The Santa Monica Airport closes for good on December 31, 2028, and when it does, its 227 acres of coastal land, (one of the largest single pieces of undeveloped real estate left on the Westside), will become something else entirely. What that "something else" is has been debated for more than a decade and it's still not fully settled. So instead of waiting for a final answer, we found out where things currently stand. Curious? Read on…
How we got here
In 2014, Santa Monica voters passed Measure LC by a 60% margin, which locks the airport land to parks and open space once it closes, unless a future vote changes that. In 2017, the city struck a deal with the FAA setting the closure date for the end of 2028. Since then, the city's been working with landscape architecture firm Sasaki on a "Great Park" vision, essentially a Central Park moment for the Westside, and recently accepted $10.5 million in county and state funding to keep that planning moving.
The idea still in the mix
Parkland is the current default, but it's not the only vision that's been on the table. A coalition backed by groups like Cloverfield Commons and UNITE HERE Local 11 has been pushing to set aside roughly a quarter of the site, about 57 acres, for 3,000 units of permanently affordable housing, with the remaining 75% kept as park. The group's ballot initiative did not qualify for the November 2026 ballot because it missed the signature deadline, and supporters have since dropped plans to try for 2028. That means voters won't decide the question directly anytime soon. Instead, supporters say they'll take their case straight to the City Council.
There's also a wildcard worth knowing about: California's Surplus Lands Act could require affordable housing on public land like this after 2029, regardless of what Santa Monica decides on its own. So even with no vote on the books, this isn't a settled question.
What's actually at stake either way
A full park adds a rare, large-scale green space to a part of the Westside that doesn't have one, a quiet driver of desirability for everything nearby, without adding to the housing supply. A partial housing conversion does the opposite: density and inventory in a market that's short on both, but a very real shift in character for a site most people assumed was becoming parkland.
The best answer? We think that should have real neighborhood input behind it, exactly the kind of decision that's far too easy to miss until it's already made. So, if the choice were yours, what would you want to see on those 227 acres? A park, housing, some mix of both?