In his column today (Just Stick to the Facts, Guys) Mr. Chris

Harding says that “virtually every significant practicing architect in Santa Monica–including Frank Gehry– supports the..recommended

2-6 additional feet in height…” above the draft LUCE’s height

limits, ostensibly to provide “quality architectural design.”

The increased height proposed here may help increase building rents

but it will do nothing to improve the architectural quality of these

buildings. Anybody’s who’s been through architecture school and out

practicing architecture in the real world knows that it is precisely

these kinds of restrictions that often result in the best

architecture. The tough work needed to make a design work within

such limits will often stretch an architect’s imagination and

ingenuity, resulting in a building that is both good for the

occupants and the community, and an example of excellent design as

well. Architecture history is replete with examples of fabulous

architecture created within very strict guidelines.

There is nothing inherently wrong with modifying zoning codes to

allow for designs that increase building rents, and the community

may well benefit, ultimately, from a more profitable project. But

please don’t couch it in terms of “architectural quality.” To

suggest that removing (or stretching) height restrictions will

somehow spur higher-quality architecture is nonsense. There are real

and tangible costs to the community associated with increased

heights, ranging from deeper shadow coverage to creeping

canyonization of the urban environment, and these must be taken into

account just as significantly as increased building rents.

I wonder about “virtually every significant practicing architect in

Santa Monica” supporting the increased heights. Has Mr. Harding

taken a poll?

Dan Jansenson

Insignificant Santa Monica Architect