Comments on: Marina Development Continues Apace

By: Matt Mason

Matt Mason — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:29:44 +0000

Great comments. I agree with Evan that the Lincoln/Maxella project is monstrous in scope. One of the land planning docs I reviewed mentioned that the Marina zoning laws are based on a “bowl” concept, with more restrictive height requirements right around the harbor itself, and less restrictions as you get farther away. In the case of the Lincoln/Maxella project, it’s across Lincoln Blvd. from the harbor, so presumably the restrictions are more lax.

By: Lucinda Michele

Lucinda Michele — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:36:19 +0000

Talk about sight pollution. That sounds like it’s going to be a giant fucking eyesore.

By: frazgo

frazgo — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:05:58 +0000

I’m with evan in not needing more density packed onto that corner. The problem lies with SCAG and its high density mixed used plan they have been shoving down cities throats in order to get redevelopment money.

I don’t have a problem with the concept SCAG is pushing. The problem lies in that in LA we don’t have the public transit in place (subway, light rail) to support all the high density development planned. The other side issue is that LA doesn’t meet its park and green space ratio as it is and high/density redevelopment just stretches those resources further.

By: evan

evan — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:35:18 +0000

I’m probably the only one, but whenever I see the sign for the Jamaica Bay hotel, I think of Alfred Hitchcock’s movie Jamaica Inn.

The planned development I’m most nervous about is the retail/condos planned for the back corner of the development at Lincoln and Maxella, where the abandoned Marie Callendar’s and Carl’s Jr. are, and where there’s some limo company that parks their cars now. That area looks terrible, but I don’t think we need more development and more traffic on Lincoln near the 90.