Property owner appeals designation
CITY HALL The fate of a 71-year-old ocean-front apartment complex — its survival the source of contention between tenants and the property’s owner — lies in the hands of the City Council tonight.
After more than a year of delays, the council is finally expected to hear a petition to appeal the landmarking designation of a 1930s era courtyard apartment north of Montana Avenue, located at 423-431 Ocean Ave.
The Landmarks Commission designated the apartment complex a historic landmark in October 2006 in the face of opposition from the property owner, Harry Wu, who argued the building does not possess any significance that would cause it to be eligible for designation, adding that it does not meet any of the six criteria required for landmarking. The commission based its designation on four of the six criteria, finding most notably that the building was designed by well-known Santa Monica architect William E. Foster — who created the Shangri-La Hotel — and the complex exemplifies the city’s architectural history, constructed during the second wave of residential development along Ocean Avenue from the 1930s to the 1950s, a time when the street was taken over by multi-family apartments.
“It had numerous high quality details that were still intact like leaded glass windows and Georgian Colonial detailing,” said commission Chairwoman Nina Fresco, explaining some of the reasons why the commission decided to landmark the building.
City staff is recommending the council uphold the landmark designation and deny Wu’s appeal.
Wu challenged the landmark designation and filed an appeal on Oct. 18, 2006. A public hearing before the City Council was postponed repeatedly until today. Attorney Toy Fields, who is representing Wu, did not return a call seeking comment on Monday.
The complex consists of three, two-story buildings on the east side of Ocean Avenue, located between Marguerita and Georgina avenues. Designed in the American Colonial Revival style, the apartment complex was first constructed in 1936 to be arranged in a “L” shaped orientation. The south wing was-n’t added until 1950, creating the complex’s current “U” shaped orientation. The south wing was also designed by Foster, who was also the architect responsible for the Pilgrim Lutheran Church on Wilshire Boulevard and another apartment building on the 200 block of San Vicente Boulevard.
Councilmember Herb Katz, who is also an architect, visited the site a few months ago and said his first reaction was that the building could possibly be a landmark, though he still remains undecided on the appeal.
“The fact that they later added a building in the 1950s is one I would question if I questioned anything,” Katz said on Monday, adding that the resulting courtyard from the addition was well done and the south building is already 56 years old.
The proposal to landmark the American Colonial structures first came up in early May 2006 when the Landmarks Commission reviewed a demolition permit application to take down the complex, deciding instead to consider it for landmark status. About a week after the hearing, several tenants seeking to save the building filed landmark nomination papers.
Several tenants and neighbors spoke at the October 2006 commission meeting in favor of preservation, touching on the fact that the complex is one of the few in the colonial revival style that remains in the area.
A few tenants still reside in the apartment today, including the core group of residents that decided to push the landmark nomination forward last year. The apartments, though in bad shape, includes unique features that aren’t typically seen in some of the more modern apartment complexes in Santa Monica, including a brick fireplace, large kitchen and separate bathtub and shower.
Not all neighbors feel a designation is fair to the owner.
“It doesn’t look structurally sound,” said Ken Robbins, who has lived in a nearby apartment building for two years.
When Robbins decided to move into the area, the American Colonial Revival complex was among the apartments in which he considered living, deciding against it because the bathrooms and kitchen were in bad shape. It would’ve taken a lot of repair work for a rental unit, Robbins explained.
Instead of a landmark designation to save the whole complex, Robbins believes the owner should be allowed to construct a new structure that would incorporate design elements of the current buildings.
“It’s free enterprise,” Robbins said. “(The building) has character but it’s not structurally sound.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 27, 2007. Read the original PDF.