Might Great Hall / Long Hall stay put? A memo prepared by city staff members for tonight’s City Council meeting recommends the Council consider “adaptive reuse” of the historic structure along with proposals for relocating it away from the center of Plummer Park.
The memo notes that both the city’s Historic and Public Facilities commissions rejected all of the eight options for moving Great Hall / Long Hall and instead recommended that the City Council consider adaptive reuse, which is jargon for using a building for other than what it originally was designed for.
Of the eight options for moving Great Hall / Long Hall, only one, which would have cost an estimated $1.9 million, would allow the buildings to remain on the National Register of historic and culturally significant buildings. That option called for moving the entire building west of its current location toward North Vista Street.
The memo also asks the Council to take a leaf from the redevelopment of West Hollywood Park as it considers options for the redevelopment of Plummer Park by naming a “design steering committee.” Such a committee has been convened numerous times to consider proposals for the more than $90 million second phase of the redevelopment of the eight-acre West Hollywood Park.
The memo notes that creating such a committee has been recommended by Mayor John D’Amico and Councilmember Abbe Land, members of a Council subcommittee on Plummer Park created earlier this year. D’Amico and Land are recommending that the design steering committee consider building a parking garage along Fountain Avenue on the park’s north side in lieu of an underground garage that would have been located on the Great Hall / Long Hall site. They also are suggesting that the steering committee consider a previously discussed dog park and that it take another look at the proposed redesign of the park’s Fiesta Hall and its band shell.
If the Council accepts these recommendations, city staffers will come back to it later with nominees for the design steering committee.
The city’s proposal to redevelop Plummer Park to create more open space, essentially by destroying or moving Great Hall / Long Hall, has provoked major controversy among historic preservationists and the park’s neighbors. In December, the Council voted to proceed with moving Great Hall / Long Hall. But, responding to pressure from Protect Plummer Park, a local activist group, and others, the Council in January tabled plans to proceed with the redevelopment.
Another complication for the city is the decision by the State of California in 2012 to dissolve local redevelopment agencies. Such agencies, funded with a portion of the property tax collected in a specific geographic area, have issued bonds to pay for local projects. In 2011, West Hollywood’s redevelopment agency issued bonds to secure $27.2 million to help implement the Plummer Park redevelopment plan. With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, West Hollywood will have to find another way to pay for the Plummer Park project. Options include having the city itself issue bonds, which will increase its debt load, taking money from the city’s General Fund or leftover money for capital projects or seeking grants to fund park development.
The Council will consider the Plummer Park proposal at its meeting at the City Council Chambers at 625 N. San Vicente Blvd., south of Santa Monica, at 6:30 p.m. tonight
@Very Concerned Citizen – in fewer words: History
My vision for Plummer Park is to start fresh. We have learned so much through the visioning process at West Hollywood Park and Tara. The 20 year old plan should be tabled and let the current stakeholders, east side residents and entire community participate in what will be the future of Plummer Park. I’ve spoke to Protect Plummer Park.. in the past they felt a new visioning process was fair and let the community decide. I’ve spoken to a member of Restore Plummer Park and he agreed that perhaps its time to start anew. It’s time for us to toss… Read more »
I love to see the people winning. The first consideration should be what the “Plummer Park Community” wants because it is they who use the park, not the City as a whole or above all not the City Manager’s personal futuristic “vision”. He doesn’t even live here & should certainly defer to those who do & and who use the park, no delusional grandeur needed. And accommodate very well doggies too of course.
Yet another insightful comment from Rudolf Martin….thank you
With none of the center pieces of the “approved plan” left intact, postponing these decisions was the logical thing to do, I’m surprised the council voted 4:0 in favor of common sense. The city council as well as the city commissions will look very different in a few months, then a leaner and meaner plan should be started from scratch and go through a proper public process for a change. Adaptive reuse of GH/LH is the only option that will find broad public support. But this time it has to be done right, we can’t afford to mismanage these buildings… Read more »
It should be the community’s vision….not the council’s or the city manager. I’m hoping the city has finally come to their senses and will decide not to tear down the historic buildings and instead reimagine them. Green space can be achieved elsewhere in the park and old growth trees can be saved too.
Stayed. So apparently the John’s think we need a new plan. What says Lauren, Joe or Heidi, or Larry, or Cole or ? Tell us your vision!
They need a NEW plan
In a few words…..ADAPTIVE RE-USE, IN PLACE. Period!