Waterfront - WTF
The Breeze is running an article following up on the Port's attempt to defend it's current waterfront plans at Thursday's Harbor Commission meeting. Read it here. My take on the whole situation - this project needs leadership fast, and leadership from outside POLA. I just don't think they're getting the big picture on the issues at hand - the fact that moving the Westways liquid bulk terminal isn't even in their plans. Right now, all they've put forward is a big bus stop for the cruise ship industry, who at this point seem to be their sole priority. I'm not buying it, the whole thing stinks
Quotes -
"The strategy is based on delivering public access (to the waterfront) and the cruise terminal in the shortest time possible" - Geraldine Knatz
"Where is the commitment, the vision, the passion? Where is the public soul?" said Papadakis, the restaurant owner who launched the promenade effort years ago. "It's been gutted. It's much too little and it's getting too late." - John Papadakis
"Something's changed, and I don't think it's for the best" - Janice Hahn
Lastly, notice how in the article they refer to the development as a 36 year schedule? Wasn't it supposed to be 25 years? Are we now running 10 years over-schedule with no concrete plan? Cause that's what it's looking like from here.
Quotes -
"The strategy is based on delivering public access (to the waterfront) and the cruise terminal in the shortest time possible" - Geraldine Knatz
"Where is the commitment, the vision, the passion? Where is the public soul?" said Papadakis, the restaurant owner who launched the promenade effort years ago. "It's been gutted. It's much too little and it's getting too late." - John Papadakis
"Something's changed, and I don't think it's for the best" - Janice Hahn
Lastly, notice how in the article they refer to the development as a 36 year schedule? Wasn't it supposed to be 25 years? Are we now running 10 years over-schedule with no concrete plan? Cause that's what it's looking like from here.
Labels: Harbor Commission, LA Waterfront, Port of Los Angeles
9 Comments:
It's a little ironic that Papadakis is complaining about the lack of public soul, given the plan that he's been flogging for the past few years.
And Knatz is being a little too candid for her own good, considering how much opposition there is to the idea of putting a stupid cruise terminal in the Outer Harbor in the first place.
Memo to Knatz: You might be surprised at how few people care about the Port's "position in the cruise industry." We just don't want the Outer Harbor to become another Berth 93, with megaships, parking lots and traffic, on permanent Homeland Security lockdown.
Memo to IMBG:
Who exactly is we? Speak for yourself. There a considerable amount of people in town that welcome the additional business that the expanded cruise ship terminal would provide. It's easy to take pot shots at Papdakis, but it has been his passion for improving the waterfront that got this thing on the front burner in the first place and at the end of the day there is still a lot of opportunity to have a cool waterfront that mirrors places like Seattle and Baltimore if more people would work at trying to provide solutions rather than just slamming every idea that is presented -- but after reading this blog for a while that seems to be IMBG's forte -- whine and make witty wisecracks and almost never provide constructive ideas that actually move toward finding solutions for the issues that face San Pedro. Calamari, you pointed out the obvious place we can all agree to start, which is to tear down the tank farms. There is room in this project for public access to the waterfront with good use of open space that provides recreational opportunities and retail development that will provide shopping opportunities that are currently lacking in San Pedro. Can we all somehow get off our soapboxes and ask that the Port provide us that?
How about a Borders or Barnes & Noble in Ports O' Call.
Memo to Annie 6:16 PM: I've actually posted exactly what I would want done with the most of the waterfront and a whole lot of downtown as well, along with my general thoughts on why parts of Pedro are economically depressed and what I think should be done about it. I've also explained why I don't think the waterfront is the place to make up for the "shopping opportunities that are currently lacking in San Pedro" and I've described what I think would be a better way to do it. Am I supposed to repeat it all every few weeks or months for people just tuning in? That wouldn't be very interesting to people who have already read it, so what exactly is your beef here, Mister Work-At-Trying-To-Provide-Solutions?
I really have to call shenanigans on your claim that a "considerable" number of people are pulling for another cruise ship terminal. A lot of the conflict in town right now IMHO is because a handful of local businesspeople--like fifty or fewer--have decided to pin their future hopes on a heavily tourist-directed business model. And they refuse to accept the fact that the the residents of Pedro by and large are not willing to sacrifice their quality of life or the uniqueness of their town or the placidity of the Outer Harbor so that this handful can make their money in that particular way.
Of all the people I've talked to about this, with their varying opinions on what to do with the waterfront, nobody wants this cruise terminal.
Based on the people I have spoken with around town about this (those who actually live in SP, as opposed to those who make their profits here), I agree with what IMBG says about the cruise terminal and tourist-based commercialism.
Does anyone know what is wrong with keeping the cruise ship terminal right where it is? I sure don't.
What is wrong with allowing the free market, business owners along Nagoya Way, and the Chamber of Commerce from dealing with retail in that area. If businesses are meant to survive, they will.
To be more like Seattle, all we probably would need to do is move the Grand Central Market from downtown Los Angeles to wharfside, here is San Pedro.
To be more like Baltimore, we would probably need to move the oldest commissioned ship in the U.S. Navy to this coast.
Why would we want to be like those two cities in the first place?
My wife and I liked the idea of redevelopment enough along the water, so we participated in several workshops and meetings involving B2B.
That act fell through and the current act has too many questions and opponents, it seems, to go forward.
If tourist-directed businesses wish to fund the redevelopment, they must first consider how that redevelopment may impact the entire community and whether it is also beneficial to the majority of the members of the community.
If folks want to "doctor" the port area, they should remember the most important part: First, do no harm.
MW
Does anyone know what is wrong with keeping the cruise ship terminal right where it is? I sure don't.
The Port isn't planning to move the cruise terminal to the Outer Harbor; it wants to build a new terminal in the O.H. in addition to the one at Berth 93.
To be more like Seattle, all we probably would need to do is move the Grand Central Market from downtown Los Angeles to wharfside, here is San Pedro.
To be more like Baltimore, we would probably need to move the oldest commissioned ship in the U.S. Navy to this coast.
To be anything remotely like Baltimore, Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Barcelona or any of the other cities that some highly misguided (but often well-meaning) people keep insisting we imitate, we would have to take the entirety of downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and everything in between and move it all twenty miles south. Those cities have their cultural and financial centers right next to, or surrounded by, the water. Los Angeles doesn't. That's the very reason that San Pedro exists as a culturally distinct place.
This weird strain of me-tooism ("Why can't we be more like [name of totally incongruous, huge metropolis]?") that has infected the thinking of some prominent San Pedrans, not all of whom are hucksters, is really puzzling. It's also really burdensome, insofar as it saps imaginative energy that might be spent coming up with realistic, appropriately scaled projects that would serve people who live here rather than phantom tourists.
Thanks imbg, for letting me know about the cruise ship terminal. I guess I was just thinking nobody would be stupid enough to build a second cruise ship terminal. My bad.
I don't feel we need to be like anywhere else. Let San Pedro remain San Pedro and let's forget about becoming something we shouldn't be.
MW
IMBG makes more good points about SP as a culturally distinct place and NOT like the other cities that are frequently spouted in this debate. Pedro for PEDRANS. Helloooo, are you listening powers that be..
Post a Comment
<< Home