Several months ago, Alan Epstein of MSD Capital, LLC, which owns the Miramar Hotel, presented plans for what he called a “revitalization,” of the venerable hotel but was, in fact, a massive redevelopment that would radically alter the heart of Santa Monica.

It would demolish everything that’s now on the city block the Miramar occupies — except a portion of its original building on the northwest corner and the giant Moreton Bay Fig tree — and build a new hotel, which,
at 550,000 square feet, would be twice as large as the existing hotel, and several stories taller. It would contain far fewer, but larger and more “luxurious” rooms, and 120 condominiums and would feature a bistro and swimming pool on the roof that would have an unparalleled view of Palisades Park, the beach, the ocean and a sizable portion of the legendary Southern California coast.

The massive redevelopment would violate its own borders, overwhelming everything in the area, casting wide, long, dark shadows on its neighbors, effectively obliterating their light, sea air and sweeping ocean views, jamming the streets, and, in those ways, breaching the line between commerce and private life and drastically diminishing the character of what has been for generations a serene residential neighborhood.

The 300-room Miramar was bought in 2006 for $200 million by MSD Capital, which is owned by billionaire Michael Dell and his wife. Their fortune derives from Dell’s electronics empire, and currently totals about $14.6
billion.

During the initial review of the Miramar plans, planning commissioners asked a number of questions about the addition of 120 condominiums. Many residents believe there are too many condominiums in Santa Monica now, and that they have warped the townscape and thrown its housing stock out of balance, by replacing reasonably priced rental housing with oversized, pretentious condos. Besides, the City already has 134 condos under construction in its “Village” in the Civic Center, a few blocks south of the Miramar.

The commissioners noted that if the condominiums were excised from the plans, the new Miramar might be reduced to a size and scale that would not savage the heart of the city, would be compatible with its neighbors and more of a piece with this beach town.

But Epstein emphatically nixed that idea, saying the condos were the Miramar’s “equity.” The sale of the condominiums would finance the demolition of the old hotel and the construction of the new “world class” Miramar, thus sparing the billionaire from having to spend a penny of his billions on the project.

Five generations of Santa Monica residents, home owners and renters alike, have invested – hearts, souls, ingenuity, money, everything — in the creation, preservation and perpetuation of this gloriously idiosyncratic beach town. Now the Texas billionaire would drastically diminish it by constructing a bully of a building in a quiet residential neighborhood without investing a penny of his own money, and selling the condos at wildly inflated prices because they’re in the town that we and our forebears have made so artfully.

It’s our worst nightmare. In 137 years, residents have made a singular town and here and now City Hall, billionaires and wanna-bes want nothing so much to slice it, dice it, reduce it to real estate, and sell it.

This week, along with a plethora of politicians’ promises, pleas and lies, a four-page mailer arrived in local mailboxes. It is headlined “The Miramar Redevelopment, Protecting the Past, Looking Toward the Future” and is dominated by pictures of the Moreton Bay Fig Tree – a close-up of it in its current location and at some distance in a vague, rather cluttered sketch of a proposed semi-public plaza.

Generally, wholesale demolition does not “protect” the past, and, based on what we saw in the renderings, the future looks more like Miami than Santa Monica.

Another utterly incomprehensible rendering, on the second page, features the tree again, perhaps 20 people, some building corners – with awnings, a car in the foreground, a patch of blue in the background.

There’s a headline under the rendering: “Moving Forward,” and the following statement, “Our plan is to improve the hotel while preserving the most significant pieces of its history, including the majestic Moreton Bay Fig Tree, originally planted in 1879 and the Palisades Building, originally opened in 1927.”

The enormous hotel-condominium complex shown in the original renderings preserves a rather innocuous piece of the Palisades building and the enormous landmark tree, but everything else is gone, including the vintage cottages and the more recent sleek, snappy, two-story cottages that President Bill Clinton enjoyed. The new main building rises like a wall and spans the block – from California Avenue to Wilshire. A heavily landscaped plaza fills the Wilshire-Ocean Avenue corner. The main entrance, which was on Ocean Avenue, is now on the very narrow Second Street, ensuring a perpetual traffic jam, directly across the street from the Huntley Hotel entrance.

Plans call for a 485-car underground parking structure that descends from California, a narrow street made narrower by a median, thus ensuring another perpetual traffic jam.

At the first hearing, we were told that the project’s “community benefits” would include public use of the plaza in front of the hotel, as well as 40 new affordable apartments just across Second Street. Later, we were told the plaza would be open to the public only when it was not being used by the guests for some event or other, and MSD Capital is required to build the affordable apartments, if it wants to build 120 condos – but only 12, not 40.

According to the mailer, some of the grander aspects of “The Miramar Plan” are “restoring the hotel to its rightful place as one of the great coastal resorts in Southern California…visual access to the Moreton Bay Fig tree… new retail shops with wide sidewalks along Wilshire Boulevard to help promote pedestrian activity on this important thoroughfare.”

In fact, the Miramar is and will continue to be a hotel, perhaps a great hotel, but it wasn’t ever and never will be “a great coastal resort.” Indeed, the very notion of locating “a great coastal resort” in the middle of this legendary beach town is a formula for mayhem.

“Visual access to the tree?” As opposed to what? Demolition? Enclosing it in some sort of container?

New shops…wider sidewalks “to promote pedestrian activity.” The daily transient population of Santa Monica is 300,000. That makes Santa Monica
more densely populated than Manhattan. Why would we want more?

Noting that MSD Capital is now incorporating “valuable feedback” from residents and City Hall into their plans, the mailer goes on to say that the Council “directed us to study a design with a tall, thin building concentrated toward the center of the site and oriented in an east-west direction. This will reduce the visual impacts on our neighbors and allow us to remain in scale with other nearby hotels, condominiums and office buildings. We are excited about the City Council’s direction and about creating a truly exceptional design for this prominent property.”

A “tall, thin” building would have to be very tall to contain 120 condos, large “luxurious” hotel rooms, and all the additional “amenities,” including a spa, that are to be part of the “revitalization.” But, they claim, it “would allow (the new Miramar) to “remain in scale with other nearby hotels, condominiums and office buildings.”

Their claims notwithstanding, the Miramar is not “in scale” with anything at the moment, and a tall thin version would be further out of scale and out of favor. The high rises on Ocean, south of Wilshire, are literally and figuratively a major mistake as their principal function seems to be to isolate downtown Santa Monica from our most cherished and famous features — Palisades Park, the beach and the ocean.

The mailer concludes, “When our redevelopment is completed, the Miramar will “create 150 new Santa Monica jobs, bring $5,000,000 in new revenue annually to our City and our Schools, continue to operate as a union hotel,
Help relieve parking and traffic problems downtown, and create a prominent new public space at one of our City’s most important intersections.

Well, not really. A hotel with fewer, but larger rooms and more amenities may or may not make an additional $5 million annually. At the moment, it’s pure conjecture.

Union spokespeople believe the promises of the retention of the current staff and the union through the deconstruction and reconstruction and the addition of 150 jobs. We’re not as sanguine, especially as there will be fewer rooms, and, thus, fewer guests and, thus, less money.

And relieving downtown parking and traffic problems is not a promise. but a threat. What’s downtown traffic doing in a residential neighborhood anyway?

A while ago, the City quietly changed the status of the Miramar block to “transition,” which would work as a “buffer” between a residential neighborhood and downtown. Why was a buffer needed there, but not in any of the other blocks north of Wilshire? More and more, it appears the City and Miramar have been conniving for some time.

The back page of the mailer features a photo of the famed pier sign, as if to say our most famous and beloved landmark endorses the Miramar, and an invitation – “Join us in making the Miramar the world-class hotel that Santa Monica deserves.”

No question. Santa Monica deserves a world-class hotel, But “big” is not a synonym for “world-class.” And so far, we’ve seen a lot of “big” but not an ounce of “better.”

MSD Capital spent a couple of years quietly lobbying residents it likes to call “community leaders” before it went public, and created “Friends of the Miramar.” Five “friends” appear on the mailer, praising the non-existent hotel.

Irene Zivi, Early Childhood Education Advocate,Is very excited about the proposed “plaza.”

Susan McCarthy, a former City Manager who is identified here as a “Preservation Advocate,” praises the “preservation” of the tree and the old building, which she describes as “the artful mix of old and new that makes
Santa Monica so special.”

Nat Trives, former mayor, focuses on the revenue it will generate to fund schools and public safety services.

Lamont Ewell, a former City Manager, speaks of the new revenue and the “world-class project it deserves.”

And Lupe Stevenson, Union official, praises the Miramar labor policies, its treatment of current employees and its pledges for the future.

The plain truth is that Santa Monica doesn’t need another big hotel that will wreak havoc in the heart of this grandly eccentric beach town, and if one of world’s richest men is unwilling to put a penny of his own money into it, why are we even talking about it?