This past Monday, Q-line asked: “Do you think the Aero Theatre should be a historical landmark? Why or why not?”
Here are your responses: ■ “The Aero Theatre is more a nostalgic landmark than a historical landmark. I’ve been in the theater during the time we were trying to save it. As far a a historical landmark or architectural significance, absolutely no. Nostalgic yes. I suggest we all put it in our minds and cherish it.” ■ “Never mind whether the Aero Theatre should be a landmark. Rather, let’s examine why a landmarks commissioner does not want a landmark designation. If the building was owned by anyone else, there would be no question of a designation. Why does the owner want to avoid it? Could it be that the very designation that he applies to other properties is too restrictive and does not allow for reasonable return on his investments while maintaining the historical significance? Give me a break.” ■ “A Landmarks Commissioner who is against landmarks sounds like someone who the Bush administration would appoint. If the community considers something a landmark, it is a landmark and should be so designated.” ■ “Yes, I think the Aero should be a historical landmark. It’s a nostalgic, colorful reminder of Santa Monica’s — and America’s — past.” ■ “Alas, the uncertainty of the old Aero Theatre’s fate. I am thankful that Pacific Palisades Park and the Santa Monica bike path are still in place. Everything else that made Santa Monica special are gone. The Ocean Park Amusement Pier, the magnificently decorated Old Globe Theatre, Lawrence Welk, Tommy Dorsey, Dick Canny.” ■ “I do think the Aero Theatre should be a historical landmark. They are doing enough tearing down in Santa Monica as it is. Leave the Aero alone.” ■ “If the owner wishes, but not against the owner’s wish. It’s the same as I want for the homeowners.” ■ “Why is it that a private home can be designated as a historical landmark without the owner’s consent, but a theater will not be designated as a historical landmark? Somebody needs to talk to the landmarks commissioner.” ■ “I was amazed to hear that the Aero Theatre did not have landmark protection. But, if after all this struggle, someone tried to tear down the Aero Theatre there would be such a huge uproar, that I don’t think there will be such a danger.” ■ “Of course the Aero Theatre should be a landmark, it is closely related to historical periods related to Santa Monica’s history. The war years and the growth of aviation.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 11, 2003. Read the original PDF.