Re “First Steps Taken to Change Status of Ice Arena”
[img]1792|right|Jim Clarke||no_popup[/img]There was a lengthy pause this morning as City Councilman Jim Clarke pondered an inquiry about the shades-drawn Culver City Ice Arena.
He was still in Northern California, driving back from the League of California Cities Legislative Lobby Day in Sacramento.
The challenge for him was whether the ice rink – voluntarily, then involuntarily, closed down almost three months ago – deserved to be accorded the “significant historical” status recommended two nights ago by the Cultural Affairs Commission.
The commission’s recommendation goes to the City Council for a final call sometime this spring. Vice Mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells is a steadfast yes vote and Councilman Andy Weissman has not made up his mind.
If he had to mark his ballot today, Mr. Clarke would check Undecided. “I need to know more,” he said.
At the outset, he has two problems.
“My understanding from the presentation is that neither the sign nor Icerella (the gigantic skater) are considered part of the historic preservation,” said the disappointed Mr. Clarke. “They are what make the building.”
The Councilman’s opinion is shared by many.
“Outside of the lettering and Icerella, it’s just a solid concrete building,” he said.
[img]1305|left|Andy Weissman||no_popup[/img]That is far from the end of the story. The status of the building itself, the identity of its next tenant, and owner Michael Karagozian’s plans all appear unknown at the present.
Mr. Clarke noted an alarming possibility. that “I don’t want to say there are loopholes, but there are provisions that would allow for demolition of the building.”
Ms. Sahli-Wells cited the Ice Arena building’s “architectural significance”
The proposed historical designation “is important for our community,” the vice mayor said, “and our shared history is significant.
“One only has to look back on the City Council meetings in January and February when skaters and their families testified, to see how strong community support is.”
Mr. Weissman, firmly uncommitted, said that after conducting a measure of research, he has questions about conclusions reached regarding the proposed designation.
