The City Council tonight will consider whether to budget another $4.25 million dollars for the redevelopment of West Hollywood Park, bringing the total cost of the eight-acre project to more than $90 million, or $11.26 million an acre.
The additional costs are associated with adding an area where dogs can play and adding additional parking spaces above those previously planned. A city staff report estimates the cost of the dog play area at $750,000 and the cost of the additional parking spaces at $3.5 million, which it says will be covered by additional revenue from those spaces.
The city staff studied five options for additional parking, ranging from 60 additional spaces at $29,000 per space to 141 additional parking spaces at $60,000 per space. It is recommending the Council approve an option that will result in a total of 93 spaces to the proposed recreation building and another 40 spaces at the West Hollywood Library parking garage.
The park currently has 460 parking spaces, with 324 of them in the five-story parking garage on San Vicente Boulevard, 92 in the library garage and another 44 in a parking lot on El Tovar Place at Robertson Boulevard. The El Tovar spaces will be eliminated during the park redevelopment, with that area turned into park ground and an entryway into the park.
…More and more it seems as if the city is buying NASA’s $40,000 socket wrenches.
When they say: “We can cover the cost increases with additional revenue, they will pay for themselves”, they really mean: “you will pay for it”.
Rob Bergstein, on GHLH I’ll go with the judgement of experts who unanimously designated the buildings as historic over your judgment. No offense. 🙂
I agree with pretty much everyone else (except for JJ of course). We want more space for dogs, which btw is also actively used by people. It doesn’t cost much.
Great Hall / Long Hall needs to stay where it is. It’s unfathomable to spend even one dime moving this historic property, that City Hall didn’t maintain for 30 years by the way, when there are a few better options on the table for open/green space elsewhere in the park. Many communities would love to have a beautiful jewel like this to reimagine the buildings for current needs.
Alison, please don’t profess to speak for all of us who have an interest in Plummer Park by saying “we” want Great Hall/Long Hall to stay. I am one of many who disagree & would like to see them removed to create a great lawn, open green space. Yes, they are WPA buildings, but the WPA slapped up thousands of buildings during it’s existence, some of note, some, including these, not. They served their purpose when the area now known as West Hollywood was a very different place but they, and Plummer Park, no longer meet the needs of the… Read more »
Agreed 10,000%, Manny. Hart Park is TERRIBLE. I drive 20 minutes out of my way to go to the unofficial dog-park in Beechwood Canyon to avoid Hart Park and I live directly across the street from it. It really needs to be overhauled and, IMO, designated for small dogs. Perhaps a good compromise would be to make the Weho Park dog park for big dogs? I don’t know, throwing that out there. What I do know is that Hart Park is not quality.
@JJ, the park you describe is Hart Park…..That is a terrible dog park for many reasons, one being that it’s too small.
Please don’t use Hart Park as an example of what a good community Dog Park should be. Currently we don’t have a good community dog park…..ZERO.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you don’t have a dog.
Todd, while I agree that 2 hours free parking would be great, I find it it a bit disingenuous that you don’t mention that there is already 1 hour free parking in that lot. Furthermore, you can get 2 hours free if you validate at the park (not hard to get).
Rob, they are planning a dog park in Plummer Park also. Don’t rush the renovation. They haven’t decided what to do with Long Hall/Great Hall yet and that will affect a lot of the plans for the park. We want it to stay and the Council wants it gone. It is on the National Register of Historic Places, but the City Council doesn’t care.
Why didn’t they put the parking underground in the first place? Why wasn’t the dog park included in the first place?
How about encouraging residents to use the already existing off-leash dog park which is underutilized and save the green space and some $ at West Hollywood Park.
How about spending that $750k on an off leash dog park, but place it in Plummer Park & finally, finally kick start the renovation of our beloved Eastside park…..
My eyes are popping out at the cost of each additional parking space. It’s making the Robo Garage on Sweetzer sound “economical.” It’s also noteworthy that the additional costs are expected to be recovered by parking fees. But wouldn’t it be nice – and a public benefit – if WeHo adopted Beverly Hills’ parking fee model and gave the first 2 hours free? It sure would encourage daytime and evening patronage at all the local businesses. Residents and visitors alike already feel punished by the aggressive tactics of the private, for-profit, Reston, VA-based parking enforcement contractor, Serco. I’d rather spend… Read more »