A A A

Please consider registering
guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
Quick Report on Abbott Kinney Hotel Presentation at LUPC
Topic Rating: 3.7Topic Rating: 3.7Topic Rating: 3.7Topic Rating: 3.7Topic Rating: 3.7 Topic Rating: 3.7 (50 votes) 
June 5, 2013
10:51 pm
Marta
Member
Forum Posts: 374
Member Since:
March 29, 2010
Offline

The hotel as presented to LUPC tonight is HUGE, spanning the entire block on Abbot Kinney between Joe's and the French School on Westminster. Here's a link to the site plan to give you a better look at the scope and scale of the project: http://www.cityhood.org/Attach.....10KVF4.pdf

 

At 92 rooms, the project as proposed would be twice the size of the 57-room Ray Hotel rejected in 2007. Besides a hotel, the project would also include a 100 (approx) seat restaurant/bar, an 800 sq ft (again, approximately) spa, and 163 underground parking spaces (there may be another 18 above ground parking spaces, but I'm not entirely sure about that point).

 

It does seem that the property owner is trying to take community concerns into account, but this project basically has all the same problems the Ray Hotel did. It violates the Venice Specific Plan in terms of height, mass and scale (creating a lousy development precedent as a result) and it has inadequate parking to accommodate guests for the hotel, restaurant, spa and it's employees.

 

Regarding employees: The developer made noises about hiring locals who could walk or bike to work, but with the typical hotel worker making between $9-$15 an hour, good luck with hiring someone who can afford rent in Venice (or even Mar Vista) on that salary.

 

Of the 50 or so people in attendance to hear about the project, it was clear that most people were against the hotel as proposed, although both Tony Bill and Don Novack of Hal's spoke in favor of the project.

 

In a nutshell, I think it's going to come down to whether or not the community, council office and planning department believes the economic stimulus and jobs potentially created by the hotel are worth the price in terms of development precedent, loss of neighborhood parking and additional traffic it will cause.

 

If they can bring down the size and height to conform to the Venice Specific Plan, and provide adequate on-site parking, that's a conversation worth having. If not, speaking as someone who lives in the neighborhood, it's not worth the trade-off.

 

FYI: The LUPC meeting tonight was for presentation purposes only. No vote was taken, and it hasn't been presented to any City Planning Department yet to knowledge.

 

June 6, 2013
5:48 am
Venice WatchDawg
NoRo
Member
Forum Posts: 1306
Member Since:
February 17, 2010
Offline
2
2.3

Thanks Marta,

Jobs will not include many Venice locals, and only top level managers will be able to afford to live here.

Economic advantages will NOT benefit Venice... all will go downtown... people forget that Venice is part of a big city and not independent like Santa Monica & Culver City.

This project will provide profits for a few at the expense of a reduced quality of life for the people who live here. It needs to be scaled back considerably. While I generally consider development a positive, this one, as presented, will be bad for residents...

WE LIVE HERE! I don't see much difference between this and turning Venice streets into an ad hoc RV campground a few years ago... the few taking advantage of the many...  NOT FAIR!!!

There is a petition to sign if you oppose the hotel. 

 http://www.change.org/petition.....inney-blvd

June 6, 2013
10:15 pm
moomat ahiko
venice, ca
Member
Forum Posts: 409
Member Since:
December 17, 2010
Offline
3
3.4

Venice WatchDawg said
Thanks Marta,

Jobs will not include many Venice locals, and only top level managers will be able to afford to live here.

Economic advantages will NOT benefit Venice... all will go downtown... people forget that Venice is part of a big city and not independent like Santa Monica & Culver City.

This project will provide profits for a few at the expense of a reduced quality of life for the people who live here. It needs to be scaled back considerably. While I generally consider development a positive, this one, as presented, will be bad for residents...

WE LIVE HERE! I don't see much difference between this and turning Venice streets into an ad hoc RV campground a few years ago... the few taking advantage of the many...  NOT FAIR!!!

There is a petition to sign if you oppose the hotel. 

 http://www.change.org/petition.....inney-blvd

 

I agree with what you've said. Problem is - you're too fu!king late. Silver moving into the circle, will change the dynamics of Venice

 

... forever.

 

Watch and learn.

 

http://www.lustgarten.org/
June 7, 2013
5:54 am
Venice WatchDawg
NoRo
Member
Forum Posts: 1306
Member Since:
February 17, 2010
Offline
4
4.2

Too late for what???  Joel Silver's Post Office project will not add the congestion or impact on an already crowded area like this hotel will.  Even if it is scaled back to present limits, it will be still be too much for the neighborhood. When I bought here in 1984, I knew that this was going to eventually happen, but hoped that the sane amongst us would work to guide development and the city to provide things like parking lots and shuttles here in Venice, as well as a more foresighted approach to public transportation citywide.  Instead, these same sane people spent 20 years fighting the social service lobby, the City (via 15 years of councilwoman Ruth Galanter), and a bunch of leftover hippys who were tending to "saving" Venice by maintaining it as a scary, crime-filled, beat up beach slum to make it less attractive to development, rather than take the time and effort to start planning and guide development. This is the reason that we are being faced with these sort of concerns today.  Slumification only works as long as it works, then the pendulum swings towards the other extreme, and....  well, you see what is happening.  

As for the Post Office, as deficient as it was, it was there and the only option until the internet, Fed X and UPS made it obsolete. Silver's project has much less impact than many other uses could have done. 

It is never too late to guide the future, especially if there are City processes to do so. Yes, the "old Venice" is rapidly fading, but the newer residents moved to a different place than I did in 1984.  They have a different perspective, see a considerably different place, and don't come here to live the bohemian dream of yore. This town is as, or even more, creative as it ever was. It just ain't driven by that ol' drum circle, graffiti, and macrame flower pot hanger sensibility any more.

It might have been better if we had not spent decades in conflict with the purveyors of the past and the social service lobby and their agenda of calling squalor art and crime inspiration...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

June 7, 2013
9:07 am
gannon01
Member
Forum Posts: 55
Member Since:
June 4, 2009
Offline
5
3.7

Very well said Watch Dawg

June 7, 2013
11:09 am
AmorosoNate
Member
Forum Posts: 121
Member Since:
June 7, 2010
Offline

I'm guessing the developer already has a back-up plan for the site that profitably conforms to the VSP. I can't imagine that they put this whole plan together assuming they would get variances approved without a back-up. The more cynical or experienced on this site may disagree with me.

I have no problem with a hotel on AK, but parking is a serious problem, as is a fourth story. As we've seen with other commercial and residential development in the area, once a variance is given, it's no longer a variance. Property owners should have the right to redevelop their properties, but when they purchased the land, they knew the rules and should have incorporated those rules into the calculation of the price they paid.

June 7, 2013
11:19 am
Heidi
Member
Forum Posts: 786
Member Since:
February 19, 2010
Offline

Very well said Watch Dawg x2

June 7, 2013
11:34 am
verona
Member
Forum Posts: 329
Member Since:
June 19, 2009
Offline
8
4

x3

June 7, 2013
11:36 am
Venice Rob
Member
Forum Posts: 1476
Member Since:
January 20, 2012
Offline
9
3.7

X4

June 7, 2013
9:02 pm
Marta
Member
Forum Posts: 374
Member Since:
March 29, 2010
Offline
10
4

AmorosoNate said
I'm guessing the developer already has a back-up plan for the site that profitably conforms to the VSP. I can't imagine that they put this whole plan together assuming they would get variances approved without a back-up. The more cynical or experienced on this site may disagree with me.

I have no problem with a hotel on AK, but parking is a serious problem, as is a fourth story. As we've seen with other commercial and residential development in the area, once a variance is given, it's no longer a variance. Property owners should have the right to redevelop their properties, but when they purchased the land, they knew the rules and should have incorporated those rules into the calculation of the price they paid.

I agree with everything you said.

Look, as "hip" as Abbot Kinney is, it's still not Sunset Blvd. It's one small street completely surrounded by single family homes and condos. Is it so much to ask that developers take that into consideration when designing these projects? I think a hotel on Abbot Kinney if fine, but only if it conforms to the VSP, has adequate parking for the site and is designed in a way that mitigates impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods.

 

 

June 7, 2013
9:08 pm
LifeInVenice
Oakwood
Member
Forum Posts: 112
Member Since:
August 6, 2010
Offline
11
3.7

Marta said

AmorosoNate said
I'm guessing the developer already has a back-up plan for the site that profitably conforms to the VSP. I can't imagine that they put this whole plan together assuming they would get variances approved without a back-up. The more cynical or experienced on this site may disagree with me.

I have no problem with a hotel on AK, but parking is a serious problem, as is a fourth story. As we've seen with other commercial and residential development in the area, once a variance is given, it's no longer a variance. Property owners should have the right to redevelop their properties, but when they purchased the land, they knew the rules and should have incorporated those rules into the calculation of the price they paid.

I agree with everything you said.

Look, as "hip" as Abbot Kinney is, it's still not Sunset Blvd. It's one small street completely surrounded by single family homes and condos. Is it so much to ask that developers take that into consideration when designing these projects? I think a hotel on Abbot Kinney if fine, but only if it conforms to the VSP, has adequate parking for the site and is designed in a way that mitigates impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods.

 

  I was told at a meeting about the hotel that the backup plan was more mixed-use like exists on the next block of AK. Personally I'd rather have a nice small hotel, but this one is too big.

 

June 9, 2013
12:07 am
Helio Gracie
Maui
Member
Forum Posts: 112
Member Since:
February 17, 2013
Offline
12
0

Venice WatchDawg said
Too late for what???  Joel Silver's Post Office project will not add the congestion or impact on an already crowded area like this hotel will.  Even if it is scaled back to present limits, it will be still be too much for the neighborhood. When I bought here in 1984, I knew that this was going to eventually happen, but hoped that the sane amongst us would work to guide development and the city to provide things like parking lots and shuttles here in Venice, as well as a more foresighted approach to public transportation citywide.  Instead, these same sane people spent 20 years fighting the social service lobby, the City (via 15 years of councilwoman Ruth Galanter), and a bunch of leftover hippys who were tending to "saving" Venice by maintaining it as a scary, crime-filled, beat up beach slum to make it less attractive to development, rather than take the time and effort to start planning and guide development. This is the reason that we are being faced with these sort of concerns today.  Slumification only works as long as it works, then the pendulum swings towards the other extreme, and....  well, you see what is happening.  

As for the Post Office, as deficient as it was, it was there and the only option until the internet, Fed X and UPS made it obsolete. Silver's project has much less impact than many other uses could have done. 

It is never too late to guide the future, especially if there are City processes to do so. Yes, the "old Venice" is rapidly fading, but the newer residents moved to a different place than I did in 1984.  They have a different perspective, see a considerably different place, and don't come here to live the bohemian dream of yore. This town is as, or even more, creative as it ever was. It just ain't driven by that ol' drum circle, graffiti, and macrame flower pot hanger sensibility any more.

It might have been better if we had not spent decades in conflict with the purveyors of the past and the social service lobby and their agenda of calling squalor art and crime inspiration...

 

The film industry is full of 'slippery fish'.

 

Ignore the fanboy, sycophants and ignorant fools.

 

I'll trust what you say for now. Don't let us down.

 

Pls.

 

 

http://nkla.org/
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: wp_sferrorlog

Currently Online:
36 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 32

Members: 20018

Moderators: 2

Admins: 9

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 37

Topics: 8860

Posts: 63601

Newest Members: Blake06Nqn

Moderators: ModBot: 11, CanalsAdjacent: 0

Administrators: Bret: 8421, EmilGH: 108, eric: 264, Mick: 282, Brenton: 18, Parimal Rohit: 12, Corina Mun: 5, Yo Venice Staff: 114, Evan Hazlett: 0