Big House/Old House: The Evolution of Santa Monica

By Eric Charles Parlee

In the latest edition of "Preservation," the monthly magazine for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, there is an interesting article "Teardowns Slowdown" by Wendy Talarico, which in the slow moving run-up to the results of the Prop A initiative, I would recommend all interested parties read.

The article describes the resolution of the big house/old house conflict that an old Dallas neighborhood has adopted with the consent of 75 percent of the homeowners involved: that of a Conservation District, as opposed to a Historic District.

Whatever the outcome of our own local contest, the idea of a conservation district deserves our attention. This flexible approach with common sense standards determines when it is appropriate to grant a demolition permit, or require that changes be done as a remodel/addition. It is far less onerous and inflexible than the strictures involved in granting permits to build in a bonafide historic district. The approach does not impose the strict findings geared towards restoration/preservation nor does it require a lengthy public process, which in Santa Monica can be a dismal circus.

This approach has the benefit that homeowners and their architects will take a closer look and follow the queues and clues contained in an original structure with the likely outcome of a naturally sympathetic design. The preservationist voice is included in conservation districts, but not dominant. You'll also note that the process to adopt a conservation district was built slowly from the bottom up and attained a remarkable consensus.

When the Planning Commission and City Council adopted the North of Montana zoning standards, I suggested to my colleagues that the use of a design review process for houses "of a certain size" within 1,000 square feet of the maximum permitted would provide another venue for neighborhood compatibility otherwise lacking in the ordinance.

Such a review committee could consist of a number of stakeholder voices in the community, from neighbors to the members of the community with expertise in architectural design, landscape design, and preservation. Yes, this is more process, but of a lighter touch more appropriate to more of our houses than historic district lockdowns.

Ironically, process has been the major problem in Santa Monica and is behind the struggle to get the Landmarks Commission off the backs of homeowners and have them stay focused on their core mission to preserve the much smaller number of landmark-worthy structures.

When you consider that the vast majority of our residential historic landmarks are the result of voluntary cooperation between the Landmarks Commission and the homeowners, the threat of force feeding preservation on the community to fight 'big' houses has been counterproductive. By their own admission, the Landmarks Commission has enough to do, which is why they should never have broken with 26 years of careful and deliberate precedent to join in the hysterical "monster mansion" bashing.

As the "Preservation" article acknowledges, all communities are in a continuous cycle of evolution and transformation such that rebuilding, remodeling and occasionally tearing down to start over are part of the natural equation of any neighborhood and part of its ongoing history. Sadly, there has been no discussion of alternatives appropriate to Santa Monica neighborhoods along these less restrictive preservation lines, and I would have expected to see it coming from the preservation advocates.

Should our residential community have confidence that our current Landmarks Commissioners can handle what they've taken on? Not by what I've seen so far. Neither can I conclude that the majority of our ideologically blinded City Council persons, constantly chasing the butterflies of collective Utopia, will now and in future act responsibly in matters of preservation.

A more balanced representation of all stake holders on our community would have hammered out a consensus on preservation without resorting to scare tactics targeted at the renter base (a constant theme in every election), without half truths about the benefits and pitfalls of preservation, without demonizing the proponents of the initiative, and without slogans and slick brochures substituting for a serious debate on the issue.

Our predominant political organization has instead chosen to steam roller this election, and has sullied the good principals of preservation in the bargain.

"Populi Felix in Urbe Felice," the city motto, is a historic ideal for our community which has in large part been squandered when any means are used to justify the end and by pitching one part of our community against the other. Who we are and how we live together is as much a part of our history as the sticks and stucco we live in.

Indeed, I'd say more so. And one of the things about Santa Monica, that I and countless other Santa Monicans have always appreciated, is an openness for diversity, and a liberal tolerance of each others flubs, even if one's choice of abode is a little loud and tasteless. Lead by example if you don't like what you see.

Our zoning standards for the residential neighborhoods now apply equally to all properties and prevent gross abuses in size, height and setbacks. "Massaging" these standards from time to time is a more even-handed way to tackle issues of compatibility. Conservation districts, or something tailored along those lines, I believe would be more appropriate to some of our Santa Monica neighborhoods -- a sort of 'preservation light' with the emphasis on choice.

A conservation approach would also be consistent with our notions of sustainability and make good economic sense without force feeding unnecessarily rigorous standards of historic preservation.

No credit has been given by opponents of Prop A to the many homeowners, and dare I say "developers" who have already and without prodding used this approach, nor have they acknowledged the many new house successes in our neighborhoods.

The Landmarks Commission should focus responsibly and proactively on those few residences truly meeting the standards of landmark designation and return to a noninterventionist stance on the balance of our neighborhoods, allowing evolution with a lighter touch. They should return their focus to all the public institutions, commercial properties, and multifamily apartments that Prop A does not effect.

The Council and Planning Commission should conduct a balanced and reasonable process, if they would so resolve, to reexamine the general zoning standards from time to time. Bringing the North of Montana standards to the balance of the residential communities, Sunset Park, the College Streets, and the area immediately south of Montana Avenue is a step in the right direction, but needs more public participation, not overnight adoption on an "emergency" basis.

Under the present set of circumstances, with Commissioners and Council having gravitated to the extremes, having offered no process with reasonable alternatives, and having shirked the high road on preservation, I must consider my interests and those of my neighbors as best served by requiring our consent to have our houses become future landmarks or become part of the strict regimen of a historic district.

I have voted YES on Prop A. Until such time as our community leaders get their act together, preserving the right to preserve our homes without our consent is not supportable.