Adaptive reuse as economic development in downtown Los Angeles: a resource guide for start-up developers, community based organizations, and stakeholder groups

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Summarize

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
ADAPTIVE REUSE AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES: A RESOURCE GUIDE
FOR START-UP DEVELOPERS, COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS,
AND STAKEHOLDER GROUPS

by

Imani Brown

___________________________________________________________________

A Project Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING,
AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

December 2009

Copyright 2009 Imani Brown

ii

DEDICATION

_________________________________________________________

To my beloved husband and friend Maynard Brown, you are my soul mate.
Without your unconditional love, support, and patience none of this would be
possible. I want you to know that I realize the full measure of the sacrifices you
made on my behalf. You have always stood by me, protecting and nurturing,
allowing me to realize my life-long dream. Thank you.
Destini Brown, our daughter, how proud I am of the beautiful spirit that you
are. I hope my accomplishment inspires you to go after whatever your heart desires.
Being your mom motivates me each day to learn more, give more, become more.
You are the light.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

_________________________________________________________

As the African proverb reads, “It takes a village to raise a child.” I would
not be here had it not been for the love, and life-long encouragement from my
village. My father and mother Lewis and Dorothy Brown. Mom and Dad, you have,
and always will be my role models. You taught me through your sixty-two year
marriage the meaning of family loyalty, endurance, and faith. I have enormous
respect and admiration for you; please know that I treasure our closeness and
friendship. I never stop wanting both of you to be proud of me. Thank you for
everything.
To Tracey Drake, “you’re my sistah girl.” I could not ask for a more
abiding relationship. Thank you for always standing by me, pushing me forward,
and believing that I could do this. To the rest of my wonderful family, my sister
Myra Brown, my brothers Santiago Drake, Lorenzo Hough, and Tom Hampton, I
always feel your love for me, and that awareness keeps me grounded. To my nieces
and nephews, Korri, Lewis, Julian, and Christina, we have an undeniable bond.
I have been blessed with a large extended family, and lifelong friends. I
want to thank a special group of beautiful women whom I admire, and who have
iv
stood with me over the years; Valerie Spiller, June Mancuso, Dilva Henry, Bettye
Parker Smith, Stephanie Hampton, Brenda Miller, Zenobia Wright, Makila James,
and Darlene Donloe.
I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee: Professor
Harry Richardson, committee chair, thank you for your kindness and support. Dr.
Tridib Banerjee, Dr. James Stelle, thank you for your time and input. A special
thank you to Dr. Elton Massey, who helped me sustain, and forge ahead. Last, but
not least, Mark Coston, my webmaster, thank you for your patience.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

_________________________________________________________

DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. vii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... viii

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1
1.1 Preview ....................................................................... 1
1.2 Methodology .............................................................. 2
1.3 Literature Review ....................................................... 2
1.4 Historical Overview ................................................... 3
1.5 Downtown Los Angeles ............................................. 5
1.6 The Central Business District..................................... 6
1.7 Origin and History of Zoning ..................................... 7
1.7.1 Euclidean Zoning ......................................... 16
1.7.2 Performance Zoning ..................................... 16
1.7.3 Incentive Zoning .......................................... 18
1.7.4 Form-Based Zoning ..................................... 19
1.8 Euclidean Zoning and Urban Growth ...................... 20
1.9 Euclidean Zoning and Urban Sprawl ....................... 21
1.9.1 Negative Impacts Associated
with Euclidean Zoning ................................. 22

vi
CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS OF THE LOS ANGELES
ADAPTIVE REUSE PROGRAM .......................................... 25
2.1 History ......................................................................... 25
2.2 Overview of the Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance Program .................................................... 28
2.3 Historic Preservation .................................................. 28
2.4 Economic Incentives for Historic
Preservation ................................................................. 31
2.5 Zoning Incentives for Adaptive Reuse ........................ 33

CHAPTER 3: ADAPTIVE REUSE ORDINANCE PROJECTS,
LOS ANGELES ......................................................................... 36
3.1 Case Studies ................................................................ 36
3.2 The Gas Company Lofts ............................................. 38
3.2.1 Lessons Learned .............................................. 43
3.3 Lofts at the Security Building ..................................... 45
3.3.1 Lessons Learned .............................................. 48
3.4 The Hellman Building ................................................. 49
3.5 The Continental Building ............................................ 53
3.6 The San Fernando Building ........................................ 57
3.6.1 Perspectives: The Hellman,
Continental and San Fernando
Buildings ......................................................... 61
3.6.2 Lessons Learned .............................................. 62
3.7 Pros and Cons of the Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance Program ..................................................... 63
3.7.1 Pros .................................................................. 64
3.7.2 Cons ................................................................ 65
3.7.3 Pros/Cons ........................................................ 65

CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY ........................................................................... 69
4.1 Observations ................................................................ 69
4.2 Conclusions ................................................................. 71

CHAPTER 5: WEBSITE ............................................................................... 72
5.1 Discussion ................................................................... 72

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 74
vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The Gas Company Lofts .................................................................. 39

Table 2. Lofts at the Security Building .......................................................... 46

Table 3. The Hellman Building ...................................................................... 51

Table 4. The Continental Building ................................................................. 56

Table 5. The San Fernando Building ............................................................. 58

Table 6. City of Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse Ordinance
Projects ............................................................................................. 67

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Central Business District, Downtown Los Angeles……. ................ 30

Figure 2. The Gas Company Lofts……………………………… .................. 38

Figure 3. Lofts at the Security Building………………………... ................... 45

Figure 4. The Hellman Building………………………………… .................. 50

Figure 5. The Continental Building-A………………………… ..................... 54

Figure 6. The Continental Building-B…………………………… ................. 55

Figure 7. The San Fernando Building……………………….. ....................... 57

ix

ABSTRACT

The formal definition of Adaptive Reuse by the City of Los Angeles is the
rezoning of obsolete, vacant and/or historic, manufacturing or commercial
buildings, built prior to 1974. These structures are then rezoned for mixed-use
residential, live/work lofts, and hotels. Since the adoption of the Los Angeles
“Adaptive Reuse Zoning Ordinance” in 1999, twenty seven obsolete buildings in
downtown Los Angeles have been converted into mixed-use residential structures.
From its’ inception to the present, participants in the program have been
major prime developers with capacity. This exclusivity of participants is
fundamentally related to the high cost of downtown real estate, and the complicated
entitlement and permitting process. The goal of this Planning, Design and
Development Project is to assist the start-up developer specifically, and community
based organizations in general who have interest in Adaptive Reuse, but do not
have the capacity to participate.
Inasmuch as Adaptive Reuse is a zoning mechanism, this project focuses on
the history of zoning in the United States, differences in zoning types, and how
zoning practices have shaped urban communities. The literature review attempts to
x
establish a rationale for the contemporary urban community today, based on the
model of Euclidean Zoning practices as expressed in Edward Bassett’s book
entitled Zoning: The Law, Administration, and Court Decision During the First
Twenty Years, William Fulton’s book entitled The Reluctant Metropolis: The
Politics of Urban Growth in Los Angeles, and Robert Fogelson’s book entitled
Downtown: Its Rise and Fall, along with the works of many other authors.
The core of the research presents the views of developers, city planners,
building and safety professionals, community based organizations, business
owners, zoning administrators, and other stakeholder groups who have opinions,
and perspectives regarding accessibility of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance program
to start-up developers, community based organizations, its impact as well as its
implications on infill development in urban communities.
As a companion tool to the discussion regarding zoning practices, and the
Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse Ordinance program, this researcher has created a
website resource guide. The website streamlines the navigational process of
electronic research, and provides substantive resources under one website umbrella.
Hopefully start-up developers, community based organizations, and other
stakeholder groups who want to participate in Adaptive Reuse projects will find
this tool useful.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Preview
There has been little written regarding downtown America. Historians
seem to focus on the urban ghettos and suburbs of American cities. For this
researcher, the notion of “downtown” evokes images of excitement, movement, a
place to conduct business, to go shopping, enjoy art, music, culture, food; to be a
part of a dynamic that you wouldn’t find anywhere else in a city. For many,
downtown America has always represented the heart and soul of a city.
Downtown Los Angeles experienced a major transformation over the last
ten years. From an area of economic decline, blight and obsolescence of the 1970’s
through 1990, we witnessed a major catalyst for this transformation in the City of
Los Angeles’s Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program. This ordinance allows old
manufacturing and commercial buildings built prior to 1974 to be rezoned for
residential, live/work lofts, hotels, and mix-used development. This innovative
program has enabled historic buildings to be restored and revitalized. Maintaining
historic buildings not only contributes to sustainable development, it also protects
2
the cultural and historic fabric of the built environment. Downtown Los Angeles is
becoming a seven days a week, twenty four hours per day urban core.

1.2 Methodology
This study includes a review of the literature via professional and scholarly
journals and articles from the internet and newspapers. The statistics came from
the United States Census Bureau. Primary information was gleaned from personal
interviews with developers, senior administrators from the City of Los Angeles
Planning Department, Building and Safety, the Community Redevelopment
Agency Los Angeles, Community-Based Organizations, Los Angeles Chambers of
Commerce, and other stakeholder groups. Since the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance
Program is barely ten years old, its long term economic impact and sustainability of
downtown Los Angeles will require further analysis and study.

1.3 Literature Review
An examination of previous research on the formation of downtown
America, the history, and zoning practices in the United States, as well as urban
sprawl, were the central themes of the literature review. Given the practical
applications of Adaptive Reuse on urban development, the literature review
3
focused on zoning, as well as its varied machinations over time, and its impact on
the built environment.

1.4 Historical Overview
In the late 1830s and 1840s, the word “downtown” had a geographic
meaning. For example, in New York City, when people spoke of downtown they
meant the southern portion of Manhattan Island; conversely, when people spoke of
uptown, they were referring to the northern part of Manhattan. During the next
forty years, New York’s population grew from 250,000 to nearly 1.5 million and
with this huge influx of immigrants, a relentless demand for commerce and trade
emerged (Fogelson, 2001, 10). This demand for commerce and trade transformed
lower (southern) Manhattan into offices, stores, warehouses, and shops, and upper
(northern) Manhattan into a residential community. Little by little, home owners in
lower Manhattan were forced to sell their homes, as entrepreneurs set up shops.
The price of real estate became cost prohibitive and, eventually, home owners
couldn’t refuse the enormous fees being offered for their properties; this
phenomena transformed the configuration of the city as a whole. Downtown had
now become synonymous with business, commerce and trade, as oppose to a
geographic area.
Cities such as Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco, Philadelphia and New
Orleans became known for their “downtowns” as places of commerce and trade,
4
regardless of whether downtown was located in the southern portion of the city like
Manhattan. The importance of downtown America in areas such as Chicago, New
York, Detroit, Philadelphia and other cities is vividly described in Fogelson’s
Downtown: Its Rise & Fall 1880-1950 (2001), he wrote:
Retailers and wholesalers worked there, as did the bankers,
financiers, insurance, utility, and corporate executives, the lawyers,
realtors, architects, engineers, and accountants, the clerks, typists,
salesmen, salesgirls, messengers, craftsmen, and laborers. The
courts, government agencies, post and telegraph offices were
located in downtown, as were most hotels, restaurants, places of
popular amusement, and institutions of high culture. Downtown
was the site of nearly all the city’s businesses except heavy
industries (like steel mills), noxious activities (slaughterhouses),
and a wide range of neighborhood trades and shops, many of
which catered largely to one or another of America’s many ethnic
groups (211).

It is interesting to note that the word downtown did not have much meaning outside
the United States … downtown was not only an American word, it was also
uniquely an American place (Raleigh, 1913, 38).
Virtually, in every city, downtown had some sort of physical boundaries,
usually a river, or lake, or a combination of both. Another distinguishing attribute
of downtown was that it was a destination for street railways, which were still
pulled by horses in the 1880s. The elevator railways, which ran above the streets of
New York, and local ferries.

5
1.5 Downtown Los Angeles
The downtown area of Los Angeles was originally a farming pueblo for the
San Gabriel Mission and was founded in 1781 by a Spanish governor named Felipe
de Neve. This governor named Los Angeles, El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina
de los Ángeles de Porciúncula, which translates into “The Village of Our Lady, the
Queen of the Angels of the river” (History of Los Angeles County, 2008). Los
Angeles became part of Mexico in 1821 following their independence from Spain,
and then it became a part of the United States in 1848, with the treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo at the conclusion of the Mexican-American War. It was then incorporated
as a municipality on April 4, 1850 — five months before California achieved
statehood (2008).
At the time California joined the union in 1850, Los Angeles was a small
nondescript agricultural town of 1,600 people (History of Los Angeles, Wikipedia,
2008). In Folegson’s Fragmented Metropolis, Los Angeles, 1850-1930 (1992), he
painted a vivid picture of Los Angeles in the mid 1800s, where there were no
railroads, water source, or other essential infrastructures in place. Los Angeles was
isolated economically and geographically from other cities in the United States.
With no natural harbor or other essential resources, Los Angeles struggled to attract
commerce to generate industry. Fogelson went on to discuss Los Angeles’s rise
from an agrarian society to a developed industrial center. He wrote:
After 1885, Los Angeles became increasingly urban. As a result of
the prodigious growth of the population, the widespread demand
6
for property and a marked advance of industry, herds were moved
out of the region, crops were harvested for the last time, and
orchards were relentlessly destroyed. Henceforth, the landscape of
greater Los Angeles was dominated by homes, offices, stores,
factories, streets, sidewalks, water mains, gas pipes, electric lines,
and sewers. The cities covered the countryside; Anaheim spread
over the south eastern plane, Pasadena extended to the Sierra
Madre Mountains, and the amount of land subdivided in Los
Angeles proper increased more than 100-fold. Even in the distant
eastern San Gabriel and western San Fernando Valleys, which
were still cultivated, the services and facilities requisite for
development were available by 1930 (139-141).

Over the next forty-five years, highways and roads were built equivalent to
none. Los Angeles tapped into the Northern Sierra for its water supply, and
underwent the largest urban expansion in the history of the United States. She
became a rigorous center of commerce and industry. By 1930, Los Angeles had a
metropolitan district of over 2.3 million people (Fogelson, 1993).

1.6 The Central Business District
In his pioneering book The City (1967), Ernest Burgess determined that
each city has at its core a “central business district.” He wrote:
During the first third of the 20th century, a great many outlining
business districts emerged in all the big cities. Some were located
in old and well-established neighborhoods, like Boston's Back Bay
and Chicago's uptown, but others, like Los Angeles’ Wilshire
Blvd., were found in places “which a few short years earlier were
barley fields.” Given the growth of outlining business districts or
what Burgess, from his perspective in Chicago called “satellite
loops,” Americans realized that downtown was no longer the only
business district, but it was still, far and away the most important
one. Visibly or invisibly, downtown dominated all the others, it
was the central business district (47).
7

Today, the Los Angeles Central Business District consists of sixty five
blocks. Its boundaries are from 2
nd
Street to the north, to 8
th
Street to the south,
from Figueroa Street to the west, to Hill Street to the east, based on the Adaptive
Reuse Ordinance geographic boundaries of applicability. The Central Business
District is divided into five main sectors, which are: The Financial District, the
Industrial District, Bunker Hill, the Artist District, and Skid Row. These five
sectors are a mixture of communities, in that they represent different interest and
zoning practices of the city. It is useful at this point to discuss the significance of
zoning in the United States, its impact on land-use in the built environment, and
how specific zoning practices impact the viability of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance
Program.

1.7 Origin and History of Zoning
Prior to the onset of the 20
th
century, the majority of land-use regulations
relied on the Common Law of Nuisance, which prohibited unreasonable uses of
land that sought to impact the public's safety and health. Aside from those
stumbling blocks, landowners were free to use their land without government
interference. However, the mere prohibition of nuisances was not sufficient to cure
the blight and decay found in 19
th
century urban areas and to address uncontrolled
development, (History of Zoning, 2008).
8
In Warner’s book, The Urban Wilderness, A History of An American City,
he discussed the origins of zoning practices in the United States. From a very basic
perspective, he states: “The standard zoning ordinance for American cities was
originally conceived from the union of two fears — fear of the Chinese and fear of
skyscrapers” (28).
In San Francisco in the 1880s, large enclaves of immigrants from China
lived in Chinese ghettoes. These Chinese servants represented an element of
undesirability for the majority White population. Chinese owned laundries doubled
as social centers for Chinese servants, who lived alone outside their Chinatown
communities. Unhappy with what was becoming a source of social networks and
resolute to change what they considered “clusters of undesirables,” a group of San
Francisco lawyers decided to use the Common Law of Nuisance statute as a means
to control the Chinese and curtail the growth of their laundry businesses. The
intent was to bar these laundries from most sections of the city and to dismantle the
Chinese monopoly of laundry ownership, which represented some 310 businesses.
This dismantling was accomplished by declaring the laundries fire hazards and
nuisances (Warner, 1972, 28). The San Francisco ordinance failed to pass in the
federal courts because it gave arbitrary power of racial discrimination to the Board
of Supervisors. In an additional attempt to overturn the court's decision, the City of
Modesto, California, some eighty miles away, decided to divide their city into two
zones. One permitted laundries and the other excluded laundries. This ordinance
was approved. Over the next twenty years, comparable nuisance zoning statutes
9
made their way south along the Pacific Coast. These nuisance zoning statutes were
designed to eradicate perceived undesirable places such as saloons, dance halls,
pool halls, slaughterhouses and the like.
By the early 1900s, zoning ordinances in California divided Los Angeles
into three districts of specified classifications. The first zoning area was restricted
to residential structures where light manufacturing was permitted. The second
zoning area permitted different types of industrial development. The third zoning
area was open to both residential and limited industries. These distinct zoning
areas in California represented a unique policy precedent. When California
combined these precedents with the regulatory practices of Washington, Baltimore,
Indianapolis, and Boston in respect to fire precautions, building heights, and
restraints on construction, these policy practices served to create what became the
New York Zoning Law of 1916, the prototype statute for the nation (Warner, 1972,
29).
A new phenomenon of building type emerged in New York in the early
1900s — the skyscraper. This contemporary edifice broke the traditional
relationship between the standard six- to eight-story building, in contrast to the
street width and building heights of the last two centuries. The former masonry
design of the six to eight story building gave way to the new steel-framed
construction of the skyscraper, which was able to accommodate a nine- to sixteen-
story building. Chicago and New York were the first American cities to see their
10
skyline transformed by new skyscraper office buildings, department stores, and
factories.
The skyscraper was more than a tall building amidst a metropolitan skyline;
they were functional, convenient, and served several purposes for the American
downtown business district. Initially, the skyscrapers allowed businesses easy
access to each other. They also offered the business community as well as its
customers an easily recognizable structure from which to obtain goods and
services. The banker not only had access to his patrons; there was proximity to his
attorney, the restaurants he frequented, as well as his barber. All these constituents
were under one roof. Several years later, we begin to see skyscrapers spring up in
downtown areas all across the United States.
As aesthetic as the skyscraper was, it did not come without a practical
downside for workers and pedestrians in major urban centers. Warner went on to
discuss the skyscraper and the economic and land-use impact placed on
metropolitan communities:
Most cities in America found themselves in the same state of
affairs, whereas, the fabric of utility and municipal services so
painfully assembled over the past century were now antiquated,
had to be totally reconstructed to accommodate these massive
structures, in the downtowns of all major American cities. Land
and transportation reconstruction placed a colossal yoke on these
20th-century cities. In numerous downtown communities, entire
blocks and parcels of land had to be leveled to permit traffic access
to the tower structures. Notwithstanding, these upheavals were
completely financed by local municipalities from 1900 to 1930.
This infrastructural overhaul moved forward on a scale equal to the
urban renewal projects of the 1950s and 1960s. This effort was so
overwhelming in cost, that for the first time in the nation's history,
11
public works expenditures led our major cities towards bankruptcy;
so, in response to this phenomena, rebuilding efforts were
disguised under the architectural slogans of the City Beautiful
Movement (35, 272).

The City Beautiful Movement gained notoriety after the Chicago
Columbian Exposition of 1893. The vision to beautify urban areas had captured
the popular imagination, as cultural centers, art museums, city halls, courthouses,
and in some cases opera houses were built. Yet, the most costly elements in these
ventures, and furthermore those most important for implementing the skyscraper
core, were new subways and the boulevards and malls that had to be constructed to
open traffic routes to downtown areas. This was of course the case for Chicago's
Lakeside improvements, Philadelphia's Fairmount Parkway, or St. Louis’s Market
Street development. New York however was unique, in that land prices were too
high for street reform to be undertaken. The solution was to add a network of
subways to existing streetcars and elevated lines. In 1904, New York City opened
its first subway segment (Hall, 2002, 59).
Keenly aware of the infringement of these huge buildings, a group of
affluent businessmen who owned much of New York City's expensive 5
th
Avenue
real estate demanded that the city protect their opulent retail property from the
ever-growing encroachment of the “tall” garment manufacturing industry. This
group became known as the 5
th
Ave. Association. Most of the property that the
garment industry occupied was owned by the Jewish community on the lower East
Side. As the garment industry grew, additional space for manufacturing became
12
critical. Small parcels of land, and older buildings were purchased and bundled. In
order to accommodate the skyscraper, the older buildings on these bundled
properties were then torn down and combined into larger parcels. This practice
continued for many years in the early 1900s. By 1910, we see the garment industry
travel over 20 blocks north of 14
th
Street (Warner 1972). In fear that their
prestigious prime real estate would be overshadowed by the skyscrapers, and
devalued by the poor Jewish immigrant community who worked in them, the 5
th

Avenue Association formed a quasi-official commission to pressure the city
council into action to address their concerns of property devaluation in 1911. In his
book Cities of Tomorrow (2002), Peter Hall asserted that by 1913, the city’s Board
of Estimates voted to create a Committee on City Planning, which was then
empowered to appoint an advisory Commission on Heights of Buildings. Later that
same year, the commission campaigned to institute a system of zoning laws based
on the concept of police power, stating: “This notion of police power was
developed in America from old English law which gave the state the right to
regulate the use of private property so as to guarantee the “health, safety, morals,
comfort, convenience, and welfare of the community” (Bassett, 1938, 28).
Edward M. Bassett, a Brooklyn lawyer and politician, sympathized with the
circumstance of the 5
th
Avenue Association and became their advocate as he
established his practice for zoning laws, policies, and maps. He was brilliant with
his strategies to promote zoning practices in order to preserve the status quo of
land-use in New York City. He insisted that zoning maps be drawn only after land
13
owners in those contentious neighborhoods and their constituents reached a general
consensus gleaned from comprehensive community hearings. Bassett gradually
became one of the nation’s most influential architects of zoning laws and policies.
Warner (1972) insightfully described Bassett’s approach to maintaining the status
quo of land-use development in New York, as he wrote:
Indeed, the private property owners in the small areas of the city
were in effect to draw the residential maps. Such an inclusive
administrative process could succeed because the rationale of
zoning was aimed not at disturbing existing conditions but
projecting current trends into the future and perpetuating them
(30).

In his work, The Politics of Zoning, The New York Experience (1966),
Makielski agreed with Warner describing Bassett’s desire for the preservation of
existing communities, and his wish to officially uphold "the character of the
district" (7-41). Bassett’s strong advocacy supported the philosophy that zoning
would protect existing communities and homeowners in the suburbs as well as the
city. In addition, zoning maps permitted developers a sense of confidence that they
could build adjacent parcels according to the specified uses of said zoning maps.
Bassett believed that zoning fundamentally violated none of the expansion patterns
of the city. Warner went on to discuss the early mechanics of zoning:
According to the standard form, a typical zoning law consisted of
three elements. First, there was a map of the city on which all
private land was assigned to a particular area or zone. Second, the
restrictions applying to each of the zones were itemized; they
included the height, number of floors, and the general size of any
structure that could be permitted in the future to be built on land in
a particular zone. In addition, the percentage of the lot area that
14
might be covered by a building, the size of yards, courts, and open
spaces, and the population density were all specified. Third,
calling upon the precedents of the past half-century, there was a
recitation that this set of restrictions on private property was
legitimate and constitutional because zoning represented the
traditional exercise of police power in cities and states for the
protection of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of
citizens; further, these principles could best be served by
preventing overcrowding, facilitating transportation, conserving
the value of existing property, and guaranteeing adequate light and
air in all habitations (31).

The Federal Government adopted the tenants of New York City’s zoning
laws, and in the 1920s the Department of Commerce published the Standard State
Zoning Enabling Act, this act was subsequently adopted by most states. Zoning
laws allowed legislative bodies to regulate structures, location and uses. The
Standard State Zoning Enabling Act allowed municipalities to be divided into
districts, and regulations were to be uniform within each district so that all owners
of the same class would be treated alike.
The first case challenging this expansive role of zoning in regulating private
property reached the United States Supreme Court in 1926 in the City of Euclid,
Ohio versus Ambler Realty Company (Fischel, An Economic History of Zoning
and a Cure for its Exclusionary Effects, Urban Studies, Vol. 41, 2004, p. 318).
Ambler Realty Co. owned land in the Village of Euclid, when the city of Euclid
adopted its first comprehensive zoning ordinance. Ambler Realty’s property was
zoned residential. Ambler Realty Company sued the City of Euclid, the contention
being, Ambler Realty’s land would be four times as valuable if it were zoned
15
industrial, and thus, zoning comprised an unconstitutional taking of their property
rights. Below, is a brief synopsis of the Supreme Court’s decision as described in
Nicolas Kublicki’s (2001) Innovative Solutions to Euclidean Sprawl.
The United States Supreme Court upheld the zoning ordinance in
favor of the Village of Euclid, as it was based on the Village's
inherent police power. While the Court found that the exact line
between the legitimate and illegitimate use of police power could
not be clearly delineated as it varied with the facts and
circumstances, the Court nonetheless held that zoning could be
based on more than the narrow prevention of the common law of
nuisance. The Court held that before a zoning ordinance could be
declared unconstitutional, the provisions must be clearly arbitrary
and unreasonable, having no substantial relationship to the public
health, safety, morals or general welfare (3).

Specific land-use zoning practices vis-à-vis the separation of residential
land-use from commercial and manufacturing ultimately became known as
“Euclidean Zoning” hence, the landmark case of Euclid, Ohio versus Ambler
Realty Company. Although exceptions exist, most American cities follow
Euclidean Zoning practices with near religious fervor (Kublicki, 2001).
Inasmuch as Euclidean Zoning has been written about extensively, and is by
far, the most widely adopted and practiced form of zoning, there are three other
forms of zoning types utilized in the United States, they are: Performance,
Incentive and Form-based zoning. The mandate for each type of zoning, and the
pros and cons for developers and city planning offices are discussed below.

16
1.7.1 Euclidean Zoning
As discussed earlier, Euclidean zoning derived its name from the town of
Euclid, Ohio, where the landmark case of Euclid, Ohio versus Ambler Realty Co.
was held. This form of zoning is also referred to as “building block” or “single
use” zoning. Euclidean zoning’s mission is to segregate land-use into specific
districts such as: residential districts which encompass single and multi-family
housing and commercial districts that include department stores, shops, banks, and
industrial districts that contain factories, mills, plants, etc. Dimensional standards
to any structure built on lots within each zoning district are sacrosanct, and
typically take the form of setbacks, height limits, minimum lot sizes, lot coverage
limits, and other restrictions on the building envelope (Kublicki, 2001). Euclidean
zoning is known for its effectiveness and ease through which it is implemented, as
well as its familiarity within the planning community. Architects and design
professionals criticize this form of zoning primarily due to its rigidity and lack of
flexibility.

1.7.2 Performance Zoning
Performance zoning promotes a points-based system, whereby a developer
may apply credits towards meeting established zoning goals, by selecting from a
menu of compliance options, which might include mitigation of environmental
impacts, providing public amenities, or building affordable housing units, etc.
17
Performance zoning, in contrast to Euclidean zoning, ranks high amongst the
design and architectural community because of its extreme degree of flexibility and
transparency. This type of zoning is also referred to as “effects-based” zoning. It
specifies standards of land-use intensity that is acceptable from district to district.
It also focuses on the performance of the parcel and how it impacts adjacent land
and public facilities, not on the use of the land. Another significant characteristic
of Performance zoning is that it accommodates private ownership property rights
better, and is more effective in environmental land-use protection practices. Many
cities that practice Performance zoning embrace as a primary objective the
protection of natural resources. A secondary objective is to provide flexibility in the
design of residential developments (Bucks County Planning Commission,
Performance Zoning Ordinance, January, 1996). This goal-oriented type of zoning
establishes review parameters for the developer on new land-use projects. Each
municipality that practices Performance zoning can limit the amount of intrusions
that may occur on a natural resource and its surroundings. Additionally, a specific
minimum open space standard is assigned to each natural resource. One of the
major obstacles for this practice is the difficulty in which local authorities or lead
agencies have in the implementation and enforcement of coding requirements.

18
1.7.3 Incentive Zoning
This type of zoning establishes a reward-based system for developers that
meet specific criteria and goals for different areas of a city. In other words, “it can
assist in the advancement to a community’s physical, cultural, and social goals, by
allowing developers to provide specific amenities and benefits in exchange for
zoning incentives” (Tompkins County Planning, Community Tool Box, accessed
2009). Customarily, a base level of regulatory limitations for a development
project is established, accompanied by a list of incentives for the developer to
adhere to at his or her discretion. This system is designed to reward development
projects that meet the specific urban planning goals of a city. Some incentive
examples would include floor area ratio bonuses for affordable housing, density,
public amenities, public parks/green spaces, streetscapes, height limitations and the
like. A major attribute for this type of zoning would again be its capacity for
flexibility. However, Incentive zoning requires a great deal of oversight; the more
incentives the developer takes advantage of, the more closely the project must be
monitored on a discretionary basis. Development projects under an Incentive
zoning structure also require comprehensive and ongoing revisions to ensure that
the incentives do not overshadow value. The Adaptive Reuse Ordinance has built-
in incentives that are fundamental in its language and might be considered as a type
of Incentive zoning.

19
1.7.4 Form-based Zoning
Form-based zoning relies on prescriptive and often discretionary criterion
for a development. Such criterion usually applies to the site and uses specific
characteristics such as lot size, proximity, and location of a project. This type of
zoning is also referred to as design-based zoning. In his book, A Better Way To
Zone, Donald Elliot stated: “Form-Based Zoning is one of the latest examples of a
popular planning idea, and it’s a really good tool in some circumstances ... the basic
idea is that zoning has gotten too pre-occupied with fine grained differences in
land-uses and has lost site of the form of development” “The real issue may not be
that the land-use is inappropriate but that the form of the building doesn’t fit in with
those around it” (2007). Form-based zoning offers a certain amount of flexibility
to the developer; however, it is also a relatively new expression of zoning and
therefore more difficult to manage. In 2003, Louisville, Kentucky adopted a Land
Development Code with Form-based features in it. This zoning code created
specific “form districts” in the Louisville metropolitan area. The rationale for this
type of design-based zoning was to acknowledge that some parts of the city are
more suburban, and other parts of the city are more urban in their design features.
According to each form district, building height, setbacks, density requirements,
and lot size would be determined by whether a “form district” was suburban in
nature or urban in nature. Using this type of zoning presents a plethora of problems
for the developer as well as the community, in that, it has the potential for
20
discriminatory zoning practices against lower income communities and minorities.
In comparison to Form-based zoning, the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance shares aspects
of this type of zoning in its philosophy and execution.

1.8 Euclidean Zoning and Urban Growth
In large part, from 1920 to 1990, cities and towns across America
developed their land-use practices based on Euclidean zoning doctrines. The
principal methodology of Euclidean zoning or single use zoning practices was to
segregate land-use geographically by levels of intensity — from agricultural to: (1)
single and multi-family housing; (2) low, medium and high intensity commercial;
(3) low, medium and high intensity industrial, generally with green-space buffer
zones between each land-use zone, accompanied by setbacks, height, and density
requirements (Kublicki, 2001).
However, after World War II, Euclidean zoning practices began manifesting
with a greater restrictive application of land-use. Residential, commercial and
industrial zones distinctly separated, became the archetype for the justification for
horizontal growth, commuting and urban sprawl. The automobile industry
supported Euclidean zoning practices as the standard bearer of land-use planning
because the very nature of single use zoning and horizontal growth justified the
need for cars, which in turn allowed the automobile industry to support the
promotion for highway construction.
21
In conjunction with the majority of cities and local planning departments,
Los Angeles, followed suit, and Euclidean zoning has been the standard for land-
use planning practices for more than eighty years. Euclidean zoning has also been
criticized for its rigidity and antiquated codes vis-à-vis contemporary land-use
demand, urban planning and smart growth design. In their article entitled The
Regulatory Structure of New Urbanism: The Evolution Away from Euclidean
Zoning, Stephan and Ball Janik (2002) stated: “Whether people realized it or not,
urban sprawl was a predictable result of Euclidean zoning practices” (2).

1.9 Euclidean Zoning and Urban Sprawl
American cities were compelled to grow horizontally or outward due to
Euclidean zoning restrictions on mixed land-use. It has been suggested that in the
twentieth century, Euclidean zoning was the major perpetrator of urban sprawl. In
most metropolitan centers in America, during the 1950s and 1960s land prices
slowly became cost prohibitive. This occurrence led developers to tender the
aspiring home owner refuge in suburban areas where inexpensive land brought to
the fore the possibility of obtaining the American dream, the single family home.
In her discussion in California Housing Snapshot (2001), Lynn Meersman
asserted that: “These single family homes in America’s suburbs complete with
pools, landscaping and yards, were enticing offers. Opulent land was available at
the same price as the smaller single family residences or condominiums found in
22
the urban core. These factors further justified the promotion and growth of urban
sprawl” (LA Times, 2001, A17).
Urban sprawl can be viewed as a vicious cycle in that, as single family
homes in the suburbs began to fill to capacity, the demand for goods and services
increased, hence, the commercial component followed. Eventually, land values
increased and developers again move outward to find less expensive land. As new
suburban planned developments emerged, infrastructure, roads and bridges
followed. State and federal highway subsidy programs of the 1950s and 1960s were
also contributors to what became known as urban sprawl.

1.9.1 Negative Impacts Associated with Euclidean Zoning
Euclidean Zoning practices dictated a homogenous design factor in
residential districts all over the country; setbacks became the prescriptive
requirement for residential communities. For example, setbacks for side yards
were 10 to 20 feet from the property line. The property line would have to be set
back 20 to 40 feet from the street, and the rear yard setback would require 20 to 50
feet from the property line. The fundamental justifications for these legally-
required setbacks were: (1) the promotion of fresh air and sunshine; (2) the
avoidance of overcrowding; (3) promotion of fire safety; (4) creation of privacy in
residential neighborhoods; and (5) the creation of recreational space (Meersman,
2001). However, by the late 1950s, planners and designers interpreted Euclidean
23
zoning as the culprit for monotonous residential design and devoid of creative
structure. The requirements for setbacks, density and lot size for residential
districts, in conjunction with the separation of commercial and industrial land-use
became the irrefutable components for opposition to Euclidean zoning practices.
As evidenced from the built environment of Los Angeles and its history of
urban sprawl, Euclidean zoning has clearly been the accepted standard planning
practice. While Euclidean zoning has dominated the urban landscape of Los
Angles, has Performance, Incentive and Form-based zoning had any influence in
urban development in Los Angeles? In addition what role, if any, has the Adaptive
Reuse Ordiance Program played in addressing the ills of Euclidean Zoning
practices?
To shed light on the above questions, this researcher interviewed Emily
Gabel-Luddy, Allen Bell, and Simon Pastushi, senior planners from the Department
of Planning with the City of Los Angeles. Between them, there is seventy five
years of planning and zoning experience. Allen Bell and Emily Gabel–Luddy were
involved with the writing of the original language for the Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance Program. When asked if the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance held any
aspects of Performance, Incentive or Form-based zoning practices, Simon Pastushi
stated that the program is somewhat of a “hybrid” form of zoning, in that it
incorporates aspects of Incentive and Performance zoning principles. Incentive
zoning promotes the physical, social and cultural goals of a city by allowing
developers to provide specific amenities and benefits in exchange for zoning
24
incentives. The Adaptive Reuse Ordinance does not ask for amenities in exchange
for zoning incentives, it “grandfathers in” incentives within the language of the
ordinance. Performance zoning focuses on the performance of the parcel and how
it impacts the environment, adjacent land, and public facilities. The Adaptive
Reuse Ordnance was designed to preserve existing structures, thereby elevating
them to their highest and best use, supporting a positive impact on adjacent land
and public facilities, and leaving less of a carbon footprint on the environment.
Therein lies the beauty of Adaptive Reuse, it does incorporate several aspects of
Performance, and Incentive based zoning in its applicability.
25

CHAPTER 2

ANALYSIS OF THE LOS ANGELES ADAPTIVE
REUSE ORDINANCE PROGRAM

2.1 History
In 1996, a core group of stakeholders, developers, and downtown property
owners, approached the then Mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan (1993-2001)
and City Councilmember Rita Walters, to enlist their support to address the blight
that existed in downtown Los Angeles (Hamid Behdad, 2009). They were
concerned about the obsolete buildings in downtown Los Angeles and how that
element would impact the proposed revitalization plans for downtown projects such
as the Sports Arena, Metro Rail, the Central Library, The Cathedral of Our Lady
Queen of the Angels, Disney Hall, and the Alameda District Plan. Councilmember
Rita Walters, 9
th
District, took the charge and presented a motion to the Los
Angeles City Council to create an Adaptive Reuse, Live/Work Task Force, on
April 11, 1997. This task force began to discuss options and incentives to generate
26
redevelopment of these obsolete historic buildings. Economic development and
policy specialist Carol Schatz of the Central City Association, one of the oldest
downtown business advocacy groups in Los Angeles, along with land developer
Tom Gilmore, veteran Los Angeles City planners Hamid Behdad, Allen Bell,
Emily Gabel-Luddy and others, worked on this task force to create a new program
called “Adaptive Reuse.” Mayor Riordan, a successful entrepreneur in his own
right, saw opportunity with this initiative. Councilwoman Rita Walters was the
driving force for the adoption of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, and she actively
championed for substantive changes in land-use policy for downtown Los Angeles
(Hamid Behdad, 2009). In her motion, she specified five clear and precise
elements that were to be included in the Task Forces’ final recommendation to the
City Council. They were as follows:
• that the City Council endorse the efforts of the Adaptive Reuse, Live/Work
Task Force, direct it, and for participating city departments to report back
with recommendations;
• that the Community Redevelopment Agency be directed to prepare a
marketing strategy and a package of financial incentives necessary to
encourage downtown adaptive reuse projects and analyze the feasibility of
providing funds to support pre-development cost for adaptive reuse
demonstration projects;
• that the Department of Building and Safety and the Fire Department be
directed to develop a set of flexible, performance-based standards for
27
downtown adaptive reuse projects, similar in intent to the State Historic
Building Code, without compromising essential life/safety requirements. The
standards must be written, inclusive of prototypical code compliance options,
and must provide certainty, clarity, and predictability to architects and
developers of adaptive reuse projects;
• that the Planning Department, with the assistance of the City Attorney, be
directed to prepare an ordinance and an internal City subdivision review.
Create an approval policy that incentivized the adaptive reuse of pre-1974
buildings to live/work, mixed use, and residential development, including
condominiums; and
• that the City’s 1997-1998 Legislative Program be amended to include support
for legislation that provides some degree of property tax relief for parcels
used for adaptive reuse projects.
On June 3, 1999 the City of Los Angeles approved the Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance Program (Ordinance 172571), (Adaptive Reuse Handbook, 2006). This
program allows old manufacturing and commercial buildings in the downtown area
built prior to 1974 to be rezoned and redeveloped for residential use including
apartments, live/work lofts, retail, and hotels.

28
2.2 Overview of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program
Since the ordinance was introduced in 1999, over 6,500 units have been
built, and another 4,000 are in the pipeline for development as stated by the
Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program (2004, City of Los Angeles, Adaptive Reuse
Program Summary Book, 3).
In 2003, the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program expanded to include what
is called an “incentive area” of Hollywood, Mid-Wilshire, Korea Town, China
Town, Lincoln Heights, and Central Avenue. To the laymen, the Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance Program might sound simplistic but this new zoning mechanism has
changed the historical practice of land-use development in the above mentioned
designated areas in Los Angeles. Figure 1 illustrates the Central Business District
of Downtown Los Angeles.

2.3 Historic Preservation
Inasmuch as the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance of 1999 enabled obsolete
historic, commercial, and manufacturing buildings to be rezoned for residential use
absent of the traditional variance requirements, it is important to understand that
there are other regulatory obligations within the Ordinance that developers must
adhere to, and find challenging. These requirements would include the Secretary of
29
the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which were
created from the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties was revised in 1973, 1983, and again in 1992; the 1992 revision was
codified in 1995 (National Historic Preservation Act, Section 110, April 1998).
Within these Standards, there are four distinctive guidelines for the preservation,
rehabilitation, restoration, and the reconstruction of historic buildings, they are
briefly described below (Section 110, 1998).
• Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary
to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property.
Work, including pulmonary measures to protect and stabilize the property,
generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic
materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new
construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this
treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-related work to make
properties functional are appropriate with any preservation project.
• Rehabilitation is defined as the active process of making possible a
compatible use for a property through repair, corrections, and additions while
preserving those portions or features that convey its historical, cultural, or
architectural values.

30

Figure 1. Central Business District, Downtown Los Angeles.
(Reproduced with permission)
31
• Restoration is the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features,
and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time, by
means of the removal of features from other periods in its history, as well as
reconstruction of missing features from the restoration. The limited and
sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other
code related work to make properties functional is appropriate within a
restoration project.
• Reconstruction is the process of depicting, by means of new construction, the
form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building,
structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific
period of time and in its historic location.

2.4 Economic Incentives for Historic Preservation
In addition to the cultural values associated with the preservation of historic
buildings, there are several economic incentives to encourage preservation and
restoration such as the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program and The Mills
Act Property Abatement Program (also known as The Mills Act).
The Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program promotes and encourages
the private sector to rehabilitate historic properties. The State of California’s
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), in conjunction with the National Parks
Service, administers 20% of the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program. The
32
State of California describes the function of the Office of Historic Preservation in
regards to its role in overseeing the Preservation Tax Credit Program as follows:
“The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) acts on behalf of the National Parks
Service (NPS) as the initial reviewer to determine if projects submitted for
preservation tax credits conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation.” The State of California insists that the OHP’s review include
consultation with the project team, site visits, and recommendations concerning
alternative designs, construction solutions, or preservation techniques to ensure
compliance with the Standards for subsequent NPS approval (www.ohp.parks).
ca.gov).
The second economic incentive, The Mills Act, and perhaps the most
fruitful for developers, was enacted in 1972. It grants cities and counties that
choose to participate the right to enter into contracts with owners of registered
historic buildings (California Government Code, Article 12, Section 50280-50290).
Simply, The Mills Act functions like this: a formal agreement, either called the
Mills Act or Historical Property Contract, is entered into between the county and
the property owner for a minimum of ten years. Contracts are automatically
renewed each year, and the contract remains with the building. Even if the building
is sold, the contract transfers with the property from owner to owner. Agreement to
restore, protect, and maintain the property per the specifications of historic
preservation standards, is a stipulation of the contract. Mills Act contracts are
between the owner and the local agency, in Los Angeles it is the County Assessor’s
33
Office. The Office of Historic Preservation has no signatory authority regarding
the contract. It is estimated that developers and owners of historic buildings who
participate under the Mills Act, realize an economic benefit between 40% and 60%
in property tax relief. Inasmuch as the Federal Historic Tax Credit Program and
The Mills Act are beneficial to the developer, both programs are complicated to
institute and require a great deal of compliance from the developer with the State
Office of Historic Preservation.

2.5 Zoning Incentives for Adaptive Reuse
With the construction of the Staples Center, which was completed in 1999,
then the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels completed in 2002, the Walt Disney
Concert Hall completed in 2003, and L.A. Live, the first phase was completed in
2008, downtown has once again become a destination for entertainment and night
life. These major economic development projects have been a strategic catalyst for
the live, work, and play paradigm that promotes Adaptive Reuse development.
According to the Los Angeles Downtown Center Business Improvement
District, 2
nd
Quarter 2006 Demographic Survey Report, more than 7,000 new
mixed-use housing units have been developed since the passing of the Adaptive
Reuse Ordinance, (2006 Demographic Survey of Downtown Residents, 2007).
There are approximately 6,700 units under construction and another 2,000 units in
the permitting phase of construction. In addition, there are more than 13,000 units
34
in the pipeline, with two to three years of construction time remaining. These
mixed-use residential projects have enhanced the magnitude of growth and have
ignited a catalyst of energy, interest, and economic development in the downtown
area.
Below is a synopsis of the major incentives available to developers who
participate in the Adaptive Reuse Program as per the City of Los Angeles,
Adaptive Reuse Program Summary Book, (2006, Second Edition, p.17).
• Parking -- No new parking spaces are required, but existing spaces must be
maintained. These spaces can be utilized for on or off site use.
• Density -- Lot area standards are waived. There is no limit on the amount of
apartments or live/work units, as long as no new floor area is added and the
developer complies with the minimum unit size standards of the ARO. The
minimum size of each live/work unit is 450 sq. ft.; the average size is 750 sq.
ft. If a developer does not need the density incentive, then these standards do
not apply.
• Hotels -- All rooms must provide a toilet and bathing facilities. There is no
limit on the number of rooms or square footage for hotels.
• Affordable Housing Bonus -- If the developer does not wish to use the density
incentive, then he/she is eligible for the affordable housing bonus. If the
developer does not choose to utilize the Affordable Housing Bonus on the site
of the ARO project, he/she can transfer the Affordable Housing credit to
another site, or pay in lieu of.
35
• Existing floor area, lot setbacks, and heights that do not conform to the ARO
will be “Grandfathered In.”
• Mezzanines -- new construction mezzanines must not exceed 33% of the floor
area of the room or space directly below it.
• Historically Significant Buildings -- If they are deemed “by-right,” these
buildings are subject to CEQA clearance.
• Loading Space -- If one does not exist, then it is not required.
Within the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program, there are two “Incentive
Areas” of downtown Los Angeles — The Central City Community Plan Area and
the Figueroa Corridor Economic Development Strategy Area. The boundaries for
the Central City Area are 101 Freeway/Cesar Chavez Boulevard to the north,
Venice Boulevard/16 Street to the south, the 110 Freeway to the west, and Alameda
Street to the east. The Figueroa Corridor Economic Development Area includes
the 10 Freeway to the north, Vernon Avenue to the south, Vermont Avenue to the
west and Grand Avenue to the east (Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Summary Book,
Section, 4). See Figure 6 for additional Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Projects in the
Incentive Areas of downtown Los Angeles.

36

CHAPTER 3

ADAPTIVE REUSE ORDINANCE PROJECTS,
LOS ANGELES
3.1 Case Studies
In an effort to further dissect the impact of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance
Program in Los Angeles, five Adaptive Reuse Projects were analyzed, all of which
are within the downtown Central City Community Plan Area. Three of the five
case study projects were the first of its kind completed immediately after the
Adaptive Reuse Ordnance was approved in 1999. It was beneficial to analyze these
initial projects so that one could understand the preliminary challenges and
experiences encountered with building and safety, the planning office, the historic
preservation offices, and other stakeholder groups. Securing that base line
information will allow this researcher to measure the progress and challenges of the
program since its inception in 1999. The last two case studies were completed
between 2004 and 2008. There are two objectives in analyzing these case studies:
37
(1) to ascertain how the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance progressed at midterm; and
(2) to illustrate lessons learned for future Adaptive Reuse Ordinance projects.
The cases include: (1) the Hellman Building at 411 South Main Street;
(2) the Continental Building at 408 South Main Street; and (3) the San Fernando
Building at 400 South Main Street. All three buildings were completed in 2001
directly after the passage of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance. The Lofts at the
Security Building were completed in the first quarter of 2006 at 510 South Spring
Street and the South Village, The Gas Company Lofts at 810 South Flower Street
were under construction from the first quarter of 2004 and completed in 2008.

38
3.2 The Gas Company Lofts

Figure 2. The Gas Company Lofts, 810 South Flower Street, Los Angeles
Downtown Los Angeles Historic Photo Gallery
(Reprinted with Permission)

39
Table 1. The Gas Company Lofts

• Completed: 2004-2008 Q1

• Market Rate Units:198

• Loft- Style Apartments- For Rent

• Affordable Units: 53

• Unit Sq. Ft. Range: 643-1,387

• Price Range: $1,635-$2,650

• Developer: CIM Group

• Project Cost: $58,300,000

• Occupancy: 96%

The Gas Company Lofts is a mixed-use development project in the heart of
the Central Business District better known as South Park of Los Angeles. It is also
a project within the amended 2005 Five-Year Implementation Plan for the Central
Business District for the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency
(Meersman, 2001).
The Gas Company headquarters building, a thirteen-story tower, was
originally designed in 1924 by the father-and-son architectural team of John
Parkinson and Donald B. Parkinson. Parkinson and Parkinson also designed Los
Angeles’ historic Union Station and City Hall. In 1942, a second six-story
40
structure was added to the original building. This expansion was designed by
architect Robert Derrah, whose art deco style was a clear departure from the
renaissance style of architecture from the original building. Eighteen years later in
1960, the architectural family known as A.C. Martin Partners, Inc. designed and
built a third building with a curtain wall of blue metal panels and white walls,
which became the logo for the Gas Company headquarters. The Gas Company
building remained open from 1924 to 1984, and then closed its doors for business.
The headquarters remained vacant for fourteen years until it was purchased
as a private public partnership between CIM Investment and the Los Angeles
Community Redevelopment Agency. The CIM Group established its California
Urban Real Estate Fund worth 180-million dollars in early 2001 with investments
from The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the
California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS), two of the nation's
largest pension funds (Los Angeles Business Wire, December 21, 2001). This
urban infill project cost 500-million dollars. The Santa Monica architectural firm of
Kellefer Flammag handled the design for the Gas Company Lofts, and Swinerton
Builders were the General Contractors (California Construction.Com.).
The Gas Company Lofts officially opened on March 12, 2004. This
380,727 sq. ft., 7.2 acre, for rent and for sale project is located at 800, 810, and 820
South Flower Street. The project was developed in four phases. In Phase One, the
Gas Company was converted into 251 rental lofts, and 25,000 square feet of retail
space, at a cost of 48-million dollars. Phase Two included a 50,000 square foot full
41
service Ralphs. The supermarket is part of Ralphs Fresh Fare store consortium. It
is interesting to note that Ralphs is the first full-service supermarket in the
downtown area in 50 years. The CRA got involved with the project due to their
interest in bringing a full-service market to the downtown region. Ralphs Grocery
Store originated in Los Angeles at the corner of 6
th
and Spring Streets in 1873. The
supermarket was considered pivotal for the viability of a sustained downtown
community. At the Flower Street location, above the supermarket is a 60-million
dollar new six-level construction, with 267 one and two bedroom ‘for sale’ loft-
style condominiums. The condominium section is called the Market Flats at South
Village. In the original Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between
the CRA and CIM, the developer called for the units above the market to be for
rent, with a twenty percent affordability component for low income households.
However, in the amended DDA, the required CRA twenty percent affordable
housing component was permitted to be excluded and housed offsite in the adjacent
Gas Company Lofts project. Subsequently, 4.3- million dollars worth of CRA
assistance to the developer was deleted for the residential component of the project,
(Memorandum on the restated Disposition and Development Agreement February
17, 2005). In addition to the exclusion of the affordable housing units, the income
from Ralphs Market was deemed unsustainable for that phase of the project.
Consequently, it was decided to convert the affordable rental units into ‘for sale’
condos. This portion of the project includes 10,000 square feet of retail space
along 9
th
Street between Flower and Hope. The retail section of the development
42
includes the Coffee Bean, The Tea Leaf store, a UPS, Cold Stones Creamery, a
Quiznos, and other retail. The development for this phase of the project represents
a partnership between the CIM Group and Lee Homes. The CIM Group handled
the financing for 10,000 square feet of retail, while Lee Homes oversaw the
development of the condominiums. Phase Three will include 152 rental lofts and
25,000 square feet of retail space along the southwest corner of 8
th
and Hope
Streets, which is called the ‘I Hope.’ Phase Three is estimated to cost 21-million
dollars. Phase Four would include 520 ‘for sale’ condominiums, and 30,000 square
feet of retail along the northwest corner of 9
th
and Hope Streets; this is the proposed
Park Tower which is part of the CRA Master Plan. (CIM Group has sold the last
two phases.) This portion of the development would represent two new buildings
at an estimated cost of 90-million dollars (Coates & Maetes, 2005). A Community
Benefits Agreement for the Park Towers was negotiated within the Disposition and
Development Agreement that included prevailing wages to employees, a Public
Arts Program, and a South Park Open Space Maintenance Fee of $25,000 annually.
The negotiation also included Affirmative Action in Employment and Contracting
Procedures, Utilization of Minority and Women Businesses, Utilization of Project
Area Residents, with fifty percent local hiring goals, a Community Outreach Plan,
Living Wages, a Job Outreach Program, and Job Training and Outreach
(Memorandum on the restated Disposition and Development Agreement February
17, 2005). The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was approved December
19, 2002.
43
There were changes from the original Disposition and Development
Agreement to the amended Disposition and Development Agreement that are worth
mentioning: (1) the original Disposition and Development Agreement precluded
the developer from selling the property for five years, and (2) prohibited the
developer from converting the ‘for rent’ units into condominiums. The amended
DDA allows for the developer to acquire fee simple title to the site and develop
condominiums, with the developer paying the CRA an estimated 4.3-million
dollars for the purchase of affordability covenants.

3.2.1 Lessons Learned
This Adaptive Reuse Ordinance mixed-use project represents one of the
more complex projects in downtown Los Angeles. Taking into consideration that
there are four phases of the project, there are ‘for rent’ units, ‘for sale’ units,
significant retail with Ralphs Market, as well as an historic structure and new
construction. In a personal communication with developer John Given of CIM
Group, he shared his perspective by stating that the process for obtaining street
blockage permits for heavy equipment was laborious. He added that new
construction is less administrative and more straightforward. He went on to state
that the reviews and consultation required from the State Office of Historic
Preservation in order to qualify for the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit and the
Mills Act contract took more administrative hours and design changes than they
44
had budgeted for the project. Reconciling that, with the requirements for the
Department of Building and Safety in order to secure permits, was arduous and
extremely cost prohibitive in the short term. Complying with the requirements for
the State Office of Historic Preservation, and Building and Safety resulted in an
additional six months of actual construction (Given, 2008). Given concluded that
there were parking problems on Spring Street, complaints from the community, and
issues with the contractors in terms of local hiring preferences, all of which had to
be worked through, invariably pushing back completion dates. The CIM Group
ultimately opted not to utilize the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit. They did,
however, secure the Mills Act contract, Contract # 43303807.
45
3.3 Lofts at the Security Building

Figure 3. Lofts at the Security Building, 510 South Spring Street, Los Angeles
Downtown Los Angeles Historic Photo Gallery
(Reprinted with permission)

46
Table 2. Lofts at the Security Building

• Completed 2006 Q1

• Market Rate Units:122

• Loft-Style Apartments- For Rent

• Affordable Units: 31

• Unit Sq. Ft. Range: 630-1,850

• Price Range: $1,230-$3,78

• Project Cost: $31,000,000

• Developer: Simpson Housing Solutions

• Occupancy Rate: 81%

This development project is another historic landmark, born out of the
vision of Joseph F. Sartori who was the founder of the original Security Trust and
Savings Bank, which was founded in the 1880s and located on Main Street in Los
Angeles. Security Trust and Savings evolved into the Security Pacific National
Bank. Sartori was a pioneer on the Los Angeles development scene, and became
one of the most important orchestrators of building construction in the downtown
Los Angeles area in the early twentieth century. One of his most notable buildings
was the Biltmore Hotel.
47
The Security Building was completed in 1906 by the Central Fireproof
Building Company. An eleven-story steel-framed structure designed by the
architectural team of Parkinson and Bergstrom on the former site of the Boston
Market (Malin & Fischer, 2004). During the construction process in 1906, the
architects insisted on using the highest quality building materials, resulting in the
project totaling over one-million dollars. This building served as headquarters to
the newly merged Southern California Savings and Security Trust Savings Bank.
The Security Building has an Italian Renaissance influence of design with a
base, cap and central shaft; it is a Class A office building. The Urban Land
Institute describes a Class A office building as:
Having the highest quality office space locally available. The
architecture of Class A office structures always prioritizes design
and visual appeal over cost, and sometimes over practicality. Class
A buildings can be considered a monument and a testament to the
success and power of its tenants. In most areas, Class A office
space is built in multi-story (usually 3 floors or more) using
structural steel and composite concrete construction.

The original terra cotta archway ground floor was redesigned in 1962. This
redesign represented a more modernist approach with marble columns and a 30-
foot high recessed aluminum and glass curtain wall. Malin & Fisch (2004)
described the design as the following:
Above the sill line of the second story window the original design
is still in tack with seven bay windows on the Fifth Street side and
seven on Spring Street side. The narrow piers that separate the bay
windows run up the building and meet to form arches above the
tenth story windows. The top of the windows on the tenth floor are
arched, with a circular panel balanced between the window arches
48
and the arch formed by the piers. A prominent overhanging
cornice caps the building.

It is interesting to note that the Security Building’s design was so sophisticated in
terms of its fireproof safety standards, the City of Los Angeles Board of Education
rented fifteen rooms on the seventh floor to store its archives.
As stated earlier in the discussion, this enclave of financial institutions was
also known as the Wall Street of the West. This historic area of downtown Los
Angeles was home to some twenty-one financial structures, one of which was the
Continental Building. It was considered the first skyscraper in Los Angeles. In
addition, ten of the twenty-one buildings are designated historic cultural landmarks.
The architectural team of Parkinson & Parkinson and Parkinson & Bergstrom were
responsible for designing ten of the twenty-one financial buildings in the district.
The Security Building received its Historical Cultural Monument designation #741
in 2003 (Historical Cultural Monuments Registry).

3.3.1 Lessons Learned
This historic building is eighty-nine years old. With any historic building of
that magnitude, numerous challenges are inherent for a developer. Bernie
Sandolow, spokesperson for the developer Simpson Housing Solutions shared the
following perspectives. “The project had countless setbacks with regards to
securing permits and delays with reference to our interface with the State Office of
49
Historic Preservation,” (Sandolow, 2008). The developer opted not to participate in
the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit program. Sandolow stated that the level of
oversight and compliance was stifling, cost prohibitive and required more
administrative hours and oversight than Simpson Housing Solutions was prepared
for. Since the project is one hundred percent rental units, the owner was unable to
pass the property tax savings of a Mills Act Contract onto unit owners. Simpson
Housing Solutions did not participant in the Mills Act Program.

3.4 The Hellman Building
Gilmore & Associates bought the Hellman, Continental, and the San
Fernando Buildings in November of 1998. Tom Gilmore and the above mentioned
buildings were chosen for this study because he was the first developer in the
Central Business District to buy historic properties, and restore them under the
Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program.

50

Figure 4. The Hellman Building, 411 South Main Street, Los Angeles
Downtown Los Angeles Historic Photo Gallery
(Reprinted with Permission)

51
Table 3. The Hellman Building
• Completed: 2000 Q2
• Market Rate Units: 104
• Lofts- Style Apartments- For Rent
• Affordable Units: 0
• Unit Sq. Ft. Range: 585-2,750
• Price Range:$1,200-$3,550
• Project Cost: $15,000,000
• Developer: Gilmore Associates
• Occupancy Rate: 99%

The Hellman Building is an historic building located in the Old Banking
District of Los Angeles. The building’s history is relatively straightforward; it
originated from the brainchild of the Hellman family’s patriarch Isaias Hellmann,
who migrated from Germany to California in 1859. Hellman subsequently became
the president of the Main Street Savings Bank and the Bank of Southern California.
The Hellman Building is noteworthy because of the historical importance of Isaias
Hellman. He was significantly dominant in building many institutions that assisted
the growth and development of the financial, educational, and informational
infrastructure of Los Angeles.
52
As comprehensively discussed in her book Towers of Gold (2008), Frances
Dinkelspeil (his granddaughter) shed light on Hellman’s power and influence as
she wrote:
He founded and became president of the Farmers and Merchants
National Bank. He invested money with Henry Huntington to
build the city’s trolley lines, and lent Edward Doheny funds that
lead him to discover California’s huge oil reserves. He assisted
Harrison Gary Otis in acquiring full ownership of the Los Angeles
Times. He contributed to the founding of the University of
Southern California by contributing land and served as Regent for
the University of California (Dinkelspiel, 2008).

The building had two entrances — one at 411 South Main and the other at
124 West 4
th
Street. The building occupies most of the block, bounded by West 4
th

South Main, South Spring, and West 3
rd
Streets. The original physical structure of
the building consisted of two rectangular pieces joined in their corners, (Architect
DB Structure Record, 2008). The physical description of the building is as follows:
The construction of the building took place between 1912 and
1915 and was designed by the architect Morgan Octavius Weller,
Jr. The building is a six-story stone and architectural tile
commercial structure with classical decor. Paneled jambs, scroll
brackets, and a corbelled cornice frame the recessed entry. Above
a stringcourse, the gray stone body of the building continues the
four bay divisions, with a single window in each story above the
entry bay, and paired windows in the remaining bays. Bosses
accent the fifth floor lintels, above which a spiral molding spans
the facade. The top floor bays are punctuated by terracotta tablets
and roundels in the red stone piers. Dentils, corbels, a fluted
frieze, and a cornice cap the building. The second building ground
floor bays are defined by paneled pilasters with stylized capitals.
An entry detailed like the one on Main Street occupies the next bay
while a second entrance, capped by a classical entablature, is in the
fifth bay from the west (History of the Hellman Building,
www.laloft.com).
53
3.5 The Continental Building
The Continental Building was completed in 1903 by architect John
Parkinson. It is interesting to note that at the time of completion this thirteen-story
structure (174 feet) was the tallest skyscraper in Los Angeles. Shortly after its
completion in 1904, the Los Angeles City Council enacted a 150 foot height limit
requirement for all new construction. Los Angeles City Hall (1928) became the
major exception to the 150-feet height limit until the Transamerica Building was
completed in the early 1960s. The original name of the building was the John
Hyde Braly Building. The physical description is as follows:
The twelve-story building carries a wealth of rich and heavy
ornament, most of which is modeled in architectural terra cotta -
pediments, garlands, lion's heads, columns, and elaborate
brackets. The columns are of the Corinthian order and rise
between the attic's two-story arched windows, mid-divided by
triangular pediments mirroring those of the third floor, with their
frames of heavy quoins. The first floor was, as it is too often the
case, altered beyond recognition, but has been restored to its
original beauty using old photos as reference (Gilmore &
Associate Website).

54

Figure 5. The Continental Building - A, 408 South Main, Los Angeles
Downtown Los Angeles Historic Photo Gallery
(Reprinted with permission)

55

Figure 6. The Continental Building – B, 408 South Main, Los Angeles
150 Feet High, Downtown Los Angeles Historic Photo Gallery
(Reprinted with permission)

56
Table 4. The Continental Building
• Completed: 2001 Q 4
• Market Rate Units: 56
• Lofts- Style Apartments- For Rent
• Affordable Units: 0
• Unit Sq. Ft. Range 585-2,750:
• Price Range: $1,300-2,200
• Project Cost: $8,000,000
• Developer: Gilmore & Associates
• Occupancy Rate: 100%

57
3.6 The San Fernando Building

Figure 7. The San Fernando Building, 400 South Main Street, Los Angeles
Historic building, Downtown Los Angeles Photo Gallery
(Reprinted with Permission)

58
Table 5. The San Fernando Building
• Completed: 2000 Q 2
• Market Rate Units: 70
• Lofts- Style Apartments- For Rent
• Affordable Units: 0
• Unit Sq. Ft. Range: 585-2,750
• Price Range: $900-$3,350
• Project Cost: $10,000,000
• Developer: Gilmore Associates
• Occupancy Rate: 99%

The first six stories of this eight-story building were constructed in 1906 by
Colonel James B. Lankershim. Lankershim was one of the most powerful land
holders in the State of California during the early twentieth century. The building
was designed by the architect John F. Blee. The cost for construction was
estimated to be approximately two hundred thousand dollars, and the first tenants
took occupancy in October 1907. Two additional stories were added to the
structure in 1911, these additions were designed by Robert Brown Young & Son
and constructed by George D. Hulbert. The physicality of the building is described
as follows:
The San Fernando Building is an E-shaped, eight story structure
with a basement. Its design was influenced by the Renaissance
Revival style. The building has a two-story rusticated base.
59
Eight bays are defined by rusticated piers on Fourth Street and
there are six bays on Main Street. The Main Street facade
consists of a two-story rusticated base. A plain frieze and
molded cornice girds the facade above the second story. The
second story windows are set above spandrel panels with an
incised diamond motif. All windows on the second-story level
are of the pivoting type with transom above. Each consists of a
three window bay. The bays are separated by simple rusticated
piers, and are set above diamond incised spandrel panels in the
fourth, fifth, and sixth stories. A denticulate cornice, punctuated
by corbels over the piers, runs above the sixth-story level. The
upper two stories consist of similar triple windows between
piers. A denticulate cornice caps the building (Gilmore &
Associates Website).

I interviewed Tom Gilmore of Gilmore & Associates. The central objective
for interviewing Mr. Gilmore was to gain perspective regarding his experiences and
challenges as the first developer in Los Angeles to restore an historic building
under the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program. In addition, Mr. Gilmore is
uniquely qualified to provide a substantive overview regarding lessons learned, the
challenges, and perhaps the opportunities for developers a decade after the passage
of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance.
Mr. Gilmore relocated to Los Angeles from New York City as an architect
in 1997. Having grown up in New York City’s mixed-use built environment, he
recognized an opportunity for urban revitalization in the blight and obsolescence of
the vacant “Old Banking District” of downtown Los Angeles (Gilmore, December
20, 2008). Gilmore saw an opportunity to create a livable community in this
“forgotten area” by combining live/work units with commercial space. This
environment was similar to that of Greenwich Village, the SoHo District, Tribecka,
60
and the meat packing district in New York City. As per Tom Gilmore, “The reason
I bought the San Fernando, Hellman, and Continental Buildings respectively was
that they had historical significance, and simply, they were all available as a group,
although they were owned by different people. In addition, these buildings had
geographic significance as well. No one wanted to develop east of Hill Street in
1997” (2008). Inasmuch as Gilmore sought to develop property on Broadway, he
claims that he knew that the cost for him as a start up developer was prohibitive.
Conversely, the cost for those buildings on Main and Spring Streets in 1998 was
approximately five dollars per square foot. Gilmore insisted that no one wanted to
build east of Hill Street in downtown Los Angeles and that Broadway was the great
dividing line for developers.
Prior to the passage of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance in 1999, if a
developer wanted to convert a commercial building into a residential space, that
developer would endure the long, and “torturous process” of having the building
rezoned, or fulfilling the current parking requirements on a 100-plus year-old
building. “That scenario was my motivation to began working with the Central
City Association and the City Planning Office.”
For Gilmore, this process was not just academic; it was actually a practical
process in which he was the developer who offered professional input regarding
what would work if certain requirements were accessed, and restrictive zoning
requirements were grandfathered in, for example, parking and density. He had a
great deal of input, and literally worked on conceptual language line-by-line in
61
order to create procedures that would substantively work for developers in getting
projects completed in a timely and cost efficient manner. He also represented
something very unique in the process, a stakeholder who was ready, willing and
able to be the first practitioner to utilize the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance.

3.6.1 Perspectives: The Hellman, Continental and
San Fernando Buildings
I asked Mr. Gilmore to discuss the salient challenges he experienced while
working with the city’s Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program during the
development phase of the Hellman, Continental and San Fernando Buildings. He
stated that the major obstacle facing the city, as in any bureaucracy, was the notion
of “change.” Change is something that a city or governmental agency is offered
little incentive for. If change works, the bureaucrat gets no reward, but if those
changes don’t result in success, then there are negative consequences. Therefore,
minimal incentives exist to think outside the box, to be innovative or engage in
risks. Gilmore stated that working with the city’s Adaptive Reuse Program in the
early years, between 1999 and 2002 was relatively productive because the program
was enthusiastically supported by former Mayor Richard Riordan, and therefore
bore the support of his Planning, and Building & Safety Offices. They were given
specific directives to do what was required for the developers to “get the job done.”
The city apparatus was afforded the green light to assist and move forward
62
development projects under the guise of this new Adaptive Reuse Program. Since
Gilmore was the only developer restoring buildings under the auspices of the
Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program in the year 2000, there were no delays with
permitting. His buildings were relatively straightforward in terms of lighting,
disabled access, fire safety standard compliance and the like.

3.6.2 Lessons Learned
Gilmore chose to forgo the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program since
it presented too great an “interference” factor from the Office of Historic
Preservation, which stipulated that each building must conform to the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Gilmore did however take advantage of
the Mills Act incentive for all three buildings. In terms of the entitlement process,
Gilmore was required to obtain variances from the Zoning Administrator within the
City Planning Department for two of his retail stores that sold wine and spirits.
Including the entitlements, permits and construction, Gilmore was able to complete
the Hellman, Continental and San Fernando buildings within eighteen months.
Gilmore has since developed other Adaptive Reuse projects in the downtown area.
He asserted that subsequent to the Riordan administration, the Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance Program has not been as supportive towards developers, and thus
interfacing with the city and its associated departments has not been as streamlined
and timely.
63
In the early years of the Adaptive Reuse Program (1999-2002), the
entitlement and permitting process took between three to six months. As the
program progressed, between 2004 and 2008 and with more developers utilizing
the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance program, there was greater demand for variances,
permitting, and reviews from the Office of Historic Preservation. There was also a
very distinct shift during the last ten years regarding the role of the developer and
his/her responsiveness to the needs of community based organizations that have a
stake in how buildings get developed (2008).
The demands placed on the Department of Building and Safety, the entity
responsible for permits, in addition to other regulatory stumbling blocks associated
with city bureaucracy were the primary cause of numerous financial setbacks and
delays in construction-funding streams and notice-of-occupancy documents.
Gilmore is of the mind-set that the current city administration is more union-
friendly and less developer-friendly.

3.7 Pros and Cons of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program

Despite the fact that the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program has played a
significant role in the revitalization of downtown Los Angeles, notwithstanding, the
program has its drawbacks. In order to achieve a deeper level of comprehension
regarding the program, a discussion of the pros and cons of the Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance are presented below.
64
3.7.1 Pros
The Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program allows parking, density, setbacks,
height, and loading areas that do not conform to current permitting and zoning
requirements to be “Grandfathered In” (Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Handbook,
2006).
The Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program permits mixed use development in
an area that has historically been zoned and developed for single use. Allowing
commercial and manufacturing buildings to be developed as residential and
commercial mixed-use, projects addresses issues of sustainability, promotes living,
working, and playing initiatives in urban communities. Adaptive Reuse
development also produces less of a carbon footprint on the environment (Tom
Gilmore, 2008).
Four years after its adoption in 2003, the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance
program expanded to include what was called an “incentive area” consisting of
Hollywood, Mid-Wilshire, Korea Town, China Town, Lincoln Heights and Central
Avenue. This expansion of the program allowed other areas of the city with
obsolete manufacturing and commercial buildings to be rezoned and hence
developed into mixed-use residential space. Utilizing this program brought life
back into these blighted areas and provided housing for an ever-growing population
(Carol Schatz, 2009).

65
3.7.2 Cons
Developers never know until construction begins, what is in the interior of
the walls; that is, if there are historic artifacts within the interior wall space or the
quantity, thickness and layers of steel between floors. Whatever the developer
discovers during the restoration process will determine the design changes required,
thus precipitating delays and adding cost to the project.
Although most of the permitting and zoning requirements are
“Grandfathered In” and do not require variances, if the developer wants to sell wine
and spirits in any of the retail establishments or restaurants on the ground floor,
he/she must obtain a Conditional Use Exception Permit from the zoning
administrator in the Los Angeles City Planning Office. This procedure represents
another layer of administrative work for the developer (Emily Gabel-Luddy, 2009).

3.7.3 Pros/Cons
Taking advantage of both of the two tax incentive programs available
through the State of California’s Office of Historic Preservation has its benefits and
deterrents. The Mills Act Tax Abatement and the Federal Rehabilitation Tax
Credit programs are offered as incentives to owners of historic buildings, each
program provides significant tax reductions. The greatest deterrent within both
programs is the involvement and oversight that the State Office of Historic
Preservation is afforded regarding the design of said projects. The developer must
66
adhere to the strict Standards set by the National Parks Service “Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Property.” Developers are required to submit their
application to receive approval from the Office of Historic Preservation. This
compliance process has been proven to be arduous and costly. (Hamid Behdad,
2009).
67
Table 6. City of Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Projects

Completed Projects
Project Name Address Units
Completion
Date
1043 S. Grand
Avenue
1043 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles,
CA 90015
9
October 5,
2004
1725 W. 6th Street
1725 W. 6th Street, Los Angeles, CA
90017
21
April 29,
2004
Barry Lofts
312 W. 5th Street, Los Angeles , CA
90013
280
October 21,
2004
Bartlett Building
651 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA
90014
139
February 16,
2005
City Lofts
626 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA
90014
35
October 26,
2004
Continental
Building
408 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA
90013
56
December
31, 2001
Cosmo Street Lofts
1617 Cosmo Street, Los Angeles, CA
90028
47
August 12,
2005
Douglas Building
Lofts
257 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA
90012
50
June 24th,
2005
Far East Café
Building
347-353 E. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA
90012
16
January 1,
2004
Flower Street Lofts
1130-1140 S. Flower Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90015
91
September
19, 2003
Hellman Building
411 S. Main Street , Los Angeles, CA
90013
104
December
31, 2001
Higgins Building
108 W. 2nd Street, Los Angeles, CA
90012
135 July 9, 2003
Little Tokyo Lofts
420 S. San Pedro, Los Angeles, CA
90013
161
July 21,
2003
Metro 417
417 S. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA
90013
277
July 15,
2005

68
Table 6: Continued

Completed Projects
Project Name Address Units
Completion
Date
Orpheum Lofts
846 S. Broadway, Los Angeles, CA
90014
37
December
18, 2003
Pacific Electric
Building
600-610 S. Main Street, Los Angeles,
CA 90014
314
Under
Construction
Pegasus
612 S. Flower Street, Los Angeles, CA
90017
322
June 19,
2003
San Fernando
Building
400 S. Main Street, Los Angeles, CA
90013
70
September
18, 2000
Santa Fe Lofts
121 E. 6th Street, Los Angeles, CA
90014
103
December
31, 2004
Santee Court
(Phase I)
714, 716, 722 & 724 S. Los Angeles
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90014
165
April 29,
2004
South Park Lofts
816-818 S. Grand, Los Angeles, CA
90014
49
July 29,
2004
Spring Tower
Artist Lofts
639-641 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles,
CA 90014
37
February 1,
2001
Standard Hotel
550 S. Flower Street, Los Angeles, CA
90071-2501
207
May 17,
2002
Texere Plaza
2222 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles,
CA 90007
62
April 1,
2005
The Historic Gas
Company Lofts
800, 810, 820 S. Flower Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90017
251
March 12,
2004
Tomahawk
Building
812-814 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles,
CA 90014
7
July 22,
2004
Toy Factory Lofts
1855 Industrial Street, Los Angeles, CA
90021
119
July 22,
2004

Total Project(s) = 27 Total Units = 3164

69

CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY

4.1 Observations
The Adaptive Reuse Ordinance is one of the most important pieces of
legislation passed in Los Angeles during the past fifty years, as it relates to zoning
and the built environment (Hamid Behdad, 2009). Without this ordinance, more
than twelve thousand housing units would not have been built in downtown Los
Angeles. Furthermore, this ordinance has allowed obsolete and blighted areas to
once again become viable.
The Adaptive Reuse Ordinance is a “hybrid” zoning ordinance, uniquely
tailored for the downtown urban core. This zoning practice enables the built form
of downtown Los Angeles to continue to exist without penalty, and it breeds new
economic life into that built form, which was suffering under the old World War II
zoning codes (Emily Gabel-Luddy, 2009).
70
Through the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, developers have been able to take a
manufacturing or commercial building over one hundred years old and restore it,
turning it into a livable space that can also accommodate a twenty first century
residential market. Prior to this ordinance, if a developer wanted to convert a
historic commercial or manufacturing building into a residential space, he would
have embarked on a tortuous journey, dealing with the Department of City
Planning in order to obtain innumerable variances in order to comply with
contemporary zoning requirements, such requirements are predicated on ground up,
new construction (Hamid Behdad, 2009).
The Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program provided ministerial land-use
entitlements for residential zoning requirements regarding density, yards, parking
and setbacks, which have been grandfathered in. The significant change in the
program over time has been the number of participants, and the reduction of
lucrative inventory. With diminished inventory, each remaining structure requires
a greater comprehensive envelope of consideration from the Office of Historic
Preservation, Building and Safety and Zoning Administration. Given that dynamic,
the time frame for securing entitlements and permits has become longer, and the
process is more labor intensive (Hamid Behdad, 2009).
In the early years of the program, the majority of the easily developed
inventory was utilized. In 2009, the buildings that remain are the more difficult to
restore, thus precipitating caution among developers apprehensive about the
performance evaluations required from Building and Safety for determining what
71
type of retrofitting challenges exist. The developers are also anxious regarding
permitting, entitlements, reviews and recommendations from the Office of Historic
Preservation. The condition of each building determines how long or short the
permitting process will be (Simon Pastucha, 2009).

4.2 Conclusions
The majority of the “low hanging fruit” or cost-effective projects have
already been developed in downtown Los Angeles. The question is, moving
forward, what avenue should a start-up developer take if he or she wants to
participate in the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program?
It has been suggested that start-up developers should search out smaller
cities that have recently adopted an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Program. Smaller,
less competitive environments might allow the development community greater
support, and provide them with a reduced administrative obligation in the
securing of entitlements, and permits. The Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance Program seems to have provided the greatest advantage for developers
while the program was relatively new and the easily restored inventory was
abundant. In 2009 that paradigm is no longer relevant.

72

CHAPTER 5

WEBSITE

Economic Development:
Adaptive Reuse in Los Angeles, A Resource Guide for Start-Up
Developers and Stakeholder Groups

5.1 Discussion
This virtual website has been created with the intention of providing an
economic development resource guide for stakeholder groups in Los Angeles.
The goal here was to expand and stimulate Adaptive Reuse projects and economic
development participation among start-up businesses, community-based
organizations, neighborhood councils, and other underserved stakeholder groups,
by synthesizing diverse informational resources for the user under one website
umbrella.
Economic development terminologies, financial, technical concepts,
acronyms and the like are too often complicated and time-consuming for the
73
community participant or start-up business to navigate. It is the contention of this
researcher that if economic development concepts, terminologies, and acronyms
were translated into layman’s terms, if specific links to websites pre-navigated,
if economic development information such as grant, lending, and tax incentive
programs were presented in a clear and user friendly format; then a tool of this
nature would contribute to a more informed community and stakeholder
constituency that was better equipped to participate in the planning, and economic
growth of our built environment.
One may reference the above-mentioned website entitled, Economic
Development: Adaptive Reuse in Los Angeles, A Resource Guide for Start-Up
Developers and Stakeholders Groups, via the hyperlink provided below.
www.imanibrown.com/adaptive

74

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, J.B. & Turner, E. (2002). Changing Faces, Changing Places: Mapping
Southern California. The Center for Geographical Studies, California
State University Northridge.

Bassett, E.M. (1936). Zoning v The Law, Administration, and Court Decision
During the First Twenty Years. New York, Russell Sage Foundation.
Bastian, H., Sr. - Vice President Economic Development, Downtown Center
Business Improvement District. Interview, October 2, 2007.
Bell, A. - Senior Planner, City of Los Angeles Department of Planning.
Interview, March 5, 2009.
Behdad, H. - Principal, Central City Developers. Interview, February 2, 2009.
Bourne, L.S. (1982). Internal Structure of the City. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Burchell, R. & Listokin, D. (1981). The Adaptive Reuse Handbook: Procedures
to Inventory, Control, Manage, and Reemploy Surplus Municipal Properties
enter for Urban Policy Research. New Jersey.
City of Los Angeles. (2006). Adaptive Reuse Handbook, Second Edition.
City of Seattle. (May 17, 2005). Department of Neighborhoods. South Lake
Union Neighborhood Plan. http://www.cityofseattle.net/neighborhood/
npi/plans/slu.
Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles. (2005). Gas Company
Lofts, Approval of Amended Disposition and Development Agreement
Memorandum, February 17, 2005
Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles. (2005). Memorandum on
the Restated Disposition and Development Agreement.
75
Cox, D. (February 12-18, 2007). Redefining the renovation game. Los Angeles
Business Journal.
Cuff, D., Banerjee, T., Beck, K., & Stein, A. (1994). Form in Contention:
Design in Development Disputes. Report to the National Endowment for
the Arts.
Decision During the First Twenty Years. (1936). New York, Russell Sage
Foundation.
Dinkelspiel, F. (2008). Tower of Gold. St. Martin Press.
Elliott, D.L. A Better Way to Zone: Ten Principles to Create More Livable
Cities.
Fischel, W.A. (2004). An economic history of zoning and a cure for its
exclusionary effects. Urban Studies 41(2).
Fogelson, R.M. (2001). Downtown Its Rise and Fall: 1880-1950. Yale
University Press.
Fogelson, R.M. (1993). The Fragmented Metropolis: 1850-1930. University of
California Press.
Fulton, W. (1997). The Reluctant Metropolis: The Politics of Urban Growth in
Los Angeles. John Hopkins University Press.
Gabel-Luddy, E. (2009). Zoning Administrator, City of Los Angeles Department
of Planning. Interview, March 5, 2009.
Gilmore, T. - Partner, Gilmore & Associates, Interview, December 19, 2008.
Given, J. - Vice President CIM Group, Interview, August 17, 2008.
Hall, P. (2002). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning
and Design in the Twentieth Century. Blackwell Publishing.
Jacobs, J. (2002). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random
House.
Janik, S.T. & Janik, B. (2002). The Regulatory Structure of New Urbanism:
Evolution Away from Euclidean Zoning. American College of Real
Estate Lawyers.
76
Kublicki, N.M. (2001). Innovative Solutions to Euclidean Sprawl.
Environmental Law Reporter, p. 3.
Leinberger, C. The Option of Urbanism.
Lemmon, W. (Winter, 2007). Proforma 101: Getting familiar with a basic tool
of real estate analysis. Planning Commissioners Journal 65.
Levy, John, M. (2000). Urban American: Processes and Problem. Prentice-Hall
Inc. New Jersey.
Ligons, L. - Development Officer, Los Angeles Chambers of Commerce.
Interview, October 12, 2008.
Makielski, S., Jr. (1966). The Politics of Zoning: The New York Experience.
New York.
MacIntosh, H. Adaptive Reuse and the Cadillac Hotel,
MacIntosh, H. (April 16, 2009). How Affordable Housing Incentive Fund
Preservation. www.historicseattle.org
Meersman, L. (2001). California housing snapshot, Los Angeles Times, January
7, 2001.
Mohl, R.A. (1985). The New City: Urban American in the Industrial Age, 1860-
1920. Harlan Davidson, Inc., Illinois.
National Park Service. (1998). National Historic Preservation Act, Section 110
United States Department of the Interior.
Neubecker, D. - Project Manager, Downtown Region, Community
Redevelopment Agency Los Angeles. Interview, September 9, 2008.
Park, R.E., Burgess, E.W., & McKenzie, R.D. (1968). The City. University of
Chicago Press.
Pastucha, S. - Planner, Urban Design Studio, City of Los Angeles Department of
Planning. Interview, March 5, 2009.
Philadelphia City Planning Commission Center City Plan, (1988).
Philadelphia Office of Housing and Community Development. (2000-2004).
Housing Market Development Trends.
77
Philadelphia Zoning Code Commission. (2009). Philadelphia Zoning Code
Update Interim Report/Assessment of Existing Codes, Zoning Code
Commission, et.al.
Pincus, A. (April 3, 2009). Living on the Loop, Next American City, November
2005. www.americancity.org.
Raleigh, A. (1913). The Real American,. London.
Sandolow, B.- Spokesperson for Simpson Housing Corporation. Personal
Interview, March, 23, 2008.
Spina, L. - Senior Planner, Central City Area, Philadelphia, Department of
Planning. Personal Interview, April 15, 2009.
The Downtown Center Business Improvement District. (2007). The Downtown
Los Angeles Market Report and 2006 Demographic Survey of the New
Downtown Residents.”.
The History of Los Angeles County. Wikipedia, www.
Tompkins County Planning, Incentive Zoning, Community Tool Box, www.
(2009). http://www.ushistory.org/tour/tour_landing.htm
Ward, D. & Zunz, O. (1992). The Landscape of Modernity: Essays on New
York City. New York.
Warner, S.B. (1972). The Urban Wilderness, A History of the American City.
University of California Press.
Wilson, W.H. (1989). The City Beautiful Movement, The Johns Hopkins
University Press, Maryland.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The formal definition of Adaptive Reuse by the City of Los Angeles is the rezoning of obsolete, vacant and/or historic, manufacturing or commercial buildings, built prior to 1974. These structures are then rezoned for mixed-use residential, live/work lofts, and hotels. Since the adoption of the Los Angeles “Adaptive Reuse Zoning Ordinance” in 1999, twenty seven obsolete buildings in downtown Los Angeles have been converted into mixed-use residential structures.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Asset Metadata

Creator Brown, Imani (author)

Core Title Adaptive reuse as economic development in downtown Los Angeles: a resource guide for start-up developers, community based organizations, and stakeholder groups

School School of Policy, Planning, and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 10/05/2009

Defense Date 05/20/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag community based organizations,Economic development,Historic Preservation,Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse Ordinance,OAI-PMH Harvest,stakeholder,zoning

Place Name Los Angeles (city or populated place), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Banerjee, Tridib (committee member), Massey, Elton (committee member), Steele, James T. (committee member)

Creator Email imanibro@usc.edu,imanibrown@ca.rr.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2613

Unique identifier UC1115587

Identifier etd-Brown-2951 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-255767 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2613 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Brown-2951.pdf

Dmrecord 255767

Document Type Project

Rights Brown, Imani

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu