WEST LOS ANGELES | Development News

[surfnspy]

You point out the problem.

All the places that got the subway needed revitalization.

Santa Monica is flush with cash--they don't want MORE people in their area.

Yes they NEED mass transit, but they'd rather drive their x5's and s class mercedes.

[milquetoast]

Awww, that's the prob with SM. They're an entryway to PCH and a final destination with the Pier.

Get ready to give up that little pastoral vision of sweet, dense little seaside living.

[klamedia]

And what Santa Monica foresees is being increasingly cut off from the rest of the city while these revitalized places become much more attractive and tourists opt to just stay in Hollywood and Downtown instead of going through all of that trouble just to get to their city. Having transit access doesn't mean that folks will start strapping their bed and couch to a train and move to SM in droves. No, what it means is that folks (tourists, tourists, tourists)would most likely come to the city, spend money and leave. They would more readily stay in those seaside hotels knowing that Hollywood and Downtown are just 20 minutes away via subway. Santa Monica gets this! Why do you think they are pushing so hard for Expo? Beverly Hills gets this! Why do you think they are pushing for BOTH Purple and Pink Lines???? West Hollywood really gets this!! The Pink Line will be an endless stream of cash for that city. When residents and tourists alike can get to the Pride parade and frequent their cafes and retail stores.....and leave.
Just because a place has transit access doesn't mean that it is affordable to live within. To the contrary, around the world the places with the best transit access are the most expensive. Over time this will begin to happen here, as traffic gets slower and slower and our transit system continues to become more and more comprehensive.

[surfnspy]

Santa Monica residents are not pushing for both lines. There is already significant political pressure against the expo line due to stupid issues like rail yards.

Seaside hotels are already full. Restaurants are booming relative to other areas of town.

AND a major transit line is already scheduled for Santa Monica.

Wouldn't you feel bad if we push for the Purple line and the feds say no since the area will already be served by rail? Doesn't it make more sense to fight for rail in areas that don't and are not scheduled to have it?

Look, I totally agree, subway would have been MUCH better for Santa Monica. But the expo line is happening. Isn't it better to deal with reality?

[milquetoast]

We need to kneecap................ we need to strongly convince those who would run an above ground transit system through an area that doesn't want it- TO STOP!

If it's Purple, run it underground to the shore.

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by surfnspy

Santa Monica residents are not pushing for both lines. There is already significant political pressure against the expo line due to stupid issues like rail yards.

Seaside hotels are already full. Restaurants are booming relative to other areas of town.

AND a major transit line is already scheduled for Santa Monica.

Wouldn't you feel bad if we push for the Purple line and the feds say no since the area will already be served by rail? Doesn't it make more sense to fight for rail in areas that don't and are not scheduled to have it?

Look, I totally agree, subway would have been MUCH better for Santa Monica. But the expo line is happening. Isn't it better to deal with reality?

Once again you're being dishonest when you say that there is significant political pressure against the Expo Line when the SM city council is fully behind the line and are making all sort of mitigations to bring the line into the city (in their opinion) in a grand way. They are talking about making the Promenade area even more pedestrian and bike friendly, inhibiting car traffic, slowing down auto speeds around downtown and even talking up capping the 10 freeway. They also fought for the train to be at-grade and not elevated. Santa Monica is very involved in preparing for Expo as well as what impacts it will have once in SM. This doesn't sound like any sort of significant political pressure against the line. The controversy stems from a group of homeowners who feel that they have taken the brunt of LA county regional projects, not just Expo. And they are not against the alignment of the train but against being sandwiched between a rail yard and a freeway. I'm not sure why you feel that you have to mislead this conversation to prove your point.

With that said, an additional rail line terminating in Santa Monica i.e. the Purple Line just makes logical sense, excluding density tracts and ridership. We're talking just another 2 miles, though expensive it will make the system seem much more comprehensive. Someone traveling from Noho, Pasadena, Long Beach or East LA would have to take 3 trains just to get to the beach........yeah, really smart people.

[surfnspy]

Bottom line is that it doesn't make sense to build two parallel multi million dollar lines transit lines to the same location.

Furthermore, pursuing this path, may jeopardize funding for other lines.

By the mta's own words, it will be difficult to secure federal funding for the purple line to santa monica because average ridership of both lines goes way down when both are in place.

I'd simply rather see areas without rail at all get it before santa monica gets two lines.

And to be clear, I think it would have been better if the mta had built the purple line and scrapped the expo line, but the expo line is reality.

[klamedia]

Well I certainly can't argue that I've never heard nor read about the lines cost/ridership issues once in SM. I wish they would use the same approach when building highways. They build the highway first many times expecting future growth. 50 years from now the end of the Purple Line terminating in Santa Monica is going to be sorely missed.

[milquetoast]

Will someone who's up to date post a graphic showing the proposed lines?

[croyboy]

Originally Posted by surfnspy

Bottom line is that it doesn't make sense to build two parallel multi million dollar lines transit lines to the same location.

i disagree... we're talking about santa monica, not ontario.

have you seen new york, boston, tokyo,... manhatten has a few parralel lines within 2 blocks of each other. tokyo has rail lines on top of other rail lines.

and here we are talking about connecting the densest corridors on the west coast. and they travel through totally separate neighborhoods: beverly hills/koreatown/westlake on one line. north marvista/palms/culver city/USC/south figueroa on the other. Santa Monica is just getting the terminus'.

maybe someone from beverly hills doesn't want to hike or bus 5 miles (that could be a 30 minute bus ride counting waiting time) to get to an expo station.

using the "they should'nt get two lines" is like saying downtown shouldn't get five terminus (blue, purple, red, gold-pasadena, gold-east la).

[pesto]

Agree with Croyboy: within the DT to SM core, there eventually should be a subway within easy walking distance of every person. I admit this will take 50 years.

SM is fighting high-rises but it can't fight greater density; there is too much long-term demand on the westside.

[surfnspy]

Ah, post the lines. Good idea!

I am not sure how to copy it here, but here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Purple_Line_(LACMTA)

Maybe someone cleverer than I can copy to this page.

It's a little out of date, but this blog description is current per the lamta planning meeting I attended a month or so ago.

http://pedestrianviewofla.blogspot.c...g-meeting.html

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by croyboy

i disagree... we're talking about santa monica, not ontario.

have you seen new york, boston, tokyo,... manhatten has a few parralel lines within 2 blocks of each other. tokyo has rail lines on top of other rail lines.

and here we are talking about connecting the densest corridors on the west coast. and they travel through totally separate neighborhoods: beverly hills/koreatown/westlake on one line. north marvista/palms/culver city/USC/south figueroa on the other. Santa Monica is just getting the terminus'.

maybe someone from beverly hills doesn't want to hike or bus 5 miles (that could be a 30 minute bus ride counting waiting time) to get to an expo station.

using the "they should'nt get two lines" is like saying downtown shouldn't get five terminus (blue, purple, red, gold-pasadena, gold-east la).

thank you. i could not have said it better myself. Santa Monica is just one stop on the way. the rest of the lines serve very different areas and needs. i wouldnt mind seeing a couple more lines to santa monica.

[klamedia]

I hear "surf"s sentiment all over the transit blogs, "why build 2 lines in SM" it's not cost effective? It's as if they aren't preparing for future growth and they think SM will be the same SM 50 years from now. Hell, Hollywood used to be filled w/ sfh 50 years ago. And everytime someone is selling a sfh in Noho it's being bought up and torn down for a monstrous apt building. Density is going to happen whether we like it or not.....we better prepare for this and make the right decisions now.

[saiholmes]

Eli Broad expands plans for his Westside museum
Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and a third, unnamed Westside location are vying to be the contemporary art institution's home.
By Mike Boehm
The Los Angeles Times
November 16, 2009


Art collector and philanthropist Eli Broad has nearly doubled the size of the museum he intends to build on the Westside for his 2,000-piece collection of contemporary art, and the cities of Beverly Hills and Santa Monica are vying to be its home.

Broad said Saturday that he isn't playing two municipalities against each other -- and he said a third city is in the running that he declined to name. He said he hopes to accelerate the process of building the headquarters for his Broad Art Foundation by talking to several cities.

"We don't know which of those sites are going to work out. None of them are without complications," Broad said as he prepared to preside as co-chair over the local art scene's big event of the season, Saturday night's 30th anniversary gala for the Museum of Contemporary Art.

"We don't want this to go on indefinitely, which can happen when you're dealing with cities," Broad said. "It could be three years, and I'm 76 years of age."

He said he plans to create a $200-million endowment that would generate $12 million a year to operate the privately run nonprofit museum.

The only bigger single cash donation to the arts in Southern California history would be J. Paul Getty's initial $700-million 1976 bequest to establish the J. Paul Getty Trust -- $2.65 billion in today's dollars.

Broad says that establishing another major venue devoted to contemporary art would solidify L.A.'s standing as a leading center for works created since World War II.

MOCA -- to which Broad pledged $30 million after a fiscal crisis that had led its leaders to consider merging with another museum -- has about 75,000 square feet of exhibition space in its two downtown venues.

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art, which shows art from all regions and times, includes the free-standing, 50,000-square-foot Broad Contemporary Art Museum, which opened in early 2008. Broad paid its entire $56-million cost.

But to the disappointment of museum leaders and many art lovers, Broad decided not to donate his collection to LACMA as well. Instead, 1,500 works have remained under his foundation's umbrella, and more than 400 others are in the separate personal collection he owns with his wife, Edythe.

They are made available regularly as part of the Broad Art Foundation's mission as a "lending library" that sends art to museums around the world. Among the artists the Broads have collected in depth are Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, Roy Lichtenstein, Jasper Johns and Andy Warhol.

L.A.'s third leading contemporary art institution, Westwood's Hammer Museum, has 14,000 square feet of gallery space.Broad said that factoring in his museum, at about 40,000 square feet, Los Angeles "would have more contemporary art space for the public than any place in America."

He said his collection, which he continues to build by buying 25 to 100 pieces a year, is large enough to present a changing array of exhibitions without having to compete with LACMA and MOCA for choice touring shows.

Broad had approached Beverly Hills about building his museum at the southeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard. A year ago, Joanne Heyler, director of the Broad Art Foundation, said two other sites were under consideration, with plans for a 25,000-square-foot museum, plus space for the foundation offices and a storage and research area for all the works not on display.

But conceptual drawings delivered to Beverly Hills officials last month show a much bigger project: a 126,600-square-foot, three-story building with the footprint of an arrow pointing east. Of that, a museum of about 43,000 square feet and an adjoining 6,100-square-foot outdoor sculpture court would occupy the top floor. An additional 67,000 square feet would provide an "archive" for the art not on display and offices for all three Broad foundations -- for art, education and medical research.

An additional 10,000 square feet of commercial space was requested by the city, Broad said, to spur street life along one of the adjoining streets, Little Santa Monica Boulevard; about a third of that retail area would be for the museum's restaurant and store.

Broad said parking is a problem at the Beverly Hills site. The conceptual plan calls for an underground garage with 170 spaces. Also, he said, the city would have to acquire the privately owned property, then lease it to his foundation for a nominal amount. Broad said the city would own the building after the lease is up.

Two or three months ago, Broad said, Santa Monica officials proposed that he build on 2.5 acres of city-owned land next to the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. The City Council is scheduled to discuss at its meeting Tuesday whether to launch formal negotiations with Broad.

The plan, outlined in a report by City Manager P. Lamont Ewell that was sent to city officials on Friday, calls for the city to lease the land to Broad's foundation for a "token" amount, to kick in about $1 million for design and construction, to provide parking, and to plant and continue to maintain the museum's exterior landscaping.

The report says Broad also wants the city to absorb the project's permit costs and pay for the required environmental impact review. Additionally, Broad and the city will discuss a possible $6-million sale of the existing Broad Art Foundation building in Santa Monica to the city. The 1927 vintage building isn't big enough to house all of Broad's art, and because of parking problems it never has been open to the public.

The tone of Ewell's report is both enthusiastic and urgent.

"The benefits of the proposal are readily apparent," the city manager writes -- "a world-class cultural amenity . . . [that] would significantly advance city policies that strongly favor promoting the arts and fostering cultural opportunities." Broad, Ewell wrote, would hire "an internationally renowned architect."

The city manager added that, because swift action is important as Broad weighs where to plant his museum, it would be wise to avoid bureaucratic red tape, "consistent with complete transparency and full public review."

Cheryl Burnett, the city of Beverly Hills' spokeswoman, issued a statement Saturday making it clear that Beverly Hills will continue to vie for the museum. "While we recognize that the Broad Foundation has many options. . . . There's no better place than Beverly Hills to showcase this world-class contemporary art collection."

Kevin McKeown, a Santa Monica city councilman, said members learned about the Broad proposal Friday when they received the staff report.

"I'll do everything I can to make this happen," he said, noting that a museum would dovetail with the city's plans to rejuvenate the Civic Auditorium as a performance venue. He said officials are in negotiations with the Nederlander Organization, which operates the Greek Theatre and the Pantages Theatre, to renovate the city-owned auditorium, then book its concerts and theatrical shows.

McKeown downplayed the notion that Santa Monica might face a bidding war with Beverly Hills. "I think they'll do what they can do," he said. "I think what Santa Monica has to offer is an incredible audience, a prime location and willingness to work with the Broads."

John Walsh, former director of the J. Paul Getty Museum, said that, while Broad's art philanthropy has been "very public-spirited," he would rather see the foundation headquarters built and run in partnership with one of L.A.'s existing museums, perhaps fulfilling MOCA's long-standing ambition to have a sizable Westside venue.

A stand-alone Broad museum "might bring a different kind of originality to the scene," Walsh said, but "that depends on the extent to which he is prepared to endow the organization, to ensure it collects competitively and imaginatively, and does major shows and has a first-rate staff, which is expensive. And nobody is going to foot the bill but him. On the whole, I think it's healthier if he uses this great power both to encourage innovation and to back and support the organizations that really need him."

LACMA's director, Michael Govan, said he's not concerned about overcrowding on the contemporary art exhibition scene in L.A. There are "complaints that shows don't make it to L.A. because there are not enough venues," Govan said. "There's a lot of growth potential. I feel like there's plenty of room. The thing is for each institution to distinguish itself with a particular identity and way of working."

Govan said the only drawback would be if Broad were to become insular, focused only on his own museum rather than helping to fund exhibitions and art acquisitions citywide. "I don't think that's the case. I think he'll continue to support us all."

[Kenny]

Originally Posted by surfnspy

Ah, post the lines. Good idea!

I am not sure how to copy it here, but here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Purple_Line_(LACMTA)

Maybe someone cleverer than I can copy to this page.

It's a little out of date, but this blog description is current per the lamta planning meeting I attended a month or so ago.

http://pedestrianviewofla.blogspot.c...g-meeting.html

Here you go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




I disagree. Both lines tho departing from Downtown and ending up in SM, will be servicing two completely different type of passengers.

The Purple Line is obviously perfect for all those "west-coasters" who work in Downtown LA, have you seen the 10 fwy lately?

And the Aqua Line, picks up a section of the central portion of the city. Eventually the MTA's future plan is for another line that hugs the coast from the Purple Line connecting to the Green Line ending up in San Pedro. That takes care of the "Venice Beach" issue.

[Kenny]

I hope we don't end up with a "Bus Transitway" for this...




I'm very exited about the Aqua Line,... I wonder if they will expand the public area at 7th St Metro Center.

[Kenny]

http://www.buildexpo.org/vid_western1.php

What a weird concept for the Western Aqua Line Station.

Some Pictures of the Aqua Line's progress..
http://www.buildexpo.org/gallery-pictures.php

[Kenny]

Is this the "Transportation" sub-forum? lol

[milquetoast]

.

23RD and Flower - PHASE I

.

.

.

EXPO