Metro's Hollywood & Vine Station needs a Bike HUB!

The Metro's CEO, Art Leahy, refers to the Hollywood & Vine Metro Station as "a flagship transit HUB, one that should set the standard for the Metro's comprehensive transportation system." Gatehouse Capital refers to its W Hollywood Hotel & Residences Development as "a glamorous venue, one that will seduce you - mind, body and soul." Legacy Partners refers to its 1600 Vine Residential/Retail development as 1600 Vine as "a truly unique living experience full of comfort, urban conveniences, and contemporary amenities in one of Los Angeles’ most renowned locations."

Collectively, Hollywood & Vine is LA's largest Transit Oriented Development and it became a reality after a decade of grappling that saw the Metro, the CRA, the City of LA, the LADOT, the Chamber of Commerce, lawyers, developers, investors, activists, neighborhood councils, artists, merchants, and neighbors all working to protect their interest in one of the most iconic intersections on earth. Now that the dust has cleared, the awesome magnitude of the Hollywood & Vine TOD has become the standard for future Transit Oriented Development projects.

I think that's a problem.

For all of the celebratory ribbon cutting, soft focus photo opps and champagne toasts, the details matter and the Hollywood & Vine TOD is missing some significant details that go a long way to demonstrating a commitment to people who walk, who ride a bike, who simply want to enjoy public space and who believe that a TOD is something more than an interchange, that it is a significant place, one that is made for people.

Missing from the Hollywood & Vine project is a Bike HUB, a community benefit that is provided by the Metro, the CRA, Gatehouse Capital, and Legacy Partners. This simple commitment to supporting cyclists goes a long way to demonstrating a commitment to TOD projects which purportedly serve cyclists, pedestrians, mass transit passengers and the immediate community.

1) The Hollywood & Vine project has overbuilt on its motor vehicle parking requirements, demonstrating a bias that encourages vehicle trips instead of working to reducing congestion by reducing the number of generated vehicle trips.

2) The Hollywood & Vine project has failed to provide the bike parking as required by LA's Municipal Code, a fact that failed to trigger a response from Building & Safety, a department that never invokes any bike parking minimums in spite of the law.

3) The Hollywood & Vine project unfolded over several years and during that time, the community requested a Community Car Share program, a Community Bike Share program, and a Community delivery service but none of the promises turned into reality. 

4) The Hollywood & Vine project received concessions and funding and legal support (eminent domain) based on its claims of a positive impact on the community, the economy, the traffic, and the quality of life as a whole for those who live in Hollywood, those who work in Hollywood and those who visit Hollywood.

5) The Hollywood & Vine project claims to be a Transit Oriented Development, a designation that includes a commitment to cyclists, pedestrians, vibrant street life and a connectivity to the community.

All of this being said, I look at the two-thirds of a billion dollar H'wood & Vine TOD Fortress and I ask "Where's the Bike HUB?"

I propose that the Metro and the CRA and Gatehouse Capital and Legacy Partners get together and immediately implement a Bike HUB program at Hollywood & Vine and I've got the location already selected. (There are actually three great locations, one on Hollywood Blvd., one on Argyle, and this great location on Vine)

Imagine a Bike HUB on Vine Ave., a bike shop for locals where cyclists can work on their bikes as well as store them in a secured environment. The Bike HUB could also offer a Bike Share for locals and a Bike Rental for tourists. In addition, the Bike HUB could serve as a Visitor's Center for tourists who simply need info on the neighborhood. Good for cyclists, good for the residents, good for the tourists, good for business and great for transit, offering Metro passengers a "last mile" option.

There are many iterations of the Bike HUB concept, from city-sponsored and more city-sponsored to artistic eco-storage to on-campus facilities to sophisticated spa facilities with showers, lockers, and masseuse to the bike storage robot, they all offer variations of bike repair support, secure bike storage, bike-share or bike-rentals, education, encouragement, and helpful information on the surrounding community. Los Angeles is surrounded by great examples of bike co-ops including the Bicycle Kitchen, BikeRoWave, the Bike Oven and the Bikery. There is also the Bikestation organization with facilities in Long Beach and Covina and Claremont.

Last week's Urban Land Institute TOD Summit featured politicians, transit operators, bureaucrats, developers, lawyers, planners, and advocates, all clamoring to keep their place at the table as LA's 30/10 plan for putting $40 Billion to work on a dozen mega transit projects picks up steam. There in the mix was Andréa White-Kjoss, President and CEO of the Bikestation, working to remind the Summit attendees to keep things in perspective, that the high altitude funding and planning will only succeed if the vision is kept centered on the experience of the individual, the person who walks or rides a bike or shops at the store or meets friends in the public space.

It is imperative that we set professional standards for active transportation and that we firmly establish "last-mile" elements into any TOD programming. The folks at Bikestation have a strong support track record for providing innovative solutions to unique transit opportunities and Hollywood is the capital of innovation and opportunity.

Now, more than ever, it's important that we set a standard at the Hollywood & Vine TOD, that we firmly establish a standard for a Bike HUB and that we make it a robust success, with the support of professionals such as the folks at Bikestation, with the support of the Metro and the CRA, with the support of Gatehouse and Legacy, and with the support of the community.

What happens in Hollywood will set the course for the future.

Trader Joe’s sets a TOD Standard - Bike Parking!

It’s been a little more than three weeks since Enci sent the tweet heralding the arrival of Trader Joe’s in Hollywood but lamenting the fact that it would be sans Bike Racks. The Tweeps responded, the news spread through the Facebook crowd, and Trader Joe’s started getting phone calls. Lots of them.

It would seem that convenient, safe, and effective Bike Parking would be the norm, not the exception but such was not the case and so the battle unfolded, with Enci calling for a boycott and Trader Joe’s playing dumb.

Trader Joe’s, like any large company, organization, bureaucracy, has mad skills in the fine art of the “Anyone but me!” line of defense when dealing with the public, the customer, the stakeholder, the reason for their existence. They went to work.

They started by blaming their failure to provide Bike Racks on the City of LA, claiming that it required a permit and that it would be completely inappropriate to put bike racks on Vine, in front of the building. I pointed out that it was not true.

They then shifted the responsibility to their Landlord, Legacy Partners, saying that it was the developers responsibility to put in Bike Racks, not theirs. I again pointed out that it was not true.

I spoke to Legacy Partners, attempting to remove any obstacles, and was informed that Bike Racks on the street would be a problem for aesthetic reasons. I pointed out that the building would look a lot nicer if it was surrounded by people, bikes, signs of life! Legacy then changed tack, claiming that their Development Agreement with the Metro and the CRA forbid Bike Racks. I pointed out that it was not true.

I spoke to the Metro, they had no prohibition against Bike Racks and unfortunately, they also had no requirement in the Development Agreement for Bike Racks.

I spoke to the CRA, they had no prohibition against Bike Racks and, again unfortunately, they had no requirement in the Development Agreement for Bike Racks.

I spoke to LA’s City Council President Eric Garcetti, pointing out that LA’s largest Transit Oriented Development opened with no Bike Racks, all in violation of LAMC 12.21-A16. He smiled and said that they had a great plan for centralized bike parking somewhere else on the W Hollywood’s four and half acre lot. I pointed out that it was not true.

Somehow LA’s largest Transit Oriented Development made it all the way to the finish line with no Bike Parking standard in place for tenants, even though the City of LA requires it.

Somehow the Metro, the CRA, the City of LA, Gatehouse Capital and Legacy Partners are able to put Federal, State, County, City money to work developing the neighborhood, yet do it with complete contempt for the people who don’t arrive in a motor vehicle.

It’s been two weeks since the TJ’s in Hollywood opened, it’s been two days since Director of Construction installed the Bike Racks. They look great and they are a victory for a few reasons.

*We’ve got Bike Racks and can lift the boycott! Now we can shop at Trader Joe’s!

*We’ve established a Bike Parking standard for the Trader Joe’s Corporation! No Wave or Wheelbender Bike Racks, simple inverted-U racks that are properly installed and spaced and protected and accessible and visible and convenient and effective. This is the Bike Rack Standard for Trader Joe’s.

*We’ve established a Bike Parking standard for the Metro and for the CRA. Transit Oriented Development must have a Bike Parking standard for the project as a whole and for the tenants. Centralized Bike Parking is a non-starter, a figment of Garcetti’s imagination, implausible, unacceptable, a simple violation of the “convenient and practical” rule that governs design.

*We’ve established a Bike Parking standard for the neighborhood.

This is not the first time Enci has tangled with the City or with Property Managers over Bike Parking. There was the City National Plaza and their threat to impound bikes, there was the Museum Square incident that saw her bike booted and there was the successful Bike Rack campaign at LAPD Headquarters.

From the Los Angeles Municipal Code: (LAMC 12.21-A. 16)

16. Bicycle Parking and Shower Facilities. (Added by Ord. No. 167,409, Eff. 12/19/91.) Off-street parking spaces for bicycles and facilities for employee showers and lockers shall be provided as follows:

(a) In the C and M zones, for any building, portion thereof or addition thereto used for non-residential purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet, bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of two percent of the number of automobile parking spaces required by this section for such non-residential uses; provided, however, that at least one bicycle parking space shall be provided for any such building having a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet of non-residential use. If the calculation of the number of required spaces under this paragraph results in a number including a fraction, the next highest whole number shall be the number of spaces required.

(b) The bicycle parking space requirements in Paragraph (a) shall also apply to any building, regardless of zone, owned by the City of Los Angeles and used by the City for government purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet.

(c) All bicycle parking spaces required by this Subdivision shall include a stationary parking device which adequately supports the bicycle. In addition, at least half of the bicycle parking spaces shall include a stationary parking device which securely locks the bicycle without the use of a user-supplied cable or chain. Devices which hold the bicycle upright by wheel contact must hold at least 180 degrees of wheel arc.

(d) Each bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of two feet in width and six feet in length and shall have a minimum of six feet of overhead clearance.

(e) Bicycle parking spaces shall be located no farther than the distance from a main entrance of the building to the nearest off-street automobile parking space.

(f) Bicycle parking spaces shall be separated from automobile parking spaces or aisles by a wall, fence, or curb or by at least five feet of open space marked to prohibit parking.

(g) Aisles providing access to bicycle parking spaces shall be at least five feet in width.

(h) Signage which is clearly legible upon approach to every automobile entrance to the parking facility shall be displayed indicating the availability and location of bicycle parking.

(i) Showers and lockers shall be provided as required by Section 91.6307 of this Code. (Amended by Ord. No. 177,103, Eff. 12/18/05.)

Trader Joe's - Weak on Bike Week!

Friday morning's Grand Opening of the new Trader Joe's in Hollywood was a joyous occasion for many but for the cycling community it was a vivid demonstration of how invisible cyclists are in the customer mix. There were no bike racks to be found in spite of the fact that the Trader Joe's is located at the southeast corner of LA's largest Transit Oriented Development, a project that purportedly caters to cyclists and pedestrians by combining density with convenience. (unless you're the kind of cyclist who actually uses a bike and then "never mind!")

This was also Bike Week, adding insult to energy, and cyclists had just experienced ten days of very effective, fair trade, shade grown, dolphin safe, handmade bullshit from Trader Joe's and a completely insulting and meandering journey with regards to responsibility.

Trader Joe's had argued vehemently and consistently that it was merely the Tenant and that the Landlord was responsible for bike parking, that the Tenant was limited in its ability to improve the property and that it was out of their control. Christie Hughes finally conceded and agreed to install bike racks at the Trader Joe's, just like the bike racks at other Trader Joe's. I cautioned her against repeating the mistakes of the past and urged her to hire a professional, after all, everything else is done by profesionals, why not bike racks?

Legacy Partners, the Landlord, argued that it was not responsible for installing bike racks and that Trader Joe's was responsible for all improvements but that bike racks could not be installed outside the Trader Joe's entrance and under the sign because "We're limited by the DDA with the Metro and the CRA." The Development Agreement purportedly addressed things like bike racks and "limited" the authority of the Landlord and the Tenant but Ed Kirk, VP of Legacy Partners, agreed to investigate before simply forbidding bike racks on the outside of the building.

The Metro, owner of the land under the W Hollywood compound and the authority holding the 99 year lease, was blamed for the DDA that might serve as an obstacle to the installation of Bike Racks but the proverbial hot potato left the hands of Greg Angelo, Metro's Director of Real Estate, as soon as he heard that the Metro was being offered up as opposed to bike parking.

The California Redevelopment Agency (CRA) was also offered as an obstacle because of the Development Agreement but Kip Rudd of the CRA was at the Trader Joe's ribbon cutting and he chuckled when asked about any DDA prohibition against bike parking. "Who told you that? The CRA is a proponent of bike parking and has three streetscape improvement projects for Hollywood that include bike parking."

That left the City of Los Angeles as the bike parking obstacle. At every turn, from Christie Hughes to Trader Joe's Director of Construction Rich Adachi, I heard about the City of Los Angeles and the mythological need to get a permit in order to install bike racks. Granted, Trader Joe's is on Hollywood's Walk of Fame, but my proposed location for the exterior bike parking is under the Trader Joe's sign on their property, not on the sidewalk. In fact, the City of LA has a municipal code that requires bike parking, it just lacks the political will to implement or enforce its own code.

As for Political Will, City Council President Eric Garcetti arrived on Friday morning to cut the ribbon and to present the Trader Joe's management with a resolution welcoming them to the neighborhood. When I spoke to Garcetti and pointed out that the largest TOD in Los Angeles had failed to include bike parking in its program, in spite of its purpurted commitment to active transportation. (I thought the "new urbanist" lingo might resonate!) He continued to smile and nod and I got more specific, pointing out that the City of LA was a development partner with the folks responsible for the largest TOD in LA and yet their were no bike racks. How can there be a standard for TOD developments funded with public money that does not specify a minimum for bike racks?

The W Hollywood is LA's largest TOD and its development partners include the Metro, the CRA, the City of Los Angeles, and the funding comes from sources that include the Federal Government and the State of California. This project is encumbered by rules and restrictions and regulations thick enough to choke an invasion of developers and heavy enough to sink a fleet of developers and yet Gatehouse Capital and Legacy Partners prevailed. They are to be commended for their perseverance in what was a decade long bureaucratic journey to the proverbial ribbon cutting.

At the same time, they fell short, way short. Their tenants followed suit.

Along the way, cyclists discovered that when push comes to shove, Bike Week is a token gesture that comes with no real conviction or support. Be clear on this, from the Feds to the State of California to the Metro to the CRA to the City of Los Angeles, facilities for cyclists are so low on the list of priorities that they fail to register. Cyclists will count when cyclists demand to be counted.

It ain't over!

CityWatchLA - Hollywood’s W Hotel Ushers in the Golden Age of TOD … Deception

CityWatch, Apr 13, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 29

The W Hollywood Hotel & Residences is finally open, bringing over a decade of architectural and political alchemy to a conclusion, resulting in LA's largest inhabitable mixed-use Billboard Development, also referred to as a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) or as they say in Hollywood, Transit Disoriented Development (TDD).

Blessing the corner of Hollywood and Vine and perched neatly atop the Metro's Hollywood & Vine Red Line Station, the W Hollywood celebrated its long awaited arrival with a  ribbon cutting ceremony that featured some of LA's finest spokesmodels, including Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Ryan Seacrest, most of whom arrived in motor vehicles and availed themselves of the TOD-obligatory valet parking. (Two locations - Hollywood Boulevard or Argyle Avenue!) Since then, the valets have maintained their presence, standing like little soldiers outside Delphine and at the W Hotel front door, inside the Motor Court.

Mixed-Use and TOD projects such as the "W" are considered a blessing by the New Urbanists who subscribe to the mythology of LA's unique style of TOD but a curse by the detractors who have failed to drink the TOD Kool-Aid which is quite tasty at first but typically comes with a 99-year long bitter aftertaste that lingers well after the developer has left town.

Theoretically, this TOD project brings human density and robust economic activity along with lifestyle choices that will concentrate activity in the Hollywood and Vine hub while allowing people to avail themselves of the rich mass transit and people powered transportation opportunities, reducing the need for single occupant motor vehicles and the corresponding vast amounts of vehicle parking.

Then again, there's reality.

In fact, much of the W Hollywood Hotel & Residences journey has been one of "the theoretical vs. the reality" and while it remains to be seen whether the reality is of greater positive impact than the theoretical, it doesn't look good. In fact, it looks bleak. Based on results, often harsh but always fair, the W Hollywood Hotel & Residences does little to encourage any of the purported benefits of TOD projects and instead encourages the very behavior and negative impacts that TOD proponents fight to discourage.

It's been months since I stood on the sidewalk with Marty Collins, the CEO of Gatehouse Capital, the developer (along with Legacy Partners) of the project and the guy who brought in the W Hollywood as the anchor tenant. He purportedly owns a condo just above the Walk of Fame where we stood discussing bike parking and the W's community benefit. As we chatted, he took a long drag on his cigarette and then flipped the butt on the sidewalk, in front of what is now Delphine. The cigarette butt rolled across the Walk of Fame star of Charles Coburn, one of the few Hollywood stars who actually lived on Hollywood Blvd., and landed in the gutter. (the butt, not Coburn)

I regret to this day that I remained silent.

Coburn isn't here to feel slighted but the people of Hollywood are. That simple moment of contempt and arrogance is a clear indicator of Collins' commitment to any "community benefit" that was part of the City of LA, CRA, Metro, Gatehouse deal.

Nevertheless, the W Hollywood Hotel & Residences is upon us, a Transit Oriented Development of such significant size that it has its own gravitational pull, both politically and architecturally.

"This isn't Hollywood the movie. This isn't Hollywood the ride," Collins declared as the W Hollywood opened its doors. "This is the real Hollywood." What's not clear is if Collins was referring to W Hollywood's record billboard entitlement or its auto-centric design. In either case, he is correct, this is Hollywood and any promises to promote a pedestrian environment, to support cycling access to the Red Line, to encourage mass transit passengers, to create an environment that "connects" with the street, all fell by the wayside in the time it took to hire the valet and tell the public "This door isn't for the public but if you walk around the block and through the Auto Court you can come in the back way."

LA Time Architectural critic Christopher Hawthorne gently reviews the W Hollywood, noting the lack of architectural coherence as well as the lack of clarity that is demonstrated by the contrast in the stated TOD commitment to vertical density which is then contradicted by the obligatory homage to Hollywood's "love affair with the car and the glossier, more exclusive corners of celebrity culture." Christopher concludes his insightful review of the W Hollywood's fabrics, textures, and color schemes by offering up this soft dismissal; "the W Hollywood isn't just an urban-planning experiment for Los Angeles. It's something of a sociological one too."

It's an experiment?

Perhaps in funding and gullibility and so far it has demonstrated that there is no limit to either.

Legacy Partners, co-developer of the W Hollywood qualified for $10.2 million in ARRA funding. The W Hollywood has had tremendous support from the leadership of Los Angeles which translates into big bucks. From the CRA to City Council Eric Garcetti to the Mayor himself, this project had some heat. When the Metro's meager parcel of land was insufficient for the fortress sized plan of Gatehouse/Legacy, the CRA and the City of Los Angeles stepped in and offered up their eminent domain support, seizing adjacent properties and explaining that the support of the W Hollywood was for the Greater Good! WooHoo! (Of course by Greater Good, the doorman explained that the public will need to walk back to the street, east on Hollywood Boulevard, south on Argyle Street and then through the Motor Court in order to partake in the public's portion of the Greater Good!)

Of two recent travel reviews, both authors arrived by car, demonstrating quite conclusively that even those who are out to immerse themselves in the W Hollywood's unique brand of TOD environment know enough to steer clear of the transit and to err in favor of the automobile. Of the two, one used the motor court and opened the review with "Welcome to Hollywood!" The other used a taxi and attempted to enter the W Hotel from the public plaza but somehow got lost. "Geez! If we have to tell you where we are, perhaps you're not supposed to be here!"

One can only imagine the experience of the travel writer who actually arrives on mass transit, exits the Red Line station and depends on the Metro and the W for any wayfinding help. There's a curbside sign announcing the discontinuation of the DASH bus stop. There's a sign advertising available retail space. There's a sign directing cyclists to non-existent bike racks. But there's nothing that says "Welcome to the W Hollywood, you transit riding, TOD superstar! Turn to your right, walk toward the smell of urine but don't actually enter the elevator area, instead turn right and walk down the hallway toward the velvet ropes. They'll ask for your room key, you'll explain that you don't have one because you just arrived, they'll look at each other with puzzled looks and mild confusion will break out! All the while, they will size you up to see if you really are a potential guest or simply one of the many glitz-free locals who wants to turn the W Living Room into a real living room!”

It appears that the W Hollywood is many things but it is not a Transit Oriented Development, at least by any accepted planning standards. As for Collin's Castle, the Fortress of Fortune, LA's largest inhabitable Billboard Complex, it's here and the opportunities for the W Hotel to improve the quality of life in the surrounding community remain untapped.

Next week, I'll detail the W Hollywood's shortcomings based on Transit Oriented Development standards and will offer recommendations for amends, starting with a butt can on the off-chance that Collins should return to the scene of the crime.

(Stephen Box is a transportation and transit advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net)

CityWatchLA - A Tale of Two Hollywoods

CityWatch, Sept 22, 2009
Vol l7 Issue 78

Hollywood's leadership has made commitments to "stimulating development" and "ending homelessness forever" but a simple glance at the construction sites for the W Hotel and the Villas at Gower reveals that the commitment is uneven.

The W Hollywood Hotel & Residences is a massive mixed use project at the corner of Hollywood Boulevard & Argyle, spread over five acres and in the final stages of completion.



The project has relied on public funds to get off the ground, CRA use of Eminent Domain and incredible amounts of LA's political muscle in order to navigate and overcome the significant objections and concerns of the community.

The rapid construction and the abundant integration of huge, lucrative billboards in the structures exoskeleton bear witness to the simple fact that when the leadership of this city want something done, it gets done.

Two blocks away, on Gower Avenue just north of Hollywood Boulevard, sits a large empty dirt lot that was the former home to apartments, affordable housing and the local Traveler's Aid office, all razed in order to make way for the ambitious Villas at Gower, a permanent supportive housing complex that uses an innovative "housing first" approach to addressing the needs of the chronic homeless.



The failure to break ground at this site and the absence of progress in addressing homelessness in Hollywood, in spite of the infusion of public funds, CRA use of Eminent Domain and incredible amounts of LA's political talk, the project lies dormant with nothing but dirt clods, sandbags and a chainlink fence. Witness to the fact that when the leadership of this city doesn't care, nothing gets done.

Both projects have been in play for years. Both projects came with a great deal of controversy and both projects had significant interaction with the community in order to engage the local residents and to purportedly pursue solutions that were robust and came with significant neighborhood support.

Both projects came with support from LA's leadership and yet, at the end of the day, it is evident that when it comes to developing luxury housing for the "haves" and supportive housing for the "have-nots" Councilman Eric Garcetti's enthusiasm is uneven and inconsistent, in spite of the tough talk and in spite of the strong verbal commitments.

Based on results, often harsh but always fair, it's safe to say that when it comes to revitalizing the community of Hollywood, developers will always have a partner within the city of Los Angeles. The homeless are on their own.

This imbalance in priorities leaves local residents to fend for themselves as they deal with issues such as blighted properties, homelessness and public safety.

Conspiracy theorists might propose that the cumbersome public process is designed to wear out the community opposition and to cause the public to simply exhaust themselves before wandering off to howl at the moon over some other civic issue, leaving the politicos and their development partners to play hard and fast with the public funds that serve as redevelopment seed money for ongoing revitalization shell game.

Countering that argument is a quote attributed to former City Councilmember Ruth Galanter "Whenever I hear rumors of a conspiracy, I simply attribute it to incompetence."

Four years ago, a rumor of the CRA's proposed Gower homeless facility rippled through the community. Quick research was done and the Hollywood United Neighborhood Council convened a community meeting to address the proposed site, the facility, the services and the concerns of the community.

As in most cases, the lack of information allowed rumor and fear to run rampant and to generate a great deal of misinformation, resulting in hundreds of people all worked up and yelling and ready to fight, not knowing what the fight was but committed to protecting the status quo from the unknown.

I naively invited the local City Council staff, thinking this was something that would interest them, unaware that they were behind it. Three CD staff members attended the meeting, silently, and it wasn't until later that I discovered that one of them was engaged to a board member of the neighborhood council who served as co-chair of the PLUM committee. What a small world. What a learning experience!

As a member of the Villas at Gower Community Advisory Committee, I've been there through thick and thin, jumping at short notice to participate in meetings that address everything from the project scope to the selection of development partners to the selection of the architect to, hopefully the development of the project.

Four years is quite a long time for volunteers and life has a way of taking over. The local CD staff has turned twice and the CRA's project manager retired and we're on our second architect. Through it all I think I've learned a few things.

1) The community engagement process might not really be a charade, but it looks like one, it feels like one and it acts like one. If it's not a charade, it's simply incompetence.

Sadly this demonstrates that the CRA is either unable or unwilling to engage the neighborhood, to develop community support and to involve locals in the revitalization of Hollywood, an endeavor that is fueled with our money.

Community meetings seem designed to exhaust the community, giving everybody the opportunity to sound off and to relieve themselves of any objections.

If that's the case, the potential partnership and the contributions of the community are lost on the final project and the ultimate result is a disengaged community, less likely to come to the aid of the CRA when it needs help. (Such as last month when Mayor Villaraigosa staged a press conference on top of the Music Box with the W Hotel in the background, fighting to salvage the CRA's funds from the State budget brouhaha.)

2) The development process is ripe for abuse and the rewards go to those who work the system best, not those who are best qualified.

The first architect on the Gower project, Michael Maltzan, was referred to in a review as possessing a "bedside manner that exceeded his body of work." He lived up to that evaluation, charming the CRA, the community, the development partners. The guy was a rock star. He was also a better negotiator than the CRA, demonstrating that bedside manner trumps architectural talent but that the ability to manipulate the system trumps all.

We were well on our way down the concept and design path when the CRA discovered that their contracts had never actually been executed. Much work had been completed and yet there was no binding contract. It was at this point, that Maltzan upped the ante and claimed he couldn't do the work without a significant increase in his fee. The guy is good! He worked the CRA, squeezed them and proved to be a formidable negotiator. Then he walked, unable to get his fee. A long waste of time journey that could have been avoided if the CRA was motivated or skilled enough to negotiate at the same level as those who do this for a living.

3) The partnership process seems based on a pursuit of low-maintenance rather than high-performance relationships.

The CRA worked with McCormack Baron to develop and manage Metro Hollywood, a mixed-use project at Hollywood & Western. Two of the four ground floor spaces have never seen a tenant, the property manager seems unaware of the homeless encampment just to the west of the building's front door, the open space serves as a public restroom for the squatters, and overall perception of the community is that the facility contributes to the blight in the neighborhood. Yet the CRA just entered into a $15 million relationship with McCormack Barron for another TOD project, based on the success of Metro Hollywood. How are these relationships reviewed?

How is performance measured?

Is it simply based on the applicant's ability to navigate the system or is it because of the robust and successful projects and the relationships with the community?

4) The success of the CRA's projects is based on the completion of brick and mortar construction but rarely evaluates any sense of connectivity with the community.

Along the journey on the development of the W Hotel, the community pushed for innovations such as a Bike-Share facility in the W, a Car-Share facility in the W, all-walk phases (ped-scrambles) at the intersections surrounding the W, delivery services for local shoppers, all small elements in the grand scheme of things but enhancements that speak to the commitment to integrate with the local community. Those improvements may be coming, there may be better ones on the way, we just don't know about them.

What we do hear is abstract information that doesn't impact the individual on a personal level nor does it engage the individual in a relationship. Five acres, $500 million, 400 jobs, 400 rooms, 150 condos, all high-altitude stats that sound great but that fail to address real quality of life metrics.

How does one cross the street?

What does the street feel like from the pedestrian’s perspective? What's it like to walk down Argyle at night?

Can the occupants of the fortress see the people on the street or is it another "two worlds" concept?

Are there amenities for the Metro passengers or is this the clash of cultures? What's the impact of all of those billboards on the community?

How does the W circumvent the moratorium on billboards?

How can the community respect authority if the W manipulates the system?

5) The mandate of the CRA, to revitalize blighted communities using public money, seems to be lacking a clear standard of blight and a clear standard for performance.

For all of the zestful enthusiasm for employing large numbers of construction workers to build large fortresses, there seems to be little effort to pursue the softer and more difficult elements of blight, the human elements.

First, what is being done to reduce homelessness? There is no simpler definition of blight than to simply ask, "Are people living on the streets?" If so, get to work. But get them off the street, don't simply move them over two blocks to a different site!

Second, are the quotidian needs of the locals being met on the boulevard?

If the CRA keeps investing in facilities that don't connect with the communities, one might try to call it commerce, one might try to call it economic revitalization but the street comes alive when the locals have a reason to shop there.

The streets are safer and more attractive when people have a reason come to walk down the sidewalk and visit the bakery, grab a coffee, buy a book, pick up some flowers, visit with friends in the hospitable public space.

The projects must be evaluated on their contribution to the economic mix of the community and their ability to stir activity on the streets. "Bigger is better" is the mantra of cancer, not of development from the perspective of the individual human who must live and work and walk in the shadows of the fortresses that fail to engage the neighborhood on a personal level.

6) The final stage of development, one that the CRA and Legacy Partners is currently engaged in, is to negotiate the "Community Benefit." This is so odd. The project itself is supposed to be a community benefit so why is it getting shoehorned in as the red carpet is getting unrolled and the Chamber is preparing to cut the ribbon? Wouldn't "Community Benefit" be the foundation of the project, driving all actions, decisions, partnerships and results from that point on?

Apparently not.

The W Hollywood Hotel & Residences is in the process of committing to a "Community Benefit" that consists of an agreement to hiring local. Those local hires will be paid a living wage, obviously qualifying for accommodations at the W Residences and giving new meaning to "local.

As for the folks who are waiting to go "local" over at the Villas at Gower, no word yet on the groundbreaking, no word yet on housing options for the homeless, no word. Simply no word.

Hollywood, from the residents to the merchants to the tourists to the homeless, deserves better, and it's up to us to raise the standard.

(Stephen Box is a planning and transportation advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)