La Piazza on the Fisherman's Slip
"More San Pedro" ran an article on Dec 17th (page 3) promoting the La Piazza project that the Italian-American community proposes to build on the San Pedro waterfront.
Their concept includes a convention center/theater/restaurant complex centered on an open town square plaza. It would be a cultural center for "the entire community to gather, exchange ideas and talk..." However, the site that they covet is immediately adjacent to (south of) the Fisherman's Slip, and the article quoted a project leader stating "Right now, this area is scary. You have no reason to go there unless you are a fisherman." The writer further explains that the 140,000 square-foot building would be "wedged" into this site, with a pedestrian bridge connecting it to Ports O'Call. I do not hear much respect for the site in this description.
Many San Pedroids recognize the Fisherman's Slip as one of the most interesting, historically significant remnants of our waterfront, and want to see it preserved in it's authentic function. Can the old-world Italian-American community be made to understand and embrace new-world preservation goals? I say the Fisherman's Slip isn't scary, it's home.
Their concept includes a convention center/theater/restaurant complex centered on an open town square plaza. It would be a cultural center for "the entire community to gather, exchange ideas and talk..." However, the site that they covet is immediately adjacent to (south of) the Fisherman's Slip, and the article quoted a project leader stating "Right now, this area is scary. You have no reason to go there unless you are a fisherman." The writer further explains that the 140,000 square-foot building would be "wedged" into this site, with a pedestrian bridge connecting it to Ports O'Call. I do not hear much respect for the site in this description.
Many San Pedroids recognize the Fisherman's Slip as one of the most interesting, historically significant remnants of our waterfront, and want to see it preserved in it's authentic function. Can the old-world Italian-American community be made to understand and embrace new-world preservation goals? I say the Fisherman's Slip isn't scary, it's home.
24 Comments:
Based upon my knowledge of the proposed La Piazza project, it essentially consists of a completely theoretical development that exists in no capacity other than as a series of concept drawings. This idea has made the rounds for a while now, and they have proposed it for other sites in the past, as well. I've never had any impression that the Italian-American community is behind this proposal, I've always been under the impression that it is essentially one man's proposal, and he's looking for community support.
I also find it hard to support any project that proposes to replace or do the job that the Warner Grand could and should be doing. We already have what has the potential to be a world class theatre in San Pedro, and I'm a lot more interested in plans that re-vitalise our existing cultural assets rather than ones that duplicate the intended function of existing assets. One of the big issues in any commercial development of the waterfront is to make sure that we don't further the economic decline of downtown Pedro.
While I do believe that Fisherman's Slip isn't always the most welcoming area (what's up with fishermen being so high strung?), I feel that it better damn well be integrated into any development plans.
Oh, and welcome aboard Redrider!
I take a walk down there almost every fucking night on my "lunch" break. And I work nights. Scary, my ass.
Maybe we can all chip in and buy a patch of land out in the desert where all these local wingnuts can go build their stately pleasure-domes. This guy and the "Statue of Responsibility" guy could perhaps collaborate on a project (big statues of themselves?), and Jack Baric could go and produce his fantasy TV Christmas special out there on location. Problem solved!
IMBG has a great idea! Seconded! All in favor?
LOL!
The "Statue of Responsibility" alawys reminds me of the fictional "Colossus of Yorba Linda", a proposed gold plated statue of Nixon, facing China, thumbing his nose, from one of Robert Anton Wilson's books (can't for the life of me remember which one). Thanks for reminding me of that lemon.
It's interesting how people sometimes want to invent institutions out of whole cloth. I'm always skepitcal of any proposed community projects that begin with architectural drawings, and vauge fantasies of function. Maybe it's just because I develop and manage community programming for a living, that I believe if you are going to make a proposal for something that is of benefit to the community, you start with the progamming for the facility first. If this guy's proposal is serious (and any citizen has the right to make outlandish, visionary proposals), he's going to have to get away from the drawing board and see what the community's (not just the Italian community, too) needs and desires are. The proposed Piazza always seems centered around an opera house - is there an outstanding community demand for an opera house that I'm just totally ignorant of?
You guys are great.
The Port staff is supporting these guys in return for their appearing at public meetings , and, I assume, lobbying in private, to support the Port's "plan".
As far as I can tell, they are there to represent the "silent majority" (did you see Mike Lansing's letter yesterday?) that supports the Port's predetermined agenda.
What you say rings true calamari. I know how hard it is to get just 3 people together to discuss anything more abstract or pressing than the source of their next meal or paycheck. Grand visions are fun, and can be created by one (or two, over cocktails). My anxiety over the possible gilding over of the Fisherman's Slip is reduced, but I'll continue to keep an eye on things…
If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much room.
RedRider
The "Colossus of Yorba Linda" was somewhere in the Illuminatus Trilogy.
I have to ask Noel on behalf of those of us not in the know, what is the port 'plan' that you allude to?
As usual, it seems as though much gets done(or blocked) in this town out of sheer activism instead of the mechanism of commerce.
I'm not Noel, but I think it's safe to assume in this case that he's referring to the Port's preferred version of the Los Angeles Waterfront project, formerly known as the Bridge to Breakwater project. Alternatively known, to those of us in the know, as the Cruise Ship Terminal to Cruise Ship Terminal / Waterfront Megamall / Pike Envy / Marina Del Pedro project.
If it's true what Noel is saying about the Port scratching the backs of the La Piazza supporters in exchange for their presence at public meetings, it might at least partially explain the sudden appearance of all those aging Euro-shills at the last CEQA scoping meeting this last fall.
anon - I'm not sure it's in the Illuminatus Trilogy, for some reason I think it's in the Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy, the Colossus, that is.
I've always had the impression that the keystone to San Pedro's planning and development problems is an overexaggerated "squeaky wheel gets the grease" syndrome, where the city, Port and community's actions are largely determined by who whines the most. As someone who feels strongly in the power of an informed citizenry to develop consensus through a more rational process, it is my #1 turn-off when it comes to participating in any public process.
IMBG - I don't think that the "maximum development alternative" is what the Port actually wants to implement, I think it's solely a political move to make their preferred plan appear to be a more middle of the road option. As opposed to the minimum development alternative put forward by members of the community, which I believe is a plan that the genuinely desire to see implemented, rather than a barganing move intended to move the development in their direction. It's difficult to respect the Port's intentions when their tactics are so obviously contrived and their attempts to manipulate and control the debate are so transparent, making their unwillingness to actually particpate in the debate all the more apparent.
Right now, my impression is that the Port is reaching out to anyone that they see as a potential development ally, regardless of that potential ally's track record or the viability of their intentions. There are elements of the business community that are natural allies for the Port's development proposals, but it is sad to see that the their community support largely consists of ringers and shills.
Does anyone know if the La Piazza boosters have raised any dollars. If I recall correctly, the More article glossed over this point, saying something like the project supporters will approach wealthy Italian-Americans.
Cali, not only do I agree with you about the Max Development Alternative plan being a gimmick to make the preferred plan look like a "compromise," I've said so on the record at the public meetings last year. Although I have no doubt that if they had the opportunity to actually build the Max Dev Alt, they would gladly do it.
I also think that the Neighborhood Councils were far too timid (or just too compromised) when it came to scaling down the project for their Reduced Development Alternative. The Red Dev Alt is still a monstrosity, just a slightly smaller one.
The total lack of hard data in the More article most likely reflects the absence of that data. On a project like this, if they had potential funders in place or any real motion on the project had occured, the group proposing the project would be promoting the heck out of it. My understanding is that they have not engaged in any public fundraising process, although they have been shopping the project around, and may have some key initial funders in mind. Given the nature of their proposed process, fundraising/life of the construction phase of the project would work something like this:
1) Develop and promote the project to the community and interested parties. Early fundraising research and the creation of relationships woth potential major fundraisers would start at this time, as well.
2) Secure a site for potential development. This would consist of a conditional lease on the proposed site.
3) Begin fundraising. The active fundraising phase would usually begin with the announcement of some major funds from key donors, to kick-off the process.
4) At some point in the fundraising process, usually outlined in the lease, construction on the actual project would begin.
Note: that's a real general description of a potential process, there are a number of other ways to do it, but that would be pretty typical for what is being presented as a cultural asset. The most likely alternative method would be to privately develop it as a convention center, with the funding coming in the form of loans & a corporation being formed to operate the property.
I'd be pretty suprised if the generosity of the Italian American community could support the development of a project of this size in San Pedro. Also by focusing on the Italian American community, they run the risk of alienating non-Italian Americans to some degree, so in order for the project to be properly funded, they have to have extremely strong support in that community to move forward within a reasonable time frame.
Another key fundraising angle would be the focus of the project. If they were to frame the project around an opera house, as they have suggested, there is an extremely viable fundraising base in the community that consumes live opera, if that community sees a distinct need for additional opera facilities in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area, which I don't think is an outstanding need at this time, but what do I know about opera. I do know that large performing arts venues have massive overhead, and an opera house in San Pedro would likely require a yearly operating budget of several million dollars, if not in the tens of millions. So that's a lot of hurdles and ifs there.
Although this project is attracting some media attention, and the Port may be helping put it out there to curry favour with the community, I don't see it as particularily viable, either from an economic standpoint, or from the perspective of community demand. On of the problems with developing facilities and services based in ethnic communities is that the most hardcore supporters and boosters of those projects often live in an ethnic bubble that clouds their ability to see the need or demand for the project outside of that bubble.
I'm not necessarily against the Piazza concept either. I am somewhat against it being built on public or Port land, as my experiences with ethnically oriented cultural facilities have been pretty negative, and I think they are usually operated on a basis of exclusivity, rather than inclusiveness. I'm also concerned that it doesn't seem to have any defined programming vision, and that it could fail miserably in execution, based upon what I've seen of it so far.
My opposition to the commercial development along the waterfront lies mainly in my personal belief that the retail construction cycle has a tendency to go through phases of failure that eventually leave the properties that once seemed to boom as wasting hulks, filled with muzak. Look at Del Amo Mall - It has been in decline for 20 years and only now is it getting a potentially successful revamp. Also, if you look at the timeline of the proposed commercial development along the waterfront, I have a feeling that so much of the retail sector will have moved online that the project will not be viable both at the time of its construction, and in the years following.
I cannot agree with your assessement of the population of San Pedro. I know too many people who make their living by "brute force" and I have lived too close to the bottom of the economic scale to have much sympathy for your perception and experience. I also know too many longshoremen and wannabe longshoremen to believe that the Port is sending a message to youth that all you need is a high school education to get into the union and start making fat cash. If anyone created that illusion, it would be the union families themselves. I've known too many shiftless, lazy young people who've been foolish enough to presume that they somehow are entitled to a lifetime of what they see as easy money, and I've seen how far they don't go in life when they realise that the opportunity that they envisioned as their birthright is not garunteed.
I also must disagree that Palos Verdes is a good example of the preservation of open space. I grew up there, in the 80s, and much of the open space that I treasured as a child, I now treasure only in memories. The continued efforts to develop the coastal side of PV Drive have destroyed not only essential native plant and animal habitats, but has replaced one of Los Angeles great views with McMansions and a golf course. Although the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy has done some excellent work, I feel that it is only the uncooperative geographical landscape that has prevented the total development of the Peninsula.
My concern about downtown is valid. It is inefficient to develop resources which duplicate resources that already exist, even more so when those resources are underutilised. There are dozens of opportunities for entrepenurial spirits to create new business and develop new medium or high density housing in downtown, and those opportunities are not being acted upon. Why should I believe that creating a huge amount of commercial square footage in any waterfront development will not only fail to attract users, but will also further weaken both Downtown San Pedro and the Pacific Corridor as shopping districts. I'd rather see some creative new uses and users in the historical shopping districts than an attempt to develop a new one out of whole cloth, while abandoning those areas.
I am very pro-development, and probably one of the least reactionary voices in this dialogue. My entire professional work at this point is centered around the development of Angels Gate Cultural Center and the park in which it operates, so it would be hypocritical of me to be against the development of open space on principle. As a businessman operating in Downtown San Pedro, I am extremely enthusiastic about improving both the commercial and residential density of that district as part of a long term revitalisation of the community as a whole. My opposition to much of what has been proposed on the waterfront lies in what I see as a poor planning process, that is without the kind of great vision that a real waterfront development, serving both the needs of San Pedro and the region. I'm fully in support of the complete re-development of the waterfront, but I'm not interested in supporting a massive commercial development, because I don't think that's a particularily exciting or development.
Peteraslocke: at the risk of seeming to display some of the low-prole machismo that so abrades your refined sensibilities, may I suggest that instead of hoping to transform San Pedro, through development, into a place where you won't have to rub shoulders with smelly blue-collar workers and the wretched poor, you simply relocate to a community that already meets your social standards? After all, it's not as though we ill-educated longshore types are particularly thrilled to have snotty people like you as neighbors, either.
Or am I asking too much of you, financially speaking? Could it be that your high hopes for Pedro stem not only from a heartfelt passion for the place and its potential, but just as much (or maybe more) from the grim realization that the sort of community where you'd really like to live--orderly; well-kept; a bit "urban" in a harmless, Universal Citywalk sort of way; free alike of slope-browed union members and unwashed unemployables--is now hopelessly out of your price range? If so, then I'm afraid that you are no more likely to be rid of us thuggish dockworkers in the near future than we are of you; after all, even a massive spurt of gentrification in Pedro will require a few years to complete the process of economic cleansing usually attendant upon such a change.
So in the meantime, if it's not feasible for you to escape, is it not at least possible for you to learn to live alongside your social inferiors--maybe even appreciate them a little bit, warts and all? Who knows; by the time the last one of us packs up and moves to Lomita, you may even miss us a little bit.
Or am I asking too much of you, non-financially speaking? ;)
IMBG at 11:48 PM:
That's right. I was referring the the so-called B to B "Plan". Your characterization of it is perfect.
Calamari at 9:56 AM:
Yor analysis of the "planning" "process" is the same as mine, particularly your comment on the scoping meeting.
I know almost nothing about "La Piazza", and have no personal animosity toward those involved. How could I, I don't even know who they are?
However, the feverish activity of the Port staff in putting forward anyone they can find to support their predetermined "plan" is clear for anyone who participates to see.
That's why Mike Lansing's invoking of the "Silent Majority" set me off.
If my simple little comment had anything to do with bringing forward this brillinat series of comments, I am humbly proud. This is the sort of discussion we desperately need about the future of our community.
Well done Life On The Edge!
What's funny about all this is the different perceptions of what San Pedro's "problems" are.
PeterAsLocke - I want to walk around and, when I come across a stranger, trust him to be reasonable and leave me in peace. With places like Beacon House and the projects peppering the city, and with the high concentration of workers who survive more by brute strength and a take-what-you-can-grab mentality than reason and cooperation, we're far from being there.
The kind of elitist twats who not only think, but unashamed publicly state the above, or suggest that "the only way San Pedro can evolve into a kinder, gentler place" is for "poor folk on welfare [to] go away" are the problem. These benevolent thieves and cowards who won't be happy until San Pedro becomes PV East, or Little Torrance and nothing but smiling white faces cross their paths are the problem.
When I'm evicted from town by pricks like these and living next to IMBG in Lomita, I imagine that life for the survivors in San Pedro will be just beautiful. People will come from all over Los Angeles county to walk it's squeaky clean streets and buy a comfy pair of Capri pants at the GAP, and gawk at the big boats.
You know, until they rid the port of all that unsightly commercial harbor traffic, and clear the way for their pleasure craft.
Cocksuckers.
Sorry I am not as civilized as most of the other participants. I'm just a renter, what do you expect?
phillip 1:54 PM:
Sorry to be so slow.
AYE!
19 comments? Outstanding!
Put down the guns. What's clear here is that we all feel very passionately about our community, and that we all would like to see things change for the better. We can all agree that Pedro is a place that is already changing, and that we are all concerned that the changes that are in process or proposed be steps forward.
There aren't any right anwsers or superior moral positions here, so let's not try to murder each other over differences in opinion.
Don't squirm, Pete, and don't backpedal. It's unseemly. You need not use the word "undesirable" to convey the idea that you feel besieged by undesirables. You did so clearly enough in this passage:
It'd be unrealistic to believe that big dumb machisimo (a product of both the port and gang culture), the drug addicts, the crazies, and poor folk on welfare will go away anytime soon [...]
That and your sniveling about having to live near longshoremen and other such brutes make your own position clear; that's why you got the response you got. To sputter "but...but...you're a REVERSE ELITIST!" at anybody who criticizes you for your snottiness is disingenuous and lame.
I know you fancy yourself a complex and nuanced type, Pete--you've gotten that across unambiguously enough--but take it from me when I tell you that there's no "big, dumb machismo" involved in standing behind your own comments. You know damned well, and so do we, that you think some of the more prole-ish elements of the community are undesirable. Why not come right out and use the word?
Thank you Calamari, 3:18 PM
The challenge is to try to channel the resources of the Port into improving our community for ALL of us who live here, and not to turn it into an overbuilt Marina Del Rey.
For example, our Homeowners Coalition has proposed in comments on many Port EIRs that, in mitigation for the blighting impacts of industrial expansion, the Port establish a fund to provide grants and/or low interest loans to people in the Pacific Corridor redevelopment area, and in south Wilmington, to rehabilitate and fix up their homes and small businesses. This has been greeted witha crashing silence, but the idea is out there. This is only one idea. The point is that there has to be some recognition of the years of unmitigated environmental impacts.
Similarly, waterfront development sholuld improve the quality of life in the existing communities. It should not be a typical Southern California honeypot for developers and corporate business interests.
They love to drive wedges between various groups in the community, and then pronounce whoever agrees with them to be the "silent majority".
Ben Franklin said that: "If we do not hang together, assuredly we shall all hang separately." Let's try to hang together as much as we can in the face of the common challenge.
Again, many thanks to you guys for engaging so thoughtfully on these issues.
PeterAsLocke unconvincingly whined:
"Y'know, there are all sorts of psychosocial forces at play here that make it so I can proclaim a love of reason and cooperation in a forum, and I get labeled an elitist."
Your imaginary "love of reason and cooperation" didn't get you labeled as an elitist, your elitism did. Stop trying to run away from it. Own it. If you don't, no one will take anything you have to say seriously.
Oh, I don't doubt for a minute that there are some forces at play here. But they're not "psychosocial," they're just, erm, psychological. To put it as politely as possible.
How else to explain a man who introduces himself by expressing regret that "poor folks" etc. won't "go away any time soon," crudely insulting an entire region's workforce, and suggesting that his neighbors can't be trusted with open space, and then gets all aggrieved and petulant when nobody recognizes him as the promoter of understanding and reconciliation that he clearly imagines himself to be?
Not that I don't welcome our new colleague Pete to the fold. Every online community needs its own fruitloop. And hey, who knows? Maybe he really is too good for us. How would we know, right? "A prophet is not despised save in his own country," etc. (That's a quote from Jesus, another really smart guy whose community didn't deserve him.)
Post a Comment
<< Home