An updated policy for historic buildings in LA is probably overdue. However, a policy that more strictly binds architects and developers to historic accuracy and requires special approval for interior design packages is dangerous ground. The end goal should remain in mind when updating the policy.
Making the process more difficult and more expensive than it already is will not give developers who are sitting on deteriorating historic buildings incentive to do any significant upkeep or renovations – in fact it often does just the opposite. A more strict policy will almost certainly decrease the value of the historic building stock in Los Angeles. Fewer developers will be interested in navigating the already complicated process of permitting needed improvements. Consequently, the public would have fewer historic buildings to enjoy – many of the existing historic buildings are currently 90-100% unoccupiable and will remain 90-100% unoccupiable until significant work is done or they are deemed too dangerous and dismantled completely.
The threat of subjective Architectural Review Boards or policies that are not simple and clear have the potential to stop a well-intentioned project before it even takes shape. Spending tens of thousands of dollars on design fees and historic research for a project that can be stopped in it’s tracks by a board (that is not always composed of members educated in design – or even the city construction process) , is a big risk to ask anyone to take. Then on the other hand policies that are simple and clear yet strict and less flexible tend to stunt creativity and innovation.
Construction has significantly changed in the last 100 years. Building and Safety requirements and Fire Dept. requirements often do not coincide with historic accuracy or policies already set by the City Planning Dept. Imagine having to tell a restaurateur that he/she cannot open a new restaurant in a historic building simply because the historically significant floor cannot be opened up to install a Health Dept. required grease interceptor – never mind, that the space was originally a restaurant when the building opened in the 1920’s, and the restaurant would be a much needed amenity to the area.
Unpermitted demolition to circumnavigate cases similar to the restaurateur above happens all the time under the current policy in the city; take the floor out before anyone knows it’s there and everyone will have much less headaches. What is going to stop the unpermitted demolition of historically significant building features in the new policy?
How will new sustainable building policies be incorporated into historic buildings?
There are many ways to treat historic architecture… the developers of this new policy though, need to evaluate whether they want these historic buildings to be treated at all, or want them left to disintegrate.