desirable as that may be, one has to question the value of this justification for a project that is so over-designed for our community. What other “extraordinary community benefits” are there for residents if construction of the Miramar Condos is approved? Some units are to be built off-site and some are to be “affordable”, the somewhat dubious so-called Affordable Housing (SCAH). But once again, an imbalance between jobs and housing is created, as the number of units a hotel employee can afford is probably not even close to the number of employees such a massive project will generate. This proves “Einstein’s” definition to be true (even though he never actually said it!): “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time is the definition of insanity.” (A bit like when we write these opinion pieces.)
This project is designed for luxury home buyers and tourism and offers virtually nothing to improve the lifestyle or feel of existing residents. Developers can build for this demographic if they meet the allowable standards of zoning codes, but if they get bonuses in the form of greater heights and density, that should benefit residents. The DCP was designed to give away this site, the Gehry site, and the site at 4th/5th and Arizona to developers, not to improve the lifestyle of residents or to reduce heights or, as the LUCE states, to be scaled to “reflect the identity, values, and vision of this unique beach community.” This project does not do that.
Therefore, our conclusion six years ago, expressed in the above column, that “This structure is so out of proportion to the ‘character’ of our beach community that it is hard to believe that our Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board (ARB), and ultimately our City Council would seriously consider approving it” was not prescient, for the permits have been issued and the building permit documents are no doubt currently being prepared.
Bob Taylor, AIA for SMa.rt
Santa Monica Architects for a responsible future
Samuel Tolkin, architect and design consultant, Thane Roberts, architect, Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA, Robert H. Taylor AIA, architect, Dan Jansenson, architect and building and fire protection consultant, Michael Jolly, AIR-CRE Marie Standing. Jack Hillbrand AIA
Previous articles can be found at www.santamonicaarch.wordpress.com/writing
