Historical? Hysterical?
By Frank Gruber
For the second time in two weeks the Santa Monica City Council was
asked not to make a decision.
Two weeks ago it was Superintendent of Schools Dianne Talarico who
asked the council not to decide whether the school district was entitled
to that well-chronicled $530,000 until she could investigate whether
the District had complied with the council's conditions. [http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2008/April-2008/04_23_08_Council_Withholds_School_Funding.htm]
Then last week it was Michael Folonis, architect for Third Street homeowner
Mark Woollen, who asked the council not to decide whether Mr. Woollen's
proposed addition to his property in the Third Street Historic District
was compatible with the district's guidelines, but rather to remand
the case back to the Landmarks Commission. [http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2008/May-2008/05_01_08_Council_Punts_Project_Back_to_Commission.htm]
I hope the council members don't take this personally. But not to worry:
from the attitude four council members expressed toward the sponsors
of the RIFT initiative (who in effect want to take away the council's
decision-making power over land use planning by outflanking the process
to update the land use and circulation elements (LUCE) of the general
plan), it appears that the council is going to defend zealously its
role in that area. (See story http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2008/May-2008/05_02_08_Council_Votes_to_Study_RIFT.htm)
LUCE may be the most important land use issue in the city, but just
to show that even all local politics is really really local, the more
than 65 people who showed up two weeks ago to testify about Mr. Woollen's
project were by my recollection at least 20 more than the biggest number
who have ever shown up at a council meeting to testify about LUCE.
I've been following the Woollen project ever since last fall, when
I attended a Landmarks Commission meeting expecting that the main issue
would be the downtown trees. I found, however, even more fury about
Mr. Woollen's proposed contemporary re-do of the building in the back
of his property. The fury was aimed not only at the project, but also
at the commission, because some neighbors had been mightily vexed by
encouragement the commission had previously given Mr. Woollen to continue
developing the project.
I attended another commission meeting about the project, and I also
watched most of the testimony at the council meeting two weeks ago.
I have to agree with those council members, such as Richard Bloom, who
have said that the anger between the neighbors overshadows the substance
of the issues.
I don't pretend to know whose fault the anger is -- "who started
it." But compare the vehemence over this project with the comparative
sweetness and light that characterized a more stark dispute over the
commission's recent decision to permit a contemporary home to be built
on Second Street [http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2007/December-2007/12_13_07_Modern_Home_Approved_in_Historic_District.htm],
and the council's subsequent approval of that decision.
You have to think that Mr. Bloom was right to suggest mediation between
Mr. Woollen and his neighbors.
This doesn't mean that the substantive issues implicated by the Woollen
project aren't important and complex. As Council Member Pam O'Connor
said last week, historic preservation is not the field to be in if "you
want things to be black and white."
The project is particularly "gray." Watching the testimony
at the April 22 meeting, I went back and forth. Numerous people I respect
spoke on opposite sides -- for example architects and public-minded
residents Hank Koning, who supported the project, and Mario Fonda-Bonardi,
who opposed it.
Last week I cited Landmarks Commissioner John Berley's analysis to
support the project. Both of Mr. Berley's reasons for approving it --
that standards in historic districts had to be flexible to encourage
property owners to form them, and that this project was removed far
enough from the street not to have much of an impact to the district
-- were disputed by some neighbors and council members.
But to me both reasons hold up after more scrutiny.
Actually, I can't speak for what motivates a property owner in a potential
district, but I know what I believe as a resident of the city. I'm all
for the City creating historic districts where the existing buildings
justify it, but when I walk in that district I want to know that I'm
not going to be fooled by what's historic and what's not. And no, I
don't live in the district -- but I don't consider myself a "carpetbagger"
because I have an opinion about what gets built there.
It's not that I would support new buildings that overwhelm or distract
from the old buildings, but I want them to be clearly different. To
me, this means the standards have to be "flexible," at least
if, as some testimony indicated, some preservationist neighbors would
only accept neo-traditionalism.
But there is a big difference in potential "compatibility"
between the contemporary architecture of, say, Frank Gehry's use of
chain-link on his house and the neo-modernist wood siding that characterizes
Mr. Folonis' design for Mr. Woollen.
Yet I also believe that the defenders of the Woollen project made too
much of a presumed antipathy towards contemporary architecture that
I don't believe predominates among the neighbors.
For instance, take Bea Nemlaha, one of the leaders of the neighbors
involved in the district. Back in 2004 I attended a commission meeting
(and wrote a column about it http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/columns/FrankGruber/FG-2004/9_2004/09_20_04_A_Landmark_Tale_of_Two_Garages.htm
) where Ms. Nemlaha herself proposed a contemporary replacement for
her old garage. [Jorge -- could you look at this link -- for some reason
my bio is included on the page before the column])
As vehemently as Ms. Nemlaha has argued against the Woollen project
in her letters to the Lookout, it seems simplistic to take her argument
as one categorically against contemporary architecture, since suggested
it for her own project.
Nonetheless, the role of contemporary architecture in historic contexts
is one that preservationists debate extensively all the time. While
most of the neighbors may not want only imitative, traditional architecture
in the district, it might help with developing standards if they would
point to instances where a contemporary architect added something they
admire to a historic context.
As for the location of the Woollen project in relation to the district,
the more I studied the project the more convinced I am that Commissioner
Berley's analysis was correct.
Council Members Ken Genser and Richard Bloom were both troubled by
the impact of the view on the neighbors to the north, but looking at
the plans I don't get their concern, unless it's based on a misreading
of the north elevation. The problem with elevations, such as the north
side elevation included in the Lookout's story about the meeting, is
that they make everything look equally large notwithstanding how faraway
they are. I.e., there's no perspective.
Most of the proposed building that is close to the north property line
has the size and shape of the existing two story building -- it runs
about 20 feet east-west and in fact has a slightly reduced height.
Mr. Folonis' design added about eight feet along the setback line,
about half of which is window, but the bulk of the new addition to the
building is a second story that may appear massive from the elevation,
but which is almost 30 feet south of the property line. At that distance
this new clad-in-wood-siding second floor, which is now infamous, courtesy
of Ms. Nemlaha's letters, as "the Cantilever," would not loom
depressingly over anyone standing on the property to the north.
The Cantilevere is in fact a good example of an architectural feature
that would not work in the district if it were on the street, but given
that as designed it would not be visible from the street, it's hard
to attribute the vehemence of the response it evoked to anything other
than either a visceral reaction to its size or else -- as mentioned
above -- a clash of neighborhood personalities.
Council Member Kevin McKeown made an argument that under the district's
guidelines the project should have been evaluated as the construction
of a new house rather than as an addition, but reading the guidelines
I don't find a big difference. Most of the guidelines relating to new
construction wouldn't apply because they address issues of how the new
building would relate to the street.
The design would seem to satisfy the new-building guidelines that would
be applicable, including the one that mandates setbacks, building shapes,
etc., that are similar to surrounding contributing buildings, both for
the reasons discussed above and because the properties on both the east
and south sides have existing two story buildings close to the property
lines.
Back to the drawing board. Or maybe first to counseling.
* * *
Well, the other shoe dropped regarding the school district's Tim Walker.
http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2008/May-2008/05_02_08_Walker_Resigns_Post.htm
I talked to him last year regarding the settlement agreements. He impressed
me as one who sincerely believed they were a good solution to the problem
that arose when a special needs child's parents fundamentally disagreed
with the district as to what services were appropriate.
But it seems that this was a case where what was meant to be the exception
-- settlement agreements -- overtook the rule, which is supposed to
the more transparent and collaborative individual education plan process.
Now let's hope that this management change leads to the healing that
everyone says they want. |
