Like many of us, I live in an enclave of NIMBYism (mine is in a neighborhood of downtown Hollywood), where "development" categorically equals "anti-environmental," "anti-ecological," "anti-green," "anti-community," and perhaps just downright "evil."
Why should this be so?
I've often wondered why the same people who oooh and aaah at the glittering Manhattan or Chicago skylines, with their towering skyscrapers, begin to polish up the pitchforks when a developer like Millennium Partners even suggests putting two skyscrapers in downtown Hollywood. (The tallest of the two, at 48 stories, would still be less than half the height of Chicago's 100-story mixed-use John Hancock Center.)
One rendering of the project (below) seems intentionally to disguise the height of the towers, probably to quell local phobia about their dwarfing of the "iconic" Capitol Records Building—which nonetheless shows up for the squat little runt it is in this drawing.
Millennium Hollywood (proposed).
Arguments about such towers "spoiling the view" hold little weight in my book. On the contrary, for urban dwellers towers are the view, and if anyone is under the illusion that the seemingly sacrosanct Capitol Records Building is an architectural marvel that can't be obscured, just let him or her reflect that someone felt the same way about the existing structures that the Capitol Records Building—at a whopping 13 stories, then the zoning height limit—obscured from view in 1956. It completely obliterates my own view of the Taft Building, a much handsomer structure, for example.
A more honest and circumspect rendering (below) shows that the two towers might provide a vibrant architectural addition to the downtown Hollywood skyline and prove a nexus for further development.
Hollywood Millennium (proposed).
Which brings me to this book:
The Triumph of the City, by Edward Glaeser (Penguin Press, $29.95 hardcover)
Glaeser is an urban economist and he has some very surprising—and, for the NIMBYs, very likely upsetting—things to say about the kinds of buildings that these urban acrophobes detest.
One of his main premises, for example, is that denser, taller cities are actually greener than shorter, more spread out ones—and that they are certainly far, far greener than suburbia, where everyone drives. Being a Harvard academic, Glaeser has plenty of facts and figure to back up his assertions, but the book is hardly dry. Instead, it reads like an engaging conversation with someone you meet at a cocktail party, a well- informed contrarian, who gives you a whole new way of looking at something.
Glaeser has some harsh words for the Bay Area environmentalists, for example, who proudly oppose building in the San Francisco region—thereby passively encouraging development in previously pristine areas such as the Nevada desert or in highly "brown" regions such as Phoenix, and ultimately contributing to overall carbon emissions. "Think globally"? Hardly. For Glaeser, development—and, yes, that means skyscrapers—is a sign of urban health, but also of planetary health. Pointing to the viability of tall metropolises such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Tokyo, he makes a case for upward rather than outward expansion, and shows how dense, concentrated cities can provide the greenest of all possible worlds.
I love a good contrarian as much as I detest NIMBYs.
The recent news that Disney is planning to develop a new studio "campus" on a section of its 50-year-old, 890-acre Golden Oak Ranch in Santa Clarita has Santa Claritans wetting themselves. According to the Mouse House, the studio would create "about 2854 full- and part-time jobs, 1000 of them on-site" and dump $533 million dollars worth of G-rated revenue into the city.
Disney's proposed Studio at the Ranch, Santa Clarita
Here's the city's Film Office spokesperson, Jessica Freude, gushing about what a boon the Disney development will be to Santa Clarita:
Perhaps coincidentally, KFWB radio has been airing 30-second morning drivetime adverts touting Santa Clarita ("LA County's Most Business Friendly City") as the place to take your business. The website for this gung-ho boosterism is ThinkSantaClarita.com.
But hold on . . . there's something wrong with this picture. Santa Clarita wants development??
Two years ago, on November 13, 2007, the Santa Clarita City Council, under then-mayor Marsha McLean, voted unanimously to oppose the Las Lomas project. Their opposition was based, purportedly, on three factors: traffic congestion, environmental protection, and public safety. Let's see . . .
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
The press release announcing the council's decision noted that near the proposed site of Las Lomas, at the Interstate 5/State Route 14 interchange "only weeks ago, a big-rig accident closed the interstate and caused massive delays and fires raged in local canyons." I hate to break the news to Santa Clarita, but big-rig accidents, brush fires, and traffic jams are endemic to Southern California. The worst traffic I have to deal with on my frequent trips to San Francisco is usually around Magic Mountain . . . in Santa Clarita.
Las Lomas as proposed would house 15,000 new residents. By comparison, that's only about a quarter of the capacity of Dodger Stadium, the largest baseball stadium on the planet, which holds 56,000 fans at a full game. And it's only a small fraction of the 275,000 people in the Santa Clarita Valley area already.
If the Disney project is built, won't that involve significantly more automobile and big-rig trips in and out of Los Angeles?
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
According the city's opposition statement, Santa Claritans positively bleed for the loss of oak trees, the destruction of "riparian habitat" and the "wildlife corridor" that Las Lomas would represent. Yet did anyone care when Santa Clarita itself sprawled across 47.8 square miles (roughly the size of San Francisco) of the former Mexican rancho that is now a suburban wasteland? A responsible development like Las Lomas prescribes more than half its acreage as open, undeveloped space. Not so Santa Clarita.
Santa Clarita sprawl.
PUBLIC SAFETY
The public safety issue seems to about earthquakes, based on the fact that an interchange bridge collapsed in both the 1972 and 1994 earthquakes, causing "gridlock." Santa Clarita seems to be forgetting that the highways will still be there, and subject to collapse and gridlock, whether or not Las Lomas is built.
And as far as public safety goes, the 260-acre Six Flags Magic Mountain amusement park, in Santa Clarita, has been responsible for more deaths in the area than both the 1972 and 1994 earthquakes combined (per Wikipedia):
On August 30, 2008, a guest was killed by a passing Ninja train as he was trying to retrieve a hat.
On April 9, 2004, a woman was struck and killed by one of Scream's trains during the morning test run.
In June 2001, a rider on Goliath fell unconscious after the ride and later died. A brain aneurysm was determined to be the cause of death
In 1996, a part-time employee was killed while crossing the tracks of the Revolution roller coaster. She was struck by a train full of guests as it returned to the station.
In 1978, a woman was ejected from the Colossus ride, and fell to her death.
On February 5, 1978, a man was killed after a gondola car of the Eagles Flight (Skybucket ride) slipped from its cable and fell 50 feet to the ground. The man's wife was also seriously injured.
Perhaps Santa Clarita should be declared a public safety hazard . . . and razed.
A map of the region shows exactly why the City of Santa Clarita so vehemently opposes Las Lomas.
A map is worth a thousand words.
Santa Clarita has annexed nearly every square foot of land between Interstate 5 and State Route 14 except the proposed Las Lomas site. Do you think they would let their sophisticated liberal nemesis to the south get its paws on this parcel?
The press release is just as revealing, if you read between the lines: "Though the proposed project lies adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita in an unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles, the project's developers are currently attempting to have the project annexed to the City of Los Angeles . . . ."
Santa Clarita wants this property, and they want it desperately. It's practically adjacent to the proposed Disney studio. You read it here first: this site will eventually become part of the undesigned and hideous sprawl that is Santa Clarita. And it will be developed. Badly.
The proposed Las Lomas development, on a steep hillside just northeast of the junction of the 5 and 14 Freeways in northern Los Angeles County, has been—and is still—under attack by a variety of forces, from the Los Angeles City Council (in the person, mainly, of Council member Greig Smith) to the neighboring boomburg of Santa Clarita, itself a relative newcomer, having been incorporated only in 1987.
I first discovered Las Lomas through the captivating drawings of architect Richard Robertson, a Los Angeles–based historicist who was attached to design the town. In a model of New Urbanism at its best, Robertson developed a plan for a town of 5500 housing units with a feel that harkens back to pre-WWII Los Angeles, featuring Spanish-revival architectural cues and responsible, high-density (6461 units per square mile versus 1096.5 in Santa Clarita) land usage that rivals that of Italian hill towns, which means that more than half the 550-acre site would be devoted to open space.
While Las Lomas is a rationally designed urban plan (see more here) featuring six differing neighborhoods united by a common design language, Santa Clarita is a mishmash of architectural styles, from the shopaholic paradise of Westfield Valencia Town Center to catatonic McMansion sprawl to the upchuck-inducing thrill rides of Magic Mountain.
Santa Clarita Suburbia run amok.
Las Lomas (proposed) Suburbia as planned urban texture.
Although increased traffic congestion on Interstate 5 looms large in Santa Clarita's public objections to the project, one suspects that the town's real motives (and those of their self-styled "Mayor Dude") are rooted in fear of encroaching urbanity and—could it be?—downright jealousy.
As for the Los Angeles City Council's double-talk stymying, the Lomas Land Co.—now under Alan Joelson, since Dan Palmer resigned in December 2008 citing "personal reasons" (aka downright digust?)—has appealed the dismissal of its lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles for halting review of the project in March of 2008. Read all about that here.
We will continue to follow the project with keen interest, in the hope that an urban plan of this vision, elegance, and importance will not be killed by self-serving anti-urbanism.
W Hotel and Residences, Hollywood Calling Dr. Kildare. The massing is energetic but the clinical design and lack of fine detailing make the building feel cold.
The new W Hotel and Residences continues to struggle skyward on the corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Argyle Avenue in spite of the deepening economic crisis. This is one of the few projects proposed over the past three years for the eastern end of downtown Hollywood that has actually managed to get off the ground. Others—including the (overly?) ambitious Blvd 6200 and the construction of the originally planned office tower atop the Pantages Theater (both projects of The Clarett Group)—seem to be stalled like a VW Dasher with spark plug issues.
The original elevation drawing for the Pantages Theater, showing the 10-story office tower that was never constructed. History repeats itself, 80 years later. Click the image for a larger view.
The Pantages project was originally cut short, so to speak, by the Great Depression; how ironic—and very disappointing—that it has happened again, 80 years later. Seeing a 12-story Art Déco structure take its rightful place directly across the street from the energetically massed but predictably clinical W Hotel would have been a delight.
If the Pantages tower ever does materialize, I might even consider checking into the W Hospital Hotel for a room with a view north.
Millennium Hollywood (proposed). 
Hollywood Millennium (proposed).
The Triumph of the City, by Edward Glaeser (Penguin Press, $29.95 hardcover)
Posts
