Rotating lounge for hotel would be a treat

By: JANET HARDY DAWKINS - Commentary: | Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:43 PM PST

Oceanside's most beautiful downtown asset is our ocean side view. The environmental impact of the proposed Malkin hotel on our downtown ocean view will be to obliterate it.

These two, eight-story boxes will completely block the view of the ocean from outside, and give few views inside. The view from the ground-floor restaurant will be traffic on Pacific; the ballroom has no windows; the public and hotel guests will be allowed only up to the third floor public area; and there will be no views from the brown-shingled roof. This design squanders its ocean-side location and should be changed.

We are giving up our own piece of prime, oceanfront property and investing $27 million. We deserve a hotel with rooftop dining and dancing and skyline views of the ocean all the way to Catalina. Let's build a hotel in our city's signature, modern-mission style, with a rotating restaurant and ballroom that will be an extraordinary cultural and historical landmark, like the round, skyline ballroom on Catalina Island.

There are rotating restaurants and lounges around the world. In fact, the one rotating lounge left in Los Angeles is a Westin property, the BonaVista lounge on the top of the Westin Bonaventure Hotel. This rooftop lounge rotates one revolution per hour, and is inexpensively propelled by only four, 10-horsepower motors. Westin is a large corporation and has built such notable hotels as Atlantis in the Bahamas and Bacara in Santa Barbara. This corporation could better serve our citizens with coastal views.

London's Kensington Roof Gardens, 100 feet above the London streets, built in 1936 and still open to the public, offers dining amid its 1 1/2-acre lush garden, replete with exotic flowers and plants, ponds and winding paths. This rooftop wonderland has three areas: the Moorish Spanish Gardens with arches, fountains, flamingos and dozens of 40-feet-tall, majestic palm trees; the Tudor area with climbing ivy, roses and hanging wisteria; and, the English Garden area, with meandering streams with fish and ducks, shaded by oak, walnut and pear trees.

Imagine yourself dining and dancing on our Oceanside tropical rooftop terrace, surrounded by torch-lit waterfalls and swaying palms, in a Coconut Grove-style, glass-domed, rotating ballroom, gazing at the stars. We are only limited by our imagination.

-- Janet Hardy Dawkins lives in Oceanside.

Bookmark and Share

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

Pete wrote on Jan 22, 2008 10:03 PM:Logistically restaurants on tops of hotels are nightmares. Now, having a bar on the roof, like the bar on the 36th floor of the Hyatt Regency in San Francisco would be great. First, in on the 36th floor and second it does not have the problem of trying to transport all the supplies to the roof. If you want an iconic hotel in Oceanside having a 36 story hotel would rival anything on the west coast, plus the city would not have to contribute one dime!

Randy wrote on Jan 23, 2008 3:23 AM:If an 8 story hotel costs Oceanside $27 million, how much will a 36 story hotel cost?

chriso wrote on Jan 23, 2008 7:29 AM:I hate what the city councils have done to our nice Oceanside pier area. Overgrowth, ugly buildings, no parking, lowering the enjoyment of the beach experience. All for tax revenue. And the resort hotel timeshare deal got so much in tax breaks that tax money won't come in for 20 years. I want my old Oceanside back. Need new city council.

to Randy wrote on Jan 23, 2008 7:52 AM:A 36 story hotel would cost us zero! Because the city had to step in to help mitigate the height restriction it ended costing taxpayers $27 million. More stories = more money to everyone, the taxpayer, the developer, the operator, the surrounding business. We need to stop thinking small and hamstringing ourselves. It is now time to think big, act bold and move forward.

No Subsidy Required, wrote on Jan 30, 2008 5:43 PM:The last comment is correct, a taller building would not have required a subsidy. The compromise worked out by Council Member Sanchez limited the height of the building to 7 stories. Depending on your v iew of this issue, many would believe that 7 stories is a tremendious impact to the visual impacts of the building and out of scale for the community. Thanks to our Council Member Sanchez we now have the worst of both worlds; a building that is too massive and requires a $27 million subsidy.

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos