Beverly/Bonner gathering space gets more boos from residents

The proposed Beverly Triangle Plaza gathering space ran into rough terrain again as residents assailed the project in a virtual neighborhood meeting held Monday night.

Plans are to transform the small city parking lot at the corner of Beverly Blvd. and Bonner Drive into a tiny public park featuring a distinct shell-like structure meant for people to relax and recreate in. 

But where city planners envision a vibrant gathering space, residents of the nearby neighborhoods see merely a perfect spot for the homeless to sleep or camp out in. 

“I’m really surprised …” said Rick Forrest, “or maybe I’m not surprised … after being a resident for 27 years, how the city doesn’t listen to the people in the neighborhood.”

“We were assured there would be no places to lie down,” said Howard Meltzer. 

Since the project’s genesis several years ago, the city has made a consistent effort to involve the local community in the development of the gathering space, including an interactive game session that allegedly helped produce some of the pavilion’s peculiar design elements.

On Monday night, city staff members David Fenn and Elizabeth Anderson attempted to address the gathering space’s potential to attract the homeless by pointing to L.A. County’s recently unveiled plan to alleviate the crisis and the possibility of a new Homeless Center opening in West Hollywood.

“We don’t know whether the Homeless Center is going to happen,” said Manny Rodriguez. “You shouldn’t use that as a defense for this structure.”

“It was already a useful space,” said Sherrie Stark. “The most important thing to improve on that corner is visibility,” and building the pavilion would do just the opposite, she said. 

She also questioned city staff about security cameras (no plans at present to install) and about the future parking situation. The cafe that recently stood adjacent to the plaza benefited greatly from the parking lot the city wants to reduce, she said. How would a new cafe in that spot fare with fewer parking spaces?

On top of it all, residents roundly seem to agree that it’s just plain ugly.

It was described variously during the meeting as a “yurt,” a “1970s sci-fi film set,” and “something between a failed Henry Moore and putting a freeway overpass in the middle of our city.”

“We told you over and over again that we wanted was simple, shade, trees,” Forrest said. “This is completely inappropriate for the area, and we told you this over and over again. You’ve heard from so many people who’ve told you the exact same thing, and you seem to be ignoring them.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

20 Comments
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Martin
Steve Martin
1 year ago

Suddenly West Hollywood does not need the parking? The entire premise of this project sort of boggles the mind. We spent millions of extra dollars to squeeze a few extra parking spaces at City Hall by building a “robo-garage” rather than a less expensive conventional parking structure, because supposedly we had a shortage of parking. Now in an area that is heavily trafficked we suddenly don’t need the existing parking spaces? Does staff not get outside of City Hall?

Jonathan Simmons
Jonathan Simmons
11 months ago
Reply to  Steve Martin

OVER $30,000,000 THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS FOR ROBO-GARAGE BEHIND CITY HALL & EXCLUSIVE USED BY CITY HALL ALL OF WHICH FOR A PARKING SHORTAGE IN THE FLAT LOT BEHIND CITY HALL … THAT DIDN’T & NEVER HAS A PARKING SHORTAGE OR PROBLEM MOTIVE? Wide spread insanity OR for the City to pay for & build FOR DEVELOPERS REQUIREMENT BY LAW THAT DEVELOPERS (NOT THE CITY) PAY TO CREATE EXTRA PARKING TO GET ZONING TO EXCEED ZONING RESTRICTS ON THE MASSIVE MEGA MAGA MY MIXED USE BEHEMOTHS. So hidden agenda to create “green open space, for the benefits of some new NEW… Read more »

Michael Grace
Michael Grace
1 year ago

The one way to get rid of this is start recalling Horvath, Shyne and Erickson.

These three are more concerned about unisex public toilets and their Woke agenda than the future of West hollywood.

Last edited 1 year ago by Michael Grace
Rudi Logan
Rudi Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Michael Grace

So we can look forward to seeing you and your petition-filled clipboard outside Pavilions, yes? Show, don’t tell.

THE BOOT
THE BOOT
1 year ago

Let’s have the “boos” show up at the PUBLIC FACILITIES COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11 AT 6:30 PM and hopefully give this failed project “The Boot”. A fresh project inspired by the simple sensibilities of green, shade and respite without any alien objects is what folks like the world over.

Nothing is better than a tree, a patch of green a place to sit buffered from the traffic whizzing by on Beverly Blvd.

ZOOM LINK with instructions on how to participate in public comment are available in the following link.

http://cms6ftp.visioninternet.com/weho/packets/pfc/pfc.htm

Michael Grace
Michael Grace
1 year ago

At last, a shrine to Unisex public toilets and bathrooms.

Perhaps the outlawed WEHO urinals dictated by Sepi Shyne and John Ericson could be memorialized in the window of what looks like a small spacecraft

Rudi Logan
Rudi Logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Michael Grace

Please explain your obsession with unisex public toilets. It’s got to be fascinating.

JJ1
JJ1
1 year ago

Yup. It seems like the present city council and commissions seem to completely ignore the residents that they profess to want to gather feedback from. Maybe we should ignore them when they ask for our votes the next time around.

Gimmeabreak
Gimmeabreak
1 year ago

There could be a hundred comments here, all vehemently opposed, and the city would do what they want anyway. I’ve never known the city to respond to anything the readers of WeHoVille.com have very clearly stated they want. What other ways might they gauge public opinion that I don’t know about?

Jonathan Simmons
Jonathan Simmons
11 months ago
Reply to  Gimmeabreak

True-Dat !

Alan Strasburg
Alan Strasburg
1 year ago

It’s sad that much of the opposition to creating something beautiful is merely utter contempt for the plight of the unhoused in our midst.

Gimmeabreak
Gimmeabreak
1 year ago
Reply to  Alan Strasburg

Well, Alan, how ’bout you take some into your home? I don’t wish them harm, but the reality is that they are mentally ill and/or substance abusers who are likely homeless because that’s what they choose. Your compassion is lacking logic. We do them no favors by enabling them in their self-destruction.

JJ1
JJ1
1 year ago
Reply to  Gimmeabreak

Yup. I don’t have contempt for the the people wandering high as a kite or have mental issues or the small percentage that have lost their home. I just don’t want create a space that invites them to take over the public park. Common sense has gone out the window. Have compassion but have common sense and don’t design something that you KNOW will be a problem for the many tax paying citizens that pay for projects like this.

ghg
ghg
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ1

Allowing homeless to loiter despairingly is not compassion. Compassion is taking them off the streets and giving them permanent housing.

voter
voter
1 year ago
Reply to  Alan Strasburg

In my case, it’s more fear than contempt. I’ve been assaulted several times by “unhoused” individuals while walking down Santa Monica Blvd. in broad daylight.

JJ1
JJ1
1 year ago
Reply to  voter

#metoo. Most of the people walking the streets are not unhoused. They are people with severe mental and substance abuse issues. Time to call a spade a spade.

Unnecessary speculation
Unnecessary speculation
1 year ago
Reply to  Alan Strasburg

This uninformed and thoughtless statement has no real relevance to the project.
Aside from that, when will you be introducing a compassionate project focused on the plight of the unhoused?

Unnecessary speculation
Unnecessary speculation
1 year ago
Reply to  Alan Strasburg

Came across a statement you made in Wehoville some time ago in reference to the winnowing and sifting required of critical thinking. There are other dedicated members of the community that have done exactly that to form their thoughts in regard to this project. No one has all the answers but it’s helpful to know how to ask the right questions.

voter
voter
1 year ago

Lets take all of the money spent on this structure and hire police or security guards to patrol our streets. I would love to see public structures like this, but first we need protection from the crazy and criminal predators on the streets.

John Daniel Harrington-Tyrell
John Daniel Harrington-Tyrell
1 year ago

The City has a hard time understanding or respecting residents concerns and critique. I can speak to personal experience that when you speak-up on matters such as these you receive perjorative labels such as “Troublemaker” and “System Resistant”, why the City diminishes Residents experiences and feed back is counterintuitive to the idea if Public Service.

20
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x