2002-2008 21st Street 2014-2018 21st Street Landmark and Structure of Merit Assessment Report Santa Monica, CA 90404 Prepared for: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Prepared by: Architectural Resources Group, Inc. Architects, Planners & Conservators 8 Mills Place, Suite 300 Pasadena, CA 91105 October 10, 2014
Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Methodology... 2 2. Architectural Description... 4 2.1 Site and Setting... 4 2002-2008 21 st Street... 5 2014-2018 21 st Street... 8 3. Alterations and Chronology of Development... 11 2002-2008 21 st Street... 11 2014-2018 21 st Street... 11 4. Historic Contexts... 13 4.1 Development of the Pico Neighborhood... 13 4.2 Courtyard Housing in the Pico Neighborhood... 20 5. Regulations and Criteria for Evaluation... 22 5.1 City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance... 22 6. Evaluation of Significance... 24 6.1 Previous Evaluations... 24 6.2 Evaluation of Local Significance... 24 2002-2008 21 st Street: Structure of Merit Evaluation... 24 2002-2008 21 st Street: Landmark Evaluation... 25 2014-2018 21 st Street: Structure of Merit Evaluation... 25 2014-2018 21 st Street: Landmark Evaluation... 25 7. Conclusion... 26 8. Bibliography... 27 Appendix A. Appendix B. Comparable Courtyard Apartment Properties in the Pico Neighborhood Photographs of Selected Comparable Pico Neighborhood Properties
Landmark Assessment Report Page 2 1. Introduction and Methodology At the request of the City of Santa Monica s Planning and Community Development Department, (ARG) has prepared this Landmark Assessment Report for two contiguous properties on 21 st Street in Santa Monica, Los Angeles County. The subject properties consist of a courtyard apartment complex at 2002-2008 21 st Street and a bungalow court at 2014-2018 21 st Street. 2002-2008 21 st Street contains a one- story, Mid- Century Modern courtyard apartment complex constructed between 1943 and 1950. 2014-2018 21 st Street, which is located adjacent to and immediately south of the above property, contains a Minimal Traditional bungalow court built between 1935 and 1951. ARG evaluated both properties to determine whether they may satisfy one or more of the statutory criteria associated with City of Santa Monica Structure of Merit or Landmark eligibility, pursuant to Chapter 9.36 (Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Completion of this assessment involved the following: A site visit and visual inspection of the subject properties exteriors on August 5, 2014. The properties were documented in written notes and digital photographs. A windshield (reconnaissance level) survey of the Pico neighborhood on the same date. The entire Pico neighborhood as defined by the City of Santa Monica was driven, street by street, so surveyors could get a strong sense of the built environment of the neighborhood as a whole. A supplemental windshield (reconnaissance level) survey of courtyard housing in Pico on August 13, 2014. This survey focused on the courtyard apartment property types most comparable to the properties at 2002-2008 and 2014-2018 21 st Street: one- story bungalow courts and one- story courtyard apartments. Surveyors drove every residential and mixed- zoning street in the Pico neighborhood, the boundaries of which are explained below in Section 2.1. For each courtyard property found, ARG documented its address, property type, architectural style, and visible exterior alterations and compiled this information into a table (Appendix A). 1 A selection of these properties was photographed (Appendix B). The compilation of information about extant multifamily courtyard properties in the Pico neighborhood provided a baseline understanding of the existing building stock and how the subject buildings compare in terms of integrity and rarity. For the two subject properties, background research including date research at the Los Angeles County Assessor s Office; compilation and review of historical building permits obtained from the City of Santa Monica s Planning and Community Development Department; and archival research conducted at the Santa Monica Public Library and various online repositories. 1 Identified alterations were based on visual analysis only and were not confirmed with building permits.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 3 Development of applicable historic contexts and themes using information from the background research and field surveys. Evaluation of eligibility under Santa Monica Structure of Merit and Landmark criteria. This report was prepared by ARG Architectural Historians and Preservation Planners Katie E. Horak, Senior Associate; Mary Ringhoff, Associate; and Evanne St. Charles, all of whom meet the Secretary of the Interior s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History and History. In summary, ARG finds that the property at 2002-2008 21 st Street may be eligible for local listing as a Structure of Merit and as a Landmark. The neighboring property at 2014-2018 21 st Street appears ineligible for local listing as either a Structure of Merit or a Landmark. The following sections provide a contextual basis for analysis and a detailed discussion of how this determination was made.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 4 2. Architectural Description 2.1 Site and Setting The multi- family properties at are located in the Pico neighborhood of Santa Monica, in an established, fully developed residential area just north of Pico Boulevard. Definitions of Pico neighborhood geography vary by source; the boundaries used for the purposes of this study follow the most widely accepted definition: Pico Boulevard on the south, Centinela Avenue on the east, Lincoln Boulevard on the west, and Santa Monica Boulevard from Lincoln to 20 th /Colorado Boulevard east of 20 th on the north. The neighborhood fits into the area s regular, rectilinear street grid and has concrete sidewalks and mature street trees. It contains both multi- family and single- family residences dating from the early 1920s to the present, with most properties dating to the 1940s and 1950s. The immediate area was originally subdivided in 1906 as the Campbell Villa tract; much of the rest of the neighborhood was subdivided in 1904 as the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Santa Monica Tract. Interstate 10 (Santa Monica Freeway) runs northeast/southwest through the Pico neighborhood, several blocks northwest of the subject properties. Boundaries of the Pico neighborhood, with red dot marking the location of the subject properties. Base map: Google Maps, 2014. The Mid- Century Modern- style courtyard apartment at 2002-2008 21 st Street is located on two parcels at the southwest corner of Virginia Avenue and 21 st Street. The property is slightly elevated from the street and is surrounded by a concrete block wall and wood fence. The open courtyard is entered on 21 st Street; it comprises an open lawn with a mature shade tree, surrounded by a low hedge and concrete
Landmark Assessment Report Page 5 walkways. Various species of deciduous trees and low- lying vegetation are situated throughout the courtyard. The complex s detached garage is accessed via an alley at the rear. The Minimal Traditional- style bungalow court at 2014-2018 21 st Street is located on two parcels immediately south of 2002-2008 21 st Street. The property is slightly elevated from the street and is surrounded by a low concrete block wall and a wood and chain link fence. The open courtyard is entered on 21 st Street; it contains a rectangular panel of lawn with several mature trees, surrounded by a low hedge and concrete walkways. Several species of deciduous and evergreen trees and low- lying vegetation growth within the courtyard and along the front of the property. The complex s detached garages are accessed via an alley at the rear. Site map. The subject properties, 2002-2008 and 2014-2018 21 st St., are outlined in red. Aerial imagery: Google Earth, 2014. 2.2 Building Exteriors 2002-2008 21 st Street Three one- story buildings comprise the courtyard apartment at 2002-2008 21 st Street. Along the north side of the property is a rectangular building (referred to herein as Building 1) that houses three residential units. It is paralleled to the south by a very similar building (Building 2), which houses four residential units, and is made slightly L- shaped by an attached four- car garage at the rear. The third building (Building 3) is smaller than the other two, is L- shaped, and appears to contain one residence. All of the buildings units open inward and have main entrances through the courtyard. The garage building, accessed via a rear alley, has original wood tilt- up doors, stucco cladding, and a shed roof.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 6 Site plan, 2002-2008 21 st Street, showing Buildings 1-3. Base map courtesy City of Santa Monica, 2014. Buildings 1 and 2 are Mid- Century Modern in style, with nearly- flat shed roofs and smooth stucco cladding punctuated by horizontal wood cladding along the bottom third of the walls. On their primary façades, the roofs have wide overhanging boxed eaves cantilevered above the entries and supported by angled, fin- like stucco supports that mark the divisions between residential units. A shallower overhang shades the rear façades, supported by simple rectangular stucco supports. The buildings have single and paired double- hung, multi- light wood windows. Each unit has a single wood- paneled door and metal security door. Broad concrete walkways run between each building and the landscaped courtyard. Building 3 is only partially visible from the public right- of- way and appears not to exhibit a formal architectural style, though it has a shed roof that echoes the rooflines of the other two buildings. This roof s overhang is not as deep as on the other buildings, and the building lacks the distinctive angled supports seen on the others. Building 3 has smooth stucco cladding, paired aluminum sliding windows, and at least one single metal paneled door with a metal security door, shaded by a metal awning. The residential buildings at 2002-2008 21 st Street were constructed between 1943 and 1950, with the most intact and visible buildings (Buildings 1 and 2) constructed in 1949-1950; the smaller Building 3 was the first of the three constructed (1943). The garage addition at the rear of Building 2 was constructed in 1953. Visible alterations to the buildings include replacement of original windows with aluminum sliding windows on Building 3; replacement of a wood door with a metal paneled door on Building 3; and the addition of security doors to all buildings.
2002-2008 and 2014-2018 21st Street Landmark Assessment Report Page 7 2002-2008 21st Street Photographs Property overview, view southwest. ARG, 8/5/14. Building 1, primary façade, view northwest. ARG, 8/5/14. Building 1, rear façade, view southwest. ARG, 8/5/14. Building 2, primary façade, view southwest. ARG, 8/5/14. Building 3, primary façade, mostly obscured by vegetation, view west. ARG, 8/5/14. Garages (building 3), view northeast. ARG, 8/5/14.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 8 2014-2018 21 st Street The bungalow court at 2014-2018 21 st Street consists of five rectangular residential buildings arranged around a central landscaped courtyard. Three smaller buildings (Buildings 1-3) of approximately the same size sit north of the courtyard, and two buildings sit south of it. One of the southern buildings (Building 4) is the same size as the northern buildings, while the other (Building 5) is longer. Most of the building entries face the courtyard; Building 5 has an entrance facing outward toward 21 st Street as well as one facing the courtyard. A five- car detached garage, accessed via a rear alley, sits at the southwest corner of the property. It has three original tilt- up wood doors, two replacement tilt- up wood doors, smooth stucco cladding, and a flat roof. A one- car detached garage sits at the northwest corner of the property, directly abutting Building 1; it has a tilt- up wood door, smooth stucco cladding, and a flat roof. Site plan, 2014-2018 21 st Street, showing Buildings 1-5. Base map courtesy City of Santa Monica, 2014. All of the residential buildings are Minimal Traditional in style, some with modest Ranch decorative elements. Building 5 has fewer decorative elements than the others. Buildings 1-4 appear to contain one residential unit, while Building 5 contains two. The buildings are only partially visible from the public right- of- way due to fencing and mature vegetation. They have gabled roofs with horizontal wood siding in the gable ends and open eaves with exposed wood rafters. They are clad in smooth stucco cladding and the roofs are covered with composition shingle. Each building has an entrance stoop with concrete steps and single wood doors; some have scalloped wood canopies and metal railings. The visible north buildings have grouped double- hung wood corner windows and canted bays with double- hung wood
Landmark Assessment Report Page 9 windows; the bays are shaded by scalloped awnings. All of the residences retain single and paired double hung wood windows. The building at the southeast corner of the lot (Building 5) is larger than the rest; according to the Los Angeles County Assessor s Office, its square footage is about 1,350, while the others are between 500 and 600. It has paired aluminum sliding windows on its east (primary) and south (rear) elevations and the window openings appear to have been altered for their installation. Four of the five residential buildings at 2014-2018 21 st Street were constructed between 1935 and 1941; the fifth (Building 5) was constructed in 1951. Aerial photographs indicate the two garage buildings were constructed before 1952, but the exact year of construction is not known. Visible alterations to the buildings include replacement of original windows with aluminum sliding windows on Building 5; alteration of the window openings for aluminum window installation on the same building; and the addition of security doors and security window bars to most of the buildings.
2002-2008 and 2014-2018 21st Street Landmark Assessment Report Page 10 2014-2018 21st Street Photographs Property overview, view west. ARG, 8/5/14. Southeast building (Building 5) primary façade, view southwest. ARG, 8/5/14. Courtyard and south building side façade, view southwest. ARG, Courtyard and north building primary façades, view 8/5/14. northwest. ARG, 8/5/14. Rear building rear façade, view northeast. ARG, 8/5/14. Garage buildings, view northeast. ARG, 8/5/14.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 11 3. Alterations and Chronology of Development Upon review of archived building permits obtained from the City of Santa Monica s Planning and Community Development Department, historic aerial photographs, Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps, city business directories, and property data obtained from the Los Angeles County Assessor s Office, ARG produced the following chronologies of development for 2002-2008 and 2014-2018 21 st Street. 2 These chronologies provide summaries of the properties development and alterations that have been made over time. 2002-2008 21 st Street The parcel at the northwest corner of 21 st Street and Virginia Avenue originally contained a single- family residence, constructed in 1921; it was demolished and replaced by the courtyard complex there now. The first component of the courtyard apartment complex to have been constructed was the small L- shaped building at the northwest corner of the property, in 1943; the owner at this time is unknown, as no permit was found for this construction. 3 In 1949, property owner Loyd E. Elliott, a barber from Illinois, had two matching Mid- Century Modern buildings constructed on the parcel; in 1950, he would enlarge the southern building by placing a small addition at the rear. In 1953, the Elliotts added a four- car garage to the rear of the parcel, giving the southern apartment building an L shape. Elliott and his wife Julia owned the complex and lived in one of the units until at least 1963. Aside from the additions noted above, no other permits for major alterations were found for this complex. Date Description of Work Performed Owner on Record 1943 L- shaped building constructed at northwest corner of complex Unknown 1949 Two 26 x65 buildings added to parcel containing an existing shack Loyd E. Elliott 1950 One 32 x26 addition placed at rear of existing south building Loyd E. Elliott 1953 One 40 x22 garage building added to rear of parcel Loyd and Julia Elliott 2014-2018 21 st Street The buildings at 2014-2018 21 st Street were originally owned by John A. Boone, a cement finisher from Iowa, who added the units between 1935 and 1941. The first dwelling was constructed at the rear of the parcel in 1935, two more were added in 1938, and a fourth was added in 1941. Each building had only one unit housing a family or single occupant, and was between 500 and 600 square feet; Boone lived in 2014B with his wife Lottie. The 1940 census shows that one of the other units in the complex housed the Crabtree family: Lee, a young clerk for an airplane manufacturing company (presumably Douglas), 2 Unless noted otherwise, all construction information comes from building permits on file at the City of Santa Monica s Planning and Community Development Department, and additional owner information comes from city business directories supplemented by 1940 census data. 3 Los Angeles County Department of the Assessor, Parcel Information, accessed online at http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/mapping/viewer.asp.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 12 his wife Geraldine, and their three young children. The Crabtrees were a white family recently emigrated from Wichita, Kansas. 4 Boone owned the complex until sometime between 1941 and 1949, when ownership passed to restaurant owners Mary and Fred Hansen; they owned the complex and lived in 2014B until at least the late 1950s. The complex currently contains five buildings; the fifth and latest building at the southeast corner of the complex was added in 1951 and contains two units. 5 No permit could be found for its construction. Date Description of Work Performed Owner on Record 1935 24 x 26 dwelling constructed at rear of parcel John A. Boone 1938 Two more dwellings (2014 was 24 6 x 23 6, 2014A was 23 6 x 22 6 ) constructed John A. Boone 1941 One more dwelling (24 x23 ) constructed John A. Boone 1951 One more dwelling unit (1348 sq. ft.) constructed Fred and Mary Hansen 4 United States Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940, Santa Monica, Los Angeles County, California (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1940). 5 Los Angeles County Department of the Assessor, Parcel Information, accessed online at http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/mapping/viewer.asp.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 13 4. Historic Contexts 4.1 Development of the Pico Neighborhood Early Santa Monica The roots of present- day Santa Monica, which was originally inhabited by the Tongva people and was later incorporated into California s network of expansive land grants during the state s Mexican period, can be traced to the early 1870s. Rancher Colonel R.S. Baker and Nevada Senator John Percival Jones teamed to organize the Los Angeles and Independence Railroad, envisioning a seaside terminus at Santa Monica Bay that would become the economic heart of the Los Angeles area. They constructed a wharf and in 1875 had the townsite of Santa Monica platted and recorded; the original townsite was bounded by Colorado Street, Montana Street, the coastline, and 26 th Street. 6 East of the town, in what is now the Pico neighborhood, William Spencer established and ran a clay manufacturing plant that made bricks, pipe, and other building materials; to make the pipe for a large irrigation system project elsewhere, the plant excavated clay from massive on- site pits up to 50 feet deep. 7 South of Spencer s clay operation, what would become part of the Pico neighborhood was largely agricultural land with fields of barley and beans. 8 The new town s promoters touted Santa Monica as a beautiful and healthful destination, and lots sold rapidly during 1875. A small commercial district materialized, and some of Los Angeles most prominent citizens built shops and houses in the new community. Baker and Jones vision was never to be realized, however, as competition by rival railroad lines soon put the LA&I out of business; Southern Pacific acquired the line in 1877 and ran only light traffic on it until the 1890s. 9 After reaching an estimated height of 900 people in 1876, by 1880 Santa Monica s population had dropped to 400. 10 Jones and other wealthy promoters did not give up on Santa Monica, and soon reinvented the town as a resort destination. The completion of a transcontinental rail line into Southern California and the subsequent fare war between the competing Southern Pacific and Santa Fe Railroad companies led to an 1880s real estate boom across the region, as people from all over the country took advantage of low fares and embarked for California s warmer climes. 11 Santa Monica was one of many communities to benefit. The community incorporated in late 1886 and embarked on a bid to become the premier resort city in Southern California. Santa Monica was heavily marketed as a tourist destination and gained national acclaim for its recreational culture, balmy climate, bathhouses, opulent hotels, and amusement piers. Jones tried once more to make the city an industrial center, partnering with Southern Pacific Railroad president Collis P. Huntington to build the infamous Long Wharf and make Santa Monica the 6 City of Santa Monica General Plan, Historic Preservation Element (Santa Monica, California: PCR Services Corporation and Historic Resources Group, September 2002), 10. 7 Deirdre Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration: A Case Study of the Pico Neighborhood in Santa Monica, CA (UCLA M.A. Thesis, 2007), 25. 8 Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 25-26. 9 Electric Railway Historical Association, Pacific Electric: Santa Monica Air Line (http://www.erha.org/pewal.htm), accessed 4 August 2014. 10 City of Santa Monica, Historic Preservation Element, 11. 11 George L. Henderson, California and the Fictions of Capital (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 154.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 14 region s chief industrial port, serviced exclusively by Huntington s railroad. After years of legal and public relations battles, the backers of the competing port at San Pedro Bay defeated Jones and the Southern Pacific, and in 1897 San Pedro became the Port of Los Angeles. Failed industrial aspirations notwithstanding, Santa Monica s development carried on at a rapid pace from the 1880s onward. In addition to its resort institutions, the city saw robust agricultural activity, as farmers on the east side of town grew crops of everything from lima beans to carnations and saw them freighted off to the larger region. The city s population grew steadily, reaching 1,580 people in 1890 and 3,057 in 1900. 12 Residential construction first tended to be concentrated in sites nearest the ocean and around the present- day commercial core. Small communities of beach cottages arose, many built as vacation homes for affluent out- of- towners, and large residences were constructed on parcels atop the palisades that overlook the ocean. 13 Not all housing was for resort visitors; streets filled with modest bungalows and cottages housing full- time residents, many of whom worked for tourist- oriented establishments like hotels and restaurants. Religious institutions, schools, clubs, and other community services grew to serve the permanent population, and city services like street grading and sidewalk additions greatly improved the landscape after incorporation. Residential development expanded eastward and accelerated in the early 1890s with the establishment of electric railway service. Beginning in 1896, the Pasadena Pacific Railway between Los Angeles and Santa Monica used the old Southern Pacific line to greatly increase accessibility to areas that had previously been impractical to subdivide and develop. This line later became the Los Angeles Pacific Railway, and in a 1911 reorganization, became part of the Southern Pacific- owned Pacific Electric Railway. Within Santa Monica, local cars ran on Broadway, 3 rd Street, Montana Avenue, and Lincoln Boulevard. 14 The already- heavy influx of tourists grew even heavier. Pacific Electric s renowned Airline route ran near- constant service, carrying thousands of passengers a day in a crowded stream toward Santa Monica s beaches and amusements. Areas south of the original townsite, Ocean Park in particular, became the new heart of tourism, with ever- grander bathhouses, piers, amusement parks, and other attractions. Away from the beach, in the eastern part of town, Santa Monica s permanent residents were putting down roots. Origins of the Pico Neighborhood By 1906, Santa Monica had extended its eastern boundary to Cambridge Avenue (now Centinela Avenue); by 1910, it had extended the city limits well south of Colorado, past Marine Street, wholly including what would become known as the Pico neighborhood. 15 The southern part of the city, to include much of Pico, Ocean Park, and other neighborhoods, was demarcated by an east/west- running gully that would later be enlarged to hold Interstate 10. In addition to the gully, the Pico neighborhood 12 Les Storrs, Santa Monica: Portrait of a City (Santa Monica: Santa Monica Bank, 1974), 17. 13 City of Santa Monica, Historic Preservation Element, 12-13. 14 Storrs, Santa Monica, 20. 15 Thomas E. James (W.L. Young, Chief Draftsman), Official Map of the City of Santa Monica, April 1906 (Santa Monica, California: City Engineer s Office, 1906), accessed online at http://digital.smpl.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/maps/id/38/rec/1, 8 August 2014; W.W. Phelps, Map of Santa Monica and Vicinity, Los Angeles County, Cal, 1910 (Santa Monica, California: City Engineer s Office, 1910), accessed online at http://digital.smpl.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/maps/id/19/rec/2, 6 August 2014.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 15 had another crucial linear feature that helped to shape the landscape: the Southern Pacific rail line, which carried freight and passengers to and from Santa Monica and inspired the rapid development of a large industrial district in Pico. Among the area s most prominent operations was the Simons Brick plant, established in 1905 to excavate local clay and fire bricks and tiles for industrial and commercial uses. 16 It became the center of a large brick manufacturing district, which both provided employment for local residents and made a significant physical mark on the landscape with deep clay excavation pits and vast brick- drying yards. Other industrial occupants of the Pico district included freight outfits moving crops like lima beans out, and building materials for the rapidly growing city in. The neighborhoods that grew up around the industrial areas and in the rest of the Pico neighborhood were mostly working class, inland from the ocean but proximal to rail lines, industry, and agricultural operations. Tracts like the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Santa Monica Tract (1904) and the Campbell Villa Tract (1906), where the properties at 2002-2008 and 2014-2018 21 st Street were eventually built, were subdivided and lots sold slowly but steadily through the 1910s, picking up more rapidly in the 1920s and 1930s. Most of the neighborhood s earliest residential development was in the form of single- family houses, with multi- family housing occurring much less frequently and nearly always in the form of bungalow courts. While the majority of Santa Monica s new turn- of- the- century residents were white, many from the Midwest, the city had sizable minority populations as well; the oldest and best- established were the Californios who had lived there for generations. Among the new arrivals from the 1890s to the early 1900s were a number of first- generation Latino migrants, mostly Mexican American (many from the Valle de Guadalupe in the State of Jalisco), who had worked on the construction of the electric railway line. 17 They and their families bought lots near the line and became some of the first residents of what would become the Pico neighborhood, in an area they called La Veinte ( The Twenty ). 18 It was in the general area bounded by Olympic Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, 14 th Street, and 20 th Street. Santa Monica s Japanese population was originally based in a small village near Santa Monica Canyon, which was condemned by the city in 1920 and its buildings subsequently razed. Many of the residents moved to the Japanese enclave at Los Angeles Terminal Island, where they continued to work as fishermen, while others stayed in Santa Monica and dispersed to other areas; a significant number moved into the Pico neighborhood. The city s African American population grew slowly from around 1900 onward, and established churches, social groups and businesses to provide services often denied by the majority white community. Most of Santa Monica s black residents first settled in an area around 4 th and Bay Streets, near today s Civic Center. 19 By the 1920s, racial restrictions were well entrenched in Santa Monica; African Americans were limited to jobs as domestic and service workers, and were prohibited from using public beaches aside from the one at the foot of Pico Boulevard, known informally as the Ink Well. 20 16 Dan Mosier, Simons Brick Company, Plant Number 4, Santa Monica, http://calbricks.netfirms.com/brick.simonssm.html, 2010, accessed 11 August 2014. 17 Stella M. Capek and John I. Gilderbloom, Community Versus Commodity: Tenants and the American City (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992), 58; Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 26. 18 Paula Scott, Santa Monica: A History on the Edge (San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2004), 55. 19 Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 27. 20 Scott, Santa Monica, 55.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 16 The Calvary Baptist Church was established in the Pico neighborhood in 1920, first occupying a private residence at 17 th and Broadway. 21 Through deed restrictions and less formal forms of segregation, starting in the 1920s Santa Monica s African American population came to be concentrated in the Pico neighborhood, further diversifying an area already containing a mix of Latino, white, and Japanese residents. The Pico neighborhood began to crystallize as a recognizable place within the larger city of Santa Monica in the 1920s, as it became one of the most desirable areas for working- class residents to live. It boasted lower housing costs than the neighborhoods closer to the ocean, and was well- served by the Pacific Electric railroad. Some of the huge pits from which clay was once dug were filled in (others would remain until the 1940s), and residents began working to have the sprawling brickyards operation removed. Farmland at the eastern edge of town was subdivided and built out. Santa Monica Junior College (now Santa Monica College) was established in Pico in 1929, joining other neighborhood institutions like businesses, churches, schools, parks, and Woodlawn Cemetery. An African American business district developed along Broadway Avenue between 17 th and 20 th Streets, offering a variety of goods and services from barber shops to doctors offices. 22 In the late 1930s, the neighborhood experienced an influx of African Americans who had been displaced from the historically black enclave around Bay and 4 th, where the city sited its new civic center. By the 1930s, the Pico neighborhood had a range of multi- family as well as single- family housing, much of which developed thanks to a new manufacturing operation in the area: the Douglas Aircraft Company. Santa Monica suffered the effects of the Great Depression like the rest of the country, seeing the precipitous decline of tourism, but the manufacturing work provided by Douglas helped it to recover more quickly than many other places. World War II, Labor, and Housing in Pico The Douglas manufacturing plant moved to the new Clover airfield in the southeastern part of Santa Monica in 1928 and quickly became a crucial factor in the development of the surrounding area. From the early 1930s onward, the company created thousands of jobs and spurred rapid development of the Sunset Park and Pico neighborhoods. In the pre- World War II period, Douglas offered attractive employment designing and building both military aircraft and commercial aircraft like the DC- 3. Its impact was swift: in 1933, the company employed 965 workers, and just three years later it was employing 4,300. 23 During the buildup to the war and during wartime, the company expanded to build military aircraft on a massive scale and its thousands of workers toiled around the clock. By 1944, the Santa Monica plant was employing 33,000 men and women. 24 Santa Monica saw a massive population increase during World War II, which led to a severe housing shortage and cramped quarters in existing housing stock. Early in the war, Douglas refused to hire women or African Americans, but a severe labor shortage and federal anti- discriminatory hiring rules convinced it to hire both by 1942. 25 African Americans streamed 21 Scott, Santa Monica, 56; Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 27. 22 Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 31-32. 23 Scott, Santa Monica, 112. 24 Scott, Santa Monica, 119. 25 Scott, Santa Monica, 120.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 17 into Santa Monica from all over the country to work in the defense industry, joining Santa Monica s existing population of African Americans and Mexican Americans in seeking new employment opportunities during the war. The city s African American population increased from 1,265 in 1940 to approximately 4,060 in 1960. 26 Most made their homes in the Pico neighborhood, both because it was close to Douglas and because they had few options when it came to living anyplace else in the city. Racial covenants prevented African Americans from living west of Lincoln Boulevard, north of Colorado Avenue, or south of Pico Boulevard, and less formal discrimination meant white owners were unlikely to sell or rent to many of them. 27 Santa Monica s Japanese American residents also experienced severe discrimination, imprisoned in internment camps during World War II. While some returned after the war, most did not after losing their homes and businesses; the Pico neighborhood would never see the same concentration it once did. 28 Postwar Development The Pico neighborhood came into its own during the postwar period, as its diverse population used the advances it had made during the war to demand better treatment and housing options. While Douglas Aircraft no longer employed tens of thousands, the new industrial manufacturing base built during the war meant that after an initial drop, employment was able to slowly climb back up. Following neighborhood trends, the tenants who lived in the courtyard apartment properties at 2002-2008 and 2014-2018 21 st Street reflected a wide range of occupations during the postwar period; while some were aircraft workers, others were restaurant employees, salesmen, nurses, construction workers, and teachers. 29 Little information has been found on the ethnic background of the properties tenants; of the very few names of early tenants that could be connected through city directories and the 1940 census, most were found to be those of white Midwest- born individuals, with several California- and Mexican- born Latino residents and one Filipino American. Residential development exploded across the city as building materials became available, and Pico joined the rest of Santa Monica in the construction of hundreds of new multi- family buildings. As historian Les Storrs said about the postwar period, It was then that Santa Monica really started to become a city of apartment dwellers. 30 Low- density properties like single- family houses, bungalow courts, and one- story courtyard apartments were joined by two- story apartment buildings, larger- scale courtyard complexes, and even apartment towers. Property owners squeezed additional units onto their lots wherever they would fit, resulting in ad hoc complexes of buildings in different architectural styles. Camps and motels for tourists, including several trailer parks used by car campers, were converted to permanent housing. For new construction, builders used federal funds provided by Section 608 of the National Housing Act. Most of these new buildings were wood- framed, stucco- clad, two- story buildings that covered 72% of their total lot area. 31 26 Census Bureau Publication 9/25/1946, series p- sc, No. 175. Santa Monica (Calif.) Population. Socio/Economic Study, Santa Monica, California [draft report] (Santa Monica Planning Department, 1974), 45 in ICF International, Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report (Draft) (City of Santa Monica 2010), 70. 27 Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 30. 28 Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 34. 29 Santa Monica City Directories, 1936-1961. 30 Storrs, Santa Monica, 41. 31 Storrs, Santa Monica, 41.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 18 By the 1950s, Santa Monica was well established as a center of industry as well as recreation, and was strongly connected to the larger regional economy. The city began a number of substantial civic improvements to better serve its growing population (and to present a more modern façade to the world). One of the most visible was the destructive urban renewal that demolished old bungalows and beach cottages in the adjacent Ocean Park neighborhood, many of which had been occupied by African Americans and Mexican Americans. The older housing was replaced with newer, more expensive housing, as well as commercial operations and other properties aiming for what the city saw as the area s highest and best use. Over the next 20 years, the city s commercial and mixed- use zoned areas began to see more and bigger developments, from condominium complexes to office towers, establishing the streetscape which marks Santa Monica today. Part of Santa Monica s 1950s push for development was a new plan for a better connection to the rest of Los Angeles: the construction of the Santa Monica Freeway (Interstate 10) between downtown Los Angeles and the Pacific Ocean. City leaders lobbied regional transportation authorities to have the freeway sited through Santa Monica, seeing huge benefits in facilitating travel to their city, and successfully won in the late 1950s. Despite protests from local residents facing the loss of their homes and the division of their neighborhood by an eight- lane freeway, the city decided to route the freeway through the gully that transected Pico. The Pico neighborhood had few resources to defend against the construction: it had Santa Monica s lowest incomes, highest minority population, and no representation on the City Council. 32 With the construction of the freeway, an estimated 1,500 people were displaced, their homes, businesses, and cultural institutions demolished; on average, displaced residents had lived in the Pico neighborhood for 17 years. 33 The freeway was constructed through Pico between 1964 and 1966, and had an immediate, devastating effect on the neighborhood. The payment homeowners received for their properties was usually not enough to purchase a comparable home in another part of Santa Monica, so many of the area s African American and Latino residents were forced to move out of the city or find rental housing. A once- cohesive neighborhood was split in two. Historian Paula Scott summarized the effect of the freeway on Pico: Whatever the intentions of city decision- makers, the effect of building the freeway through Santa Monica s densest minority area effectively counteracted several decades of civil- rights improvements. Lives and businesses that had been painstakingly built up were disbanded and long- time residents were pushed out of the city altogether. Moreover, by agreeing to destroy a large pocket of affordable housing in the city, officials reduced the economic diversity of the city and thereby discouraged minorities from seeking homes in Santa Monica in the future. 34 Santa Monica s newfound accessibility made it more attractive to higher- income residents, who could now live at the beach while still easily accessing work in other parts of the Los Angeles basin via the 10 Freeway. Housing prices soared in the 1960s and 1970s, leading to the demolition of smaller, older 32 In 1946, the City Council had defeated a measure that would have created council districts, ensuring all neighborhoods in the city would be represented. Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 36. 33 Gary Squier, Anita Landecker, and Paul Zimmerman, Pico Neighborhood Community Plan (Santa Monica, California: Pico Neighborhood Association, 1983), 24. 34 Scott, Santa Monica, 136.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 19 apartment buildings and single- family houses to make way for larger multi- family buildings. In 1979, voters amended the city charter to establish rent control with the goal of preserving low and moderate income rental housing and giving tenants more rights. In the same year, Pico neighborhood residents frustrated by the city s treatment of the area formed the Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) to serve as an advocacy and planning group. Both rent control and PNA advocacy served as valuable tools in preserving affordable housing and city services in the marginalized neighborhood. Rent control remains in effect, but in 1995 the city s laws were altered so landlords can raise rents to market rates when a unit is vacated. Built Environment of the Pico Neighborhood As the above discussion demonstrates, the Pico neighborhood developed most of its building stock from the 1930s to the late 1960s. It had earlier (1910s- 1920s) residential examples, from Craftsman cottages to Spanish Colonial Revival bungalow courts, as well as institutions like churches, schools, and a cemetery (established 1897). Construction in the neighborhood reached its peak during World War II and in the immediate postwar period, when returning veterans settled in the area and once- temporary defense workers decided to stay permanently. The most common architectural styles are Minimal Traditional (some with modest Ranch or Modern stylistic elements), Mid- Century Modern, and Spanish Colonial Revival. Vernacular properties without a formal architectural style are also common, particularly in the commercial corridors and industrial districts. The neighborhood includes subdivisions exclusively or primarily containing single- family houses dating mostly to the 1940s, as in the area around Delaware Boulevard in the eastern portion of Pico. More typical streetscapes include a mix of one- and two- story multi- family building types (apartment buildings, courtyard apartments, and bungalow courts) interspersed with single- family houses. The neighborhood is also notable for its high amount of industrially zoned areas compared to other areas of Santa Monica; this is partly because of its historical proximity to rail lines and partly because of purposeful zoning. In 1929 and again in 1937 and 1948, comprehensive zoning plans shaped the area s development; these plans formally delineated the industrial district between Colorado Avenue and what is now the Santa Monica Freeway. 35 The neighborhood also has a large amount of mixed- use zoning, meaning that it is fairly common to see apartment buildings (usually two- story apartment houses from the 1940s to the 1960s) on streets also containing industrial and commercial properties. Subdivisions of single- family houses tend to have multi- family properties along the edges and facing the larger streets. A windshield survey of the neighborhood found that much of the Pico neighborhood s historical multi- family and single- family housing stock remains, although unaltered examples are rare even in areas with concentrations of extant 1930s- 1950s buildings. Later infill from the 1970s into the present day is common, characterized by two to five story apartment buildings that maximize their lot coverage, many with below- grade parking. On the whole, the Pico neighborhood is characterized by a broad mix of property types with a wide age range. The immediate area around the subject properties at 21 st Street and Virginia Avenue exhibits the same pattern, with a mix of multi- family and single- family properties dating from the 1910s to the 2000s; there is not a cohesive grouping of intact properties sharing a period of significance in the vicinity of the subject properties. 35 Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 29; Storrs, Santa Monica, 41.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 20 4.2 Courtyard Housing in the Pico Neighborhood Between the 1920s and the 1950s, much of Pico s multi- family housing was courtyard housing, as is evidenced by existing building stock. The term courtyard housing is broadly understood to include a spectrum of multifamily property types with characteristic communal site planning features, including courtyard apartments, garden courts, and bungalow courts. 36 Both properties addressed in this report fall into the category of courtyard housing; the complex at 2014-2018 21 st Street features detached residential units situated around a central court, often referred to as a bungalow court, while the complex at 2002-2008 21 st Street features two rows of attached units around a central court, a form often referred to as a courtyard apartment. Bungalow courts are the earliest form of courtyard housing seen in Santa Monica; this property type appeared in Southern California as early as the 1910s before reaching widespread popularity in the 1920s. The earliest and most prevalent examples consist of single- family bungalows arranged in a series, typically facing a center court. The automobile featured prominently in the development of bungalow courts; by the 1920s nearly all had accommodations for the automobile, commonly with a central or side driveway leading to rear garages, or alley access. Although early bungalow courts were often constructed by builders rather than architects and intended for residents of modest means, their evolution represented a major shift from preceding idioms of American dwelling types. Bungalow courts were the first multi- family prototype to focus more on space than object, providing residents with the advantages of parks and shared spaces for communal interaction within a densely urban setting. The architectural styles most commonly associated with bungalow courts are Craftsman and Spanish Colonial Revival, although they were designed in other styles, including American Colonial Revival, Streamline Moderne, Minimal Traditional, and Ranch. Traditional bungalow courts gave way to other forms of courtyard housing both elaborate and modest in the decades before and after World War II. In the Pico neighborhood, minimal courtyard apartments were common; one- story versions with one to three buildings oriented around a small courtyard made the most of a small lot without sacrificing the landscaped interior. Employing a U- shaped or double- bar plan, these tended to be open to the street or featured a low wall over which the courtyard was visible. Two- story courtyard apartment complexes with one or more buildings offered more units oriented around the interior courtyard, which continued to serve as the primary location of pedestrian circulation and open space. Larger, later complexes from the 1950s onward were more concerned with privacy, and often had a nearly solid streetwall with a small opening into the courtyard. In some, the lush landscaping and sitting areas gave way to swimming pools for communal use. Across all of these common courtyard apartment types, individual dwelling unit entrances opened into the interior courtyard, with occasional street- facing units in the front. The most common architectural styles for 1940s and 1950s courtyard apartments in this area were Minimal Traditional, Mid- Century Modern, and Late Moderne. 36 Santa Monica s courtyard housing is addressed in more detail in Architectural Resources Group, San Vicente Apartments: Courtyard Housing Study (City of Santa Monica October 2009), and much of the discussion here is from that document.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 21 In the 1960s and 70s, as an emphasis on maximizing lot capacity prevailed, courtyards were seen as wasted space that could be profitable as inhabitable, rentable square footage. Large, central courtyards were eliminated or replaced with small lightwells providing natural light to units, and in many cases corridors were placed indoors or at side elevations with exterior balconies. The Pico neighborhood has a sizable number of two to three- story apartment buildings from the 1970s to the 1990s that maximize their lot coverage and have little to no open courtyard space in the center. One- story Courtyard Housing in the Pico Neighborhood: Windshield Survey ARG conducted a windshield survey of the Pico neighborhood on August 13, 2014, focusing specifically on the courtyard apartment property types most comparable to the properties at 2002-2008 and 2014-2018 21 st Street: one- story bungalow courts and one- story courtyard apartments. The survey found a total of 20 properties of this type within the Pico neighborhood (not including the two subject properties); ten are bungalow courts and ten are courtyard apartments. A list of all properties identified is included in Appendix A; photographs of selected properties are included in Appendix B. The bungalow courts have a date range of 1923 to 1955; the most common styles are Spanish Colonial Revival and Minimal Traditional (four examples each), with one example each of Craftsman and Streamline Moderne. One example, a 1923-1930 Spanish Colonial Revival complex at 1813 11 th Street, appears to be intact with no visible alterations. The rest of the bungalow courts have experienced multiple alterations, the most common being window and door replacements. Five of the ten bungalow courts had individual units constructed in different years, as seen in 2014-2018 21 st Street. The courtyard apartments have a date range of 1926 to 1954, with the vast majority (nine of ten) constructed between 1942 and 1954. The most common style is Minimal Traditional (six examples), with lesser amounts of Mid- Century Modern (three) and one Spanish Colonial Revival. Two properties, a 1942 Minimal Traditional complex at 1801-1807 9 th Street and a Mid- Century Modern complex at 1625 Centinela Avenue, appear to be intact with no visible alterations besides the addition of fencing. Two other properties (3120 Colorado Avenue and 1420-1422 20 th Street) have low visibility because of hedges and fences so their condition and integrity are unknown. Santa Monica s historic resource inventory (HRI) notes the bungalow court at 1813 11 th Street and the courtyard apartment at 1625 Centinela have been found eligible for local listing as Structures of Merit. The Centinela property is very similar in both style and scale to the complex at 2002-2008 21 st Street.
Landmark Assessment Report Page 22 1813 11 th St. bungalow court. ARG, 8/13/14. 1625 Centinela Ave. courtyard apartment. City of Santa Monica HRI, 1/18/07. 5. Regulations and Criteria for Evaluation 5.1 City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance Historic preservation in Santa Monica is governed by Chapter 9.36 (Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. The Ordinance was adopted by the Santa Monica City Council on March 24, 1976 and was twice amended, first in 1987 and again in 1991. 37 Among the primary objectives achieved by the Ordinance was the creation of a local designation program for buildings, structures, sites, objects, districts, and landscapes in the City that are of historical significance. With regard to individually significant properties, the Ordinance distinguishes between two tiers of designation: Landmarks and Structures of Merit. Landmarks, outlined in 9.36.100, are considered to exhibit the highest level of individual historical or architectural significance ; Santa Monica s designated landmarks include well- known and highly significant properties like the Rapp Saloon, Santa Monica City Hall, and the John Byers Adobe. Structures of Merit, outlined in 9.36.080, possess a degree of individual significance that is more limited in scope. 38 Protections against demolition and alterations are commensurate with the tier of individual designation assigned to a particular resource. In addition to individual Landmarks and Structures of Merit, the Ordinance establishes statutory criteria and procedures for the designation of Historic Districts, defined in 9.36.030 as a geographic area or noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties that collectively contribute to the historic character of an area within the City. Unlike individual properties, whose designation does not require 37 City of Santa Monica General Plan, Historic Preservation Element, prepared by PCR Services Corporation and Historic Resources Group (September 2002), 1-2. 38 City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department, Historic Preservation in Santa Monica, accessed 8 August 2014 < http://www.smgov.net/departments/pcd/programs/historic- Preservation/>