Landmarking buildings with historical significance is a laudable effort; however, something seems to have gone terribly askew.
The criteria for designation of a landmark in the city’s zoning codes is predicated on cultural, historical, social, political or architectural history; artistic value, or unique or noteworthy architectural characteristics; being a significant work by a notable designer or builder; or being an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood.
The Landmarks Commission — seven citizens appointed by the City Council — recommends and designates city landmarks subject to City Council approval. Unfortunately, the process seems to be spiraling into nonsense-land.
Almost everything in the city — not excluding trees, fences and bushes — could probably qualify as a landmark under the broad criteria and overzealous, well-intentioned commissioners, many of whom don’t seem to know the difference between historic and cute.
Landmarking also has become a way to slow or stop real estate redevelopment by neighbors, no-growth activists and, seemingly, even by some commissioners. Others see it as a legitimate way to preserve dwindling local history.
Take 921 19th St. It’s an immaculately maintained, 1923, single-story, craftsman-style bungalow that’s in the way of condominiums that the property owner, 19th Street Townhomes, LLC, wants to build. When a demolition permit was applied for, neighbors went to the Landmarks Commission and asked to have the “cute” bungalow declared a landmark.
The bungalow was not on the city’s Historic Resources Inventory and, according to staff research, didn’t meet the criteria for landmarking. The Landmarks Commission landmarked the house anyway. Last week, the City Council disagreed with the commission and upheld the property owner’s appeal of landmark status, thus allowing redevelopment to go forward.
On Tuesday, the City Council will be asked to reverse the Landmarks Commission’s recent historic designation of the Christie Courtyard apartments at 125 Pacific St. Much of the same situation exists here. This configuration of bungalow apartments built around a court is not that unique. Even worse, it has been substantially altered over the years. Charming? Yes. Truly historic? Not in my book.
I’m all for saving Santa Monica’s history, but often properties earmarked for landmark designation seem to be chosen for God only knows why reasons.
In late 2001, all of 18th Street north of Montana Avenue was being considered as a historic district, even though a majority of the homes had either been replaced or substantially remodeled. This eventually sparked a furor leading to a failed ballot referendum that would have given homeowners the right to refuse landmark status for their single-family homes.
Nostalgists who remember the informal gatherings of local political activists in the 1960s and 1970s at the long-shuttered Zucky’s Delicatessen on Wilshire Boulevard have requested landmark designation for the ugly, decrepit, 60s-style Zucky’s sign.
By city standards, the nondescript, 1964 vintage, pink stucco building I live in must be a landmark because “Monster’s Ball” was written in the apartment next to mine where one of the screenwriters lived. The movie netted a Best Actress Oscar for Halle Barry in 2002. The fact that this Daily Press columnist lives and writes his weekly column at the same address is icing on the preservation cake.
Planning commission members tend to favor “charming,” “cute” and “lovely” homes, or “darling” structures in upscale sections of the city while overlooking significant other structures of merit in not-so-nice parts of town.
Nearly five years ago the commission decided not to landmark a 120-year-old colonnaded farm house at 1913 19th St., even though it was on the city’s historical inventory. A heartfelt plea from a property owner who’d lost a daughter in a recent traffic accident earned him a demolition permit. A major piece of local history was gone within hours, and the property was sold and resold. A few developers profited while most of us lost part of our heritage.
A screen made of chain link fencing with “Santa Monica Place” emblazoned on it disguises a shopping center parking garage facing the Civic Center. It’s an early work by internationally acclaimed architect Frank Gehry. Even though the screen is regularly featured in architecture journals, the Landmarks Commission has not moved to landmark it. Maybe it just isn’t cute enough for them.
Landmarks commissioners and other preservationists need to be very careful. Restricting development is best done by changing the city’s zoning codes.
When landmarking is used to thwart lawful development and/or to save the historically insignificant, credibility is lost and the preservation movement is in danger of becoming inconsequential, irrelevant and ridiculed. (Bill Bauer is a longtime Santa Monica resident and a freelance writer.)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 25, 2005. Read the original PDF.