University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Isolation and authenticity in Los Angeles' Arts District neighborhood

(USC Thesis Other)

Isolation and authenticity in Los Angeles' Arts District neighborhood

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Isolation and Authenticity in Los Angeles’
Arts District Neighborhood

by

Lindsey Miller

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION

May 2014
i

Table of Contents

DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… iv

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… vi

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ix

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 Thesis Statement
1.2 Thesis Overview
1.3 Personal Motivation
1.4 Arts District Boundaries and Neighborhood Definitions
1.5 Thesis Terms
1.6 Methodology
1.7 Goals and Objectives
1.8 Literature Review

Chapter 2: HISTORY OF THE ARTS DISTRICT I: FROM VITICULTURE
THROUGH THE 1960s…………………………………………………………………………….. 17
2.1 Viticulture
2.2 The Gold Rush, Citrus Fruit Industry, Railroads, and
Population Boom
2.3 Early Twentieth Century
2.4 World War II, Suburbanization, and the Decline of Agriculture
2.5 Artist Movements prior to the Arts District

Chapter 3: HISTORY OF THE ARTS DISTRICT II: FROM THE 1960s TO PRESENT DAY…. 32
3.1 Early Art Scene in the Arts District
3.2 Artist-in-Residence Ordinance
3.3 Early Artist-Driven Development
3.4 Skid Row and Its Impact on the Arts District
3.5 Development in the 1990s
3.6 Adaptive Reuse Ordinance
3.7 Developers Respond to Skid Row
3.8 Further Development and Adaptive Reuse in the Arts District
3.9 The Arts District Today
ii

Chapter 4: SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND ECONOMIC ISSUES OF REVITALIZATION IN
THE ARTS DISTRICT……………………………………………………………………………….. 63
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Urban Restructuring of Downtown Los Angeles
4.3 The Pros and Cons of Revitalization
4.4 Urban Pioneers and the Search for Authenticity
4.5 The Changing Face of the Arts District: How Skid Row Will Affect
Revitalization
4.6 Is Residential Use Pushing Out Industrial Use?
4.7 Issues Relating to Historic Preservation
4.8 Case Studies in Gentrification: The Meatpacking District

Chapter 5: CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………….. 93
5.1 How Isolation Has Saved the Arts District
5.2 Future Development and Housing Concerns
5.3 Issues Related to Adaptive Reuse
5.4 The Changing Aesthetic – New Construction in the Arts District
5.5 Development as Creative and Technology Hub
5.6 Dynamic Equilibrium
5.7 Recommendations

Appendix A: CASE STUDIES: DIFFERENT ADAPTIVE REUSE APPROACHES IN
THE ARTS DISTRICT…………………………………………………………………………. 115
A.1 Introduction
A.2 Case Studies in Adaptive Reuse in the Arts District
A.3 SCI-Arc
A.4 Toy Warehouse Lofts
A.5 Biscuit Company Loft
A.6 Seventh+Bridge

Appendix B: Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………… 122
B.1 List of Acronyms
B.2 Los Angeles Preservation Policy Overview

BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 126

iii

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my mother, Karan Kozelko, for her endless support and love
throughout my academic career. My mother has always given me the backing and motivation to keep
moving forward and be my best, and to be curious about the world and never give up. My mom helped
me move out from Denver, Colorado to live in Los Angeles, and to focus my profession on historic
preservation and adaptive reuse in a new, exciting city.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to acknowledge my thesis committee, who kept me focused and gave me the
feedback I needed to produce this thesis. Through Trudi Sandmeier, John Arnold, and John Lesak, I was
able to streamline my thesis and not get overwhelmed with all the different ways I could go. They made
sure that my focus was narrowed down and I produced a much stronger thesis.
I would also like to thank all the people involved in the Arts District, who gave me countless
stories about their experiences in the neighborhood. Particularly Len Hill of Linear City, LLC., Melissa
Richardson-Banks, Stephen Seemayer, Tyler Stonebreaker, Yassmin Sarmadi, Daniel Lahoda, Carolyn
Paxton, and Carlton Davis. Each of these individuals represents a particular segment of the Arts District.
Stephen Seemayer gave me a glimpse into the Arts District in the early days, when he and his peers
made raw, controversial art. Through Seemayer’s movie about this era, The Young Turks, I was able to
understand how unique the Arts District was compared to the Westside art scene. Carlton Davis’s
documentation through his book Art Dockuments was incredibly insightful into the world of the Arts
District in the 1980s. My research into the early days of the art scene in the neighborhood could not
have been possible without the written accounts of the early artists, such as Stephen Seemayer, and
Carlton Davis. Without their documentation, there is very little information about the neighborhood
during this time. Len Hill gave me a developer’s perspective, and the idea that the best developers are
creating strong communities, not singular buildings. Tyler Stonebreaker is part of the new group of
brokers who are introducing new amenities into the neighborhood, based on the community’s needs.
When I interviewed Tyler, he was very knowledgeable about why young professionals are moving back
into the city, and recommended that I look into Daniel Pink’s ideas in A Whole New Mind, which was
very eye opening about how the creative class is attracted to authentic environments and experiences.
Like Linear City, Stonebreaker is truly catering to the unique needs of the neighborhood, and matching
appropriate businesses in the area. Melissa Richardson-Banks is a true neighborhood activist that has
been living in the Arts District since 1993, and represents why I believe this neighborhood has such a
strong community. Like activists before her, such as Joel Bloom, Richardson-Banks understands the
neighborhood and fights for what is best for the community. I met with Yassmin Sarmadi at her
restaurant Church & State. She was one of the first restaurants to open in the neighborhood and found
it to be a major contrast from the Westside. Daniel Lahoda gave me a tour of his L.A. Freewalls projects
v

in the neighborhood, and spent much time explaining why keeping street art visible is so important for
the neighborhood and for the artists. Lahoda has been highly active in contributing to the overall
aesthetic of the neighborhood, and was highly involved in working with the city to get the mural ban
lifted.

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 Downtown Los Angeles ................................................................................................................ 5
Figure 1.2 General Zoning Plan of Downtown Los Angeles .......................................................................... 6
Figure 1.3 Map of Downtown Los Angeles neighborhoods .......................................................................... 7
Figure 1.4 Arts District Map .......................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 1.5 Stephen Seemayer filming Young Turks .................................................................................... 16
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 View of orchard and vineyard, east Downtown Los Angeles, 1865 .......................................... 17
Figure 2.2 Jean-Louis Vignes ....................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.3 Wolfskill Ranch ........................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2.4 Wolfskill Ranch, between Alameda and San Pedro Streets, circa 1882 .................................... 20
Figure 2.5 Late nineteenth century citrus workers ..................................................................................... 19
Figure 2.6 Rail lines at intersection of Alameda and Aliso Streets ............................................................. 22
Figure 2.7 Oil derricks in Los Angeles, circa 1939 ....................................................................................... 23
Figure 2.8 La Grande Station along Santa Fe Avenue, circa 1911 .............................................................. 24
Figure 2.9 Bird’s eye view of the Arts District at First Street and Santa Fe, 1909 ...................................... 25
Figure 2.10 Los Angeles River flooding, 1930s ............................................................................................ 27
Figure 2.11 Los Angeles River, encased in concrete, 1931 ......................................................................... 27
Figure 2.12 Congested Los Angeles freeway, 1961 .................................................................................... 28
Figure 2.13 Suburban sprawl, 1954 ............................................................................................................ 29
Figure 2.14 Bunker Hill regarding, 1970 ..................................................................................................... 30
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 Abandoned warehouse at Mateo and Palmetto Streets ........................................................... 32
Figure 3.2 Carlton Davis on the Art Dock, 1980s ........................................................................................ 35
Figure 3.3 Citizen’s Warehouse, 1980s ....................................................................................................... 35
Figure 3.4 Al's Bar in the American Hotel ................................................................................................... 36
Figure 3.5 View of artist loft in Arts District, 1980s .................................................................................... 38
Figure 3.6 Former Challenge Creamery Building, 929 E. Second Street ..................................................... 40
vii

Figure 3.7 Downtown L.A. Arts Fair exhibit by Gallery by the Water, held near Seventh Street and Santa
Fe Avenue on June 30, 1984 ....................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 3.8 A homeless man sleeps on the sidewalk in Skid Row, 1987 ...................................................... 43
Figure 3.9 SRO housing at the Leo Hotel, 501 S. San Julian Street, 1988 ................................................... 45
Figure 3.10 Damage from riots, 1992 ......................................................................................................... 46
Figure 3.11 Exterior view of the Cameo Theater, 528 S. Broadway, 1990 ................................................. 46
Figure 3.12 Adaptive Reuse Ordinance project area, 2005 ........................................................................ 51
Figure 3.13 SCI-Arc in the former Santa Fe depot building along Santa Fe Avenue ................................... 55
Figure 3.14 Arts District community plan expansion to Violet Street, 2008 .............................................. 57
Figure 3.15 Graffiti and graffiti art on the American Hotel building, 303 S. Hewitt Street ........................ 58
Figure 3.16 Chipmunk mural on the Urban Radish building, 661 Imperial Street ...................................... 59
Figure 3.17 Daniel Lahoda in front of one of the L.A. Freewalls murals, 2013 ........................................... 60
Figure 3.18 Work Space, Painting Studios, Retail for lease in Arts District ................................................ 61
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1 Nokia Theater at L.A. Live .......................................................................................................... 66
Figure 4.2 General Zoning Plan of Downtown Los Angeles, showing industrial use centered on the Arts
District ......................................................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 4.3 Continued industrial use in the Arts District .............................................................................. 77
Figure 4.4 Trucks navigating Mateo Street ................................................................................................. 79
Figure 4.5 Citizen’s Warehouse “Pickle Works” building ............................................................................ 82
Figure 4.6 Crazy Gideon's in the 1990s ....................................................................................................... 83
Figure 4.7 Historic Sixth Street Bridge ........................................................................................................ 84
Figure 4.8 Adaptive Reuse of an old brick building incorporating modern features while keeping the
character ..................................................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 4.9 Manhattan's Meatpacking District, 1970s ................................................................................. 90
Figure 4.10 Standard Hotel above High Line in Meatpacking District ........................................................ 92
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 Arts District residents planting trees, 2007 ............................................................................... 95
Figure 5.2 Potential reuse project on Seventh Street and Santa Fe Avenue .............................................. 96
Figure 5.3 Available masonry building at Fourth Street and Merrick Street in the Arts District .............. 100
Figure 5.4 One Santa Fe under construction from Third Street and Santa Fe Ave. .................................. 101
viii

Figure 5.5 One Santa Fe under construction with SCI-Arc in foreground................................................. 103
Figure 5.6 Former Megatoys building being demolished for new mixed-use project, November 2013 .. 103
Figure 5.7 Rendering of future Sixth Street Bridge from Arts District to Boyle Heights ........................... 105
Figure 5.8 Future location of LACI, across from Barker Block on Hewitt Street ....................................... 106
Figure 5.9 Rendering of interior of LACI ................................................................................................... 106
Figure 5.10 Map of Cleantech Corridor .................................................................................................... 107
Figure 5.11 Pool culture as represented by David Hockney, 1967 ........................................................... 108
Figure 5.12 Arts District art in the Art Dock, early 1980s ......................................................................... 108
Figure 5.13 Layers of history: rail lines, old brick buildings, and graffiti art ............................................. 109
Appendix A
Figure A.3.1 SCI-Arc (Santa Fe Freight Deopt) looking east. One Santa Fe under construction in
background………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….115

Figure A.3.2 New plate glass on west
elevation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..116

Figure A.4.1 Toy Warehouse
Lofts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….117

Figure A.5.1 Nabisco building,
1927…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….119

Figure A.5.2 Rehabilitated building in
2012…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….119

Figure A.6.1
Seventh+Bridge……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………120

ix

ABSTRACT

“Isolation and Authenticity in Los Angeles’ Arts District” explores the various factors that
isolated the Arts District neighborhood from the rest of Downtown and saved it from being demolished
during urban renewal and transformed though large-scale redevelopment. As the neighborhood was
considered irrelevant for development, many of the warehouse buildings built in the early twentieth
century sat abandoned or underused. In the 1960s, a steady stream of artists began to move into the
neighborhood and the Arts District began to evolve from a former industrial center into a creative
enclave. Over decades, small-scale, community-driven development allowed the Arts District to develop
slowly through the participation of active residents who were concerned with preserving the
neighborhood’s industrial and artistic character. As late as 2005, the Arts District was excluded from the
1999 Adaptive Reuse Ordinance in order to preserve the neighborhood for industrial use. However, the
Arts District was finally recognized as being appropriate for residential development, and the
neighborhood has undergone a dramatic transformation since the mid-2000s.
This thesis explores the various social, cultural, and economic issues that come with the
revitalization of the Arts District, including the overall restructuring of Downtown Los Angeles, the
positive and negative impacts associated with revitalization, Skid Row’s impact on the Arts District,
residential use pushing out industrial use, and issues relating to historic preservation and future
development. This thesis looks at the future development of the neighborhood and offers
recommendations on how to best manage change as the Arts District continues to evolve.

1

Introduction

1.1 Thesis Statement

The Arts District has been isolated from the rest of Downtown Los Angeles due to various
geographic and infrastructural boundaries, economic decisions, and social issues. This isolation has
made the Arts District immune to redevelopment in many ways, such as preventing it from being
scraped during urban renewal, transformed during large-scale redevelopment, or absorbed into
adjacent neighborhoods. Because of this isolation, the Arts District was able to evolve over decades in
an organic, community-driven way. This particular type of growth allowed it to develop a unique identity
in the city, and attract a particular group of creative people and businesses seeking a historically
“authentic,” raw environment. The concepts of isolation and authenticity (to be defined later) are
critical to the neighborhood and will be used extensively throughout this thesis. This thesis examines the
various factors that have caused the neighborhood’s isolation, and elevated it to one of the most
important creative hubs of Los Angeles. It argues that the neighborhood can maintain its connection to
its industrial aesthetic and artistic roots due to its slow evolution, the community involvement, the
proximity to Skid Row and the prevalence of low-income housing. This thesis identifies which character-
defining features are significant to the neighborhood, and how the community, preservationists,
developers, and city officials can best manage change in the neighborhood. Managing change refers to
the ability to retain the most significant physical and cultural elements of the Arts District in the face of
inevitable development as the city as a whole grows.

1.2 Thesis Overview

The broader patterns of city planning and development, social upheaval, and economics were
essential in laying the groundwork for the “urban renaissance” that Downtown Los Angeles, including
the Arts District, is experiencing today. The examination of the Arts District will be set against the
backdrop of the transformation of the city and particularly Downtown. As it is seen today, the Arts
2

District started in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century with the arrival of the
railroads and the construction of the warehouse buildings to accommodate the shipping and
manufacturing needs of the city. Since then, the neighborhood has been affected by various outside
influences, including: the overall population migration patterns in the city, the development of the
freeway system, the functional obsolescence of the warehouse buildings, the presence of Skid Row,
politics that kept the neighborhood off limits for residential development, and the urban planning
policies that led to Downtown’s recent renaissance. Also at play are the particular drivers that are
bringing young professionals – particularly those engaged in the creative industry – into the Arts District.
These drivers include the search for authenticity, and a more recent theory that many people are
rejecting the suburban life they grew up in and are gravitating toward urban living as adults. The
concept of authenticity will be defined later in the Introduction.
As the Arts District grew increasingly isolated as its transportation and manufacturing base
moved out, it became one of the least visible and accessible areas of Downtown, and irrelevant in the
early revitalization efforts by the city in the 1960s. Because it was “off the radar” from redevelopment in
the latter half of the twentieth century, many of the old warehouses were spared from demolition.
However, there was little use for the land, so the buildings sat vacant for years as city officials and
developers were never compelled to tear them down.

1.3 Personal Motivation

As an architecture and heritage conservation student, I have witnessed the benefits of urban
revitalization, seeing its effects firsthand in my hometown of Denver, Colorado. However, after moving
to Los Angeles, I found that research into issues such as gentrification, revitalization, and adaptive reuse
were very rarely focused on Los Angeles, although the city seems to be aching for a more active urban
center and accurate presentation of its history. Gentrification and the adaptive reuse of buildings have
been examined in older cities for years, but Los Angeles has only recently been the focus of urban
planning research on its Central Business District because Downtown was considered irrelevant on a
wider view of the city. Although it is the second largest city in the country, Los Angeles was regarded as
the antithesis of the traditional city growth patterns, and was largely ignored by academia, urban
3

planners, and theorists for decades.
1
Much of the academic research on urban issues and growth
patterns in Los Angeles was originated by the L.A. School of Urbanists in the late 1980s. At this time,
Edward W. Soja and Allen J. Scott noted the beginnings of a Downtown revitalization, stating that, “The
historical geography of Downtown development in Los Angeles is likely to be a major focus for urban
research for many years to come.”
2
Although Los Angeles has one of the most active historic preservation communities in the
country, much of the preservation work in the city has been largely focused on the innovations in
housing, i.e. the Case Study Program, and the more stately commercial buildings in the urban core. The
Arts District was not considered relevant to preservation efforts because it identified with utilitarian and
architecturally disparate warehouses, derelict infrastructure, and a large homeless population.
The transformation of Los Angeles’ Central Business District is so
recent, that many policy makers and planners are trying to understand how urban revitalization works in
a city that has for so many decades lacked a rich urban center.
3
In
addition to the lack of scholarly analysis on Downtown Los Angeles prior to the 1980s, most of the early
residents in the Arts District were homeless or poor artists living in illegal situations and engaged in
various controversial art performances and projects. Therefore, there is very little official
documentation about the earlier years of the neighborhood (1970s through the 1980s) because much of
the activity in the area was kept secret in order to avoid eviction or fines.
4
Even though artists were
producing work in the Arts District as early as the 1970s, they were overwhelmingly written-off by the
prosperous art scene on the Westside. The city’s prominent art world still found the eastern edge of
Downtown derelict, dangerous, and the opposite of the pop-culture optimism that defined Los Angeles
art through most of the twentieth century.
5

1
In my research into the writing produced by the L.A. School, in particular Michael Sorkin, Mike Davis, and Edward
Soja, I found that there was very little focus on the reuse of industrial structures as a movement in the city. Most
recently, work by Eric Owen Moss and Peter Zellner have looked into this phenomenon in the city.
The preservation and reuse in the Arts District is about
2
Edward W. Soja and Allen J. Scott, “Los Angeles: Capital of the Late Twentieth Century,” Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space 4, (1986): 253. The development of the Los Angeles School of Urban Theory in the
1980s identified a very different version of multi-nodal, chaotic growth in the city, but these collections of essays,
books, and ideas were not considered a collected academic methodology for many years.
3
Only 5% of the total employment for the County is located in Downtown. Until the mid-1920s, Downtown Los
Angeles was a bustling city center. Suburbanization, the popularity of cars, and a buyout of the rail lines all
contributed to Downtown’s decline. As multiple mini-Downtowns popped up throughout the city, old Downtown
remained the center of government and corporate activity, wholesale trades, and Skid Row. However, the
Downtown area lacked a strong residential base, cultural scene, and nightlife.
4
Thankfully, several artists keep a detailed record of the neighborhood during this time, including Stephen
Seemayer and Carlton Davis. Without their written and oral histories of the neighborhood during this time, there
would be little information to be found.
5
Artists like the Andy Warhol, James Turrell, Ed Ruscha, and David Hockney.
4

preserving the more lowbrow industrial history of the city, and the often dark, provocative, and
controversial art that was produced in the area during the 1970s and 1980s. Because of this, the Arts
District offers a unique approach on how to best preserve a piece of the city’s history that is most
associated with industry and less with the more glamorous aspects of the city.
The growth patterns of Los Angeles are particularly fascinating to me, and researching how the
Arts District fits into the ideas of both traditional and non-traditional development through adaptive
reuse are ideas that I hope will benefit me in my career as an architect and preservationist. As the
neighborhood is poised for rapid change and redevelopment, I think this thesis is particularly timely to
trace the early history of the neighborhood through its current state, in order to understand what is
most significant to preserve, and what has the opportunity to be transformed to adapt to the next phase
of the Arts District’s evolution.

1.4 Arts District Boundaries and Neighborhood Definitions

The Arts District is a 52-block neighborhood located in eastern Downtown Los Angeles (Figure
1.1). The boundaries of the Arts District, as defined by the Central City North Community Plan, are First
Street to the north, the Los Angeles River to the east, Violet Street to the south, and Alameda Street to
the west.
6
The northern boundary of the Arts District is often referred to as the 101 Freeway. However,
from First Street to the 101 Freeway, there are very few residential buildings and most of the land is
city-owned. The area from First Street to Fourth Street is the core of the Arts District, where most of the
long-time artists live. The majority of the area’s industrial buildings are located from Fourth to Seventh
Street, where most of the condominiums are zoned as live/work.
7

6
In 2000, the Central City North Community plan identified the southern boundary as Sixth Street. It was extended
to Violet Street in 2008.
7
Melissa Richardson Banks, The A.D. Abbreviated, podcast audio, Downtown Muse, accessed July 30, 2013.
http://Downtownmuse.com/podcasts/.

5

Figure 1.1: General Zoning Plan of Downtown Los Angeles. Map from ZIMAS.
http://zimas.lacity.org/. With Arts District boundary drawn by author.

For the purpose of this thesis, “Downtown Los Angeles” or “Downtown” is defined as the area
between the 110 Freeway to the west, the 101 Freeway to the north, the Los Angeles River to the east,
and the 10 Freeway to the south (Figure 1.2). Downtown includes the Central Business District, the
Financial District, the Historic Core, Skid Row, the Arts District, and other neighborhoods located within
these boundaries.
6

Downtown Los Angeles is broken into two community plans, as defined by the Los Angeles
Department of City Planning. The two communities are the Central City community, which includes all of
Downtown located west of Alameda and the Central City North community, which includes the
remainder of Downtown located east of Alameda. The Arts District is located in the north half of the
Central City North community.
The Central Business District (CBD) includes the Bunker Hill area, the Financial District, and the
Historic Core. The CBD does not include the Arts District or Skid Row (Figure 1.3).
Central City East includes the Industrial District, the Toy District, and Skid Row. Skid Row is the
neighborhood located directly west of the Arts District, mostly concentrated along Fifth Street. It is
bounded by Main Street to the west, Third Street to the north, Alameda Street to the east, and Seventh
Street to the south.
Urban renewal efforts undertaken during the 1960s are referring to Bunker Hill, located in the
northwest area of Downtown. Revitalization efforts taken in the 1990s are referring to the development
of Grand Avenue and the L.A. Live project.

Figure 1.2: Downtown Los Angeles. Map from ZIMAS. http://zimas.lacity.org/. With additonal
information by author.

7

Throughout this thesis, a number of buildings and businesses in the Arts District will be
referenced. Figure 1.4 shows a detailed map of the Arts District with the referenced buildings,
businesses, and landmarks.

Figure 1.3: Map of Downtown Los Angeles neighborhoods. Map from from
“Downtown LA Neighborhoods,” ExperienceLA.com,
http://www.experiencela.com/community/page/downtownlaneighborhoods
(accessed June 17, 2013.)

8

Figure 1.4: Arts District Map. Map from Googlemaps, with buildings located by author.

9

Referenced Buildings & Businesses

1. Citizen’s Warehouse 1001 E. 1st St. Los Angeles
2. Newberry Lofts 900 E. 1st St. Los Angeles
3. Alexan Savoy 100 S. Alameda
4. Gallery Lofts 120-130 S. Hewitt St.
5. Megatoys 905-919 E. 2nd St.
6. Challenge Creamery 929 E. 2nd St.
7. Artisan on 2nd 601 E. 2nd St.
8. Barn Lofts 940 East 2nd St.
9. 201 S. Santa Fe Ave.
10. 923 E. 3rd St.
11. Toy Warehouse Lofts 215 S. Santa Fe Ave.
12. Mura Lofts 629 Traction Ave.
13. 950 E. 3rd St.
14. 810 East Third St.
15. American Apartments 303 S. Hewitt St.
16. 811 Traction Lofts 811-815 Traction Ave.
17. One Santa Fe 230 S Santa Fe Ave. (UNDER CONSTRUCTION)
18. 800 Traction Ave.
19. The Yards 875 E. Traction Ave.
20. Hewitt Street Lofts 837 Traction Ave.
21. SCI-Arc 960 E. 3rd St.
22. Beacon Lofts 825 E 4
th
St.
23. 5th and Seaton 454 Seaton St.
24. 415 Molino St.
25. Molino Street Lofts 500-530 Molino St.
26. Barker Block 510-530 Hewitt St.
27. Lucky Brand HQ 540 S. Santa Fe Ave.
28. Las Americas Hotel 1205 E. 6th St.
29. Factory Place Arts Complex 1291-1333 E. Sixth Place
30. Brick Lofts 652 Mateo St.
31. The Walnut 1745 E. Seventh St.
32. Industrial Lofts 1800 E Industrial St.
33. Toy Factory Lofts 1855 Industrial St.
34. Biscuit Lofts 1850 Industrial St.
35. AMP Lofts 695 S. Santa Fe St.
36. Santa Fe Ave. Lofts 688 Santa Fe Ave.
37. Loft 726 720-726 S. Santa Fe Ave.
10

38. 2117 East Seventh Place
39. 7th + Bridge 2121 E. 7th Place
40. The Yards 912 E. 3rd St.
A. Atomic Café 422 East First St. (CLOSED)
B. Angel City Brewery 216 S. Alameda St.
C. Al’s Bar 303 S. Hewitt St. (CLOSED)
D. Bloom’s General Store 714 Traction Ave. (CLOSED)
E. Crazy Gideon’s 826 Traction Ave. (CLOSED)
F. LACI 537 Hewitt St.
G. Italian Vineyard Company 1234-1248 Palmetto St.
H. Handsome Coffee Roasters 582 Mateo St.
H. LACE 1804 Industrial St. (Business Closed, building still standing)
J. Urban Radish 661 Imperial St.

1.5 Thesis Terms

Authenticity and Palimpsest
For the purpose of this thesis, the word “authentic” will not be used in its conventional way in
historic preservation, as defined by the 1964 Venice Charter, meaning authenticity of “design, materials,
workmanship, and setting.”
8
As the concept of authenticity has evolved since 1964, “authentic” in this
thesis will represent the concept of progressive authenticities, which “recognizes the legitimacy of
layered authenticity, evoking successive adaptations of historic places over time.”
9
This concept allows
authenticity to be more flexible. This idea was affirmed during the 1996 Declaration of San Antonio,
which acknowledges, “Authenticity is a concept much larger than material integrity.”
10

8
The Venice Charter: International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites,
Preamble, 1964.
This thesis
recognizes there are several periods of significance in the Arts District that should be highlighted:
agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and artistic expression. Many of the buildings have multiple
eras of significance represented on them, and this thesis argues that the buildings should be
represented as a timeline and significant elements should be highlighted from various periods. When
9
Bernd von Droste and Ulf Bertilsson, “Authenticity and World Heritage,” from the Nara Conference on
Authenticity (Nara, Japan, 1994.): 4.
10
ICOMOS, “Proceedings of the Inter-American Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and Management
of the Cultural Heritage of the Americas,” San Antonio, Texas, March 1996, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.:
Getty Conservation Institute and US/ICOMOS, 1999. http://www.icomos.org/docs/san_antonio.html.
11

this thesis refers to people being drawn to an “authentic place” or seeking an “authentic” lifestyle, living
environment or workplace, it refers to an environment with an attachment to the history of the city that
has evolved through small changes. “Authentic” serves as a contrast to typical suburban lifestyle and
developer-driven housing, which imposes radical, near-absolute change to pre-development
environments.
There are very few instances in the Arts District where the old buildings are completely
unaltered from their original appearance. Therefore, the 1964 term “authentic” is not appropriate. Any
point in this thesis that refers to the original building materials and built environment, will refer to them
as having the original materials and appearance as when first constructed.
The term palimpsest today appears within a diverse range of scientific fields. For this thesis, it
will be used to describe how people experience a particular period in time as a layering of present
experience over faded pasts, or a “multi-layered record.” The layers relate to physical layers (buildings),
layers of meaning (memories, perceptions), layers of time (progress, decay, change), historical layers
(human activity, city development), and social and cultural layers (the manifestation of ideas in the
physical layers of the built environment).
11

The layers contribute to the evolution of places as layers are
added to, covered, destroyed, or forgotten. By examining a site’s history in order to understand previous
layers, new designs can embrace change while remaining connected to the past. This thesis promotes
using the palimpsest concept as a tool for future development in the Arts District neighborhood.
Revitalization and Gentrification
The terms “revitalization” and “urban renaissance” will be used to define the trends of urban
restructuring, including the reuse of existing buildings; the emergence of a steady Downtown residential
population; the influx of new businesses and services, and the investments in public services and
infrastructure.
For the purpose of this thesis, the terms “revitalization” and “gentrification” will not be used
interchangeably. Gentrification will refer to the influx of a wealthier population moving into a formerly
blighted or low-income area, and the often negative and controversial impacts that the influx can have
on a neighborhood, including the loss of character; the loss of the built environment; pushing out the
existing residents; and development and policies insensitive to pre-existing fabric.

11
Kjerrgren Lovisa, “Layers of Land: The Palimpsest Concept in Relation to Landscape Architecture,” Bachelor’s
thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (Uppsala), 2011.
12

Art and Artist
There are many types of art and artists. For this thesis, “artist” is referring to the particular
group of artists that live in the Arts District. The “early artists” refer to the initial group of artists that
arrived between the 1960s and early 1990s. Art in the Arts District includes visual art, video,
performance, sculpture, graffiti art, installations, and other forms of artistic expression.

Creative Culture
Creative culture refers to those employed in professions that are based on producing products
based on artisanship or creative skill, such as art, design, photography, fashion, journalism, film, digital
arts, and others.

Community-Driven
Community-driven refers to small-scale development and policy decisions that are organized
and pushed by active residents of a neighborhood. For the Arts District, this term refers to various
neighborhood groups and individuals such as the artist/developers, the Los Angeles River Artists and
Business Association (LARABA), the Los Angeles Downtown Arts District Space (LADADSpace), Joel
Bloom, and others. These groups are knowledgeable about the history of the neighborhood and seek to
promote the history of the neighborhood while keeping it an enclave for artists.

Historic
The term historic will be used to describe buildings that are recognized as historically significant
by the National Register of Historic Places and the Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monuments list, or as
potentially eligible for these lists. The buildings in the Arts District regarded as historically significant will
be reviewed in Chapter 4. Buildings that are not recognized as historic but may have significance will be
described as “potentially historic.”

1.6 Methodology

To support this thesis statement, the isolation boundaries of the Arts District are identified by
examining the larger patterns in the growth of the city, such as Downtown’s decline; the encasement of
13

the Los Angeles River; the construction of the freeways; the concentration of the homeless in Skid Row;
and the policy decisions that located industrial processes in eastern Downtown.
After defining the boundaries, the significant events in the neighborhood’s history are explored.
Chapter 2 examines the Arts District’s association with wine production (1830s through 1870s), the early
industrial and transportation processes that initiated the construction of many of the brick warehouse
buildings (1870s through 1930s), and Downtown’s decline through the mid and late twentieth century
(1940s through 1960s). Chapter 3 examines the adaptive reuse of industrial buildings in the Arts District
by the early artists (1970s through 1990s), policy decisions that led to the containment of the homeless
population in Skid Row (1970s), the Artist-In-Residence ordinance (1981) and the Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance (1999), and the rise of the creative industry in the neighborhood (2000s to present).
After exploring the history of the neighborhood in order to define the isolation boundaries,
Chapter 4 examines the issues that often occur with revitalization and gentrification, and how these
issues are relevant to the Arts District. These include the benefits of small-scale, community-based
development in the neighborhood; economics; the city’s response to displacement of low-income
housing; the cultural issues that are drawing people back into gritty urban neighborhoods; the
juxtaposition of residential and industrial use; and the benefits and drawbacks of historic preservation.
Finally, the Arts District will be compared to other industrial areas that have undergone revitalization,
specifically Manhattan’s Meatpacking District. This section argues that unlike the Meatpacking District,
the Arts District is unlikely to become over-gentrified and lose its connection to its industrial and artistic
past.
The thesis is concluded by presenting future projects and movements that are centered in the
Arts District. The conclusion also offers recommendations on which elements (physical, legal and
cultural) are essential to keep the neighborhood in the state of “dynamic equilibrium” that it is in now.
These include a mixture of uses, community-led activism, various approaches to design that respect the
history of the neighborhood, and an inclusion of affordable housing options aimed at keeping artists in
the area (which will allow it to remain a creative incubator).
The Appendix will briefly look at several case study projects, each with a different approach to
adaptive reuse that has been successful in the neighborhood. These projects act as “anchors” for the
neighborhood that can serve as examples for future development.

14

1.7 Goals and Objectives

This thesis creates a history of the Arts District and explores the issues that caused the
neighborhood to become isolated from the rest of Downtown, by examining the larger regional patterns
that contributed to this isolation. By doing this, this thesis shows why the area is significant in Los
Angeles history, what particular elements are worth preserving, and how to approach future
development in the neighborhood.
Because there is very little documentation of the early artists, it is important to create a written
record that included many of the significant early artists who eventually developed the neighborhood.
Although presenting the history of the neighborhood is critical, the particular social, economic and
cultural issues that are at play in the Arts District’s revitalization are equally important. This thesis
contends that the neighborhood is particularly well suited to withstand gentrification and loss of
character. Much of the future development (as well as the overall aesthetic) of the neighborhood will be
influenced by its history. The goal is that this thesis can be used by developers, designers, policy makers,
and residents to better understand the history of the neighborhood, what is worth preserving, and how
to best implement a particular policies that will manage the evolution of the neighborhood while
preserving its history.

1.8 Literature Review

Of the references used for this thesis, the following interviews, articles, books, and reports were
incredibly helpful in the research and support of this thesis’ goals.

• For the early history of the viticulture, agricultural and transportation industries, which
spurred the construction of most of the early twentieth century buildings, various
historic newspaper reports, and William Davis’ book Seventy-Five Years in California
were used.
• For the broader events of the city, the following books were used: Reyner Banham’s Los
Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies, Mike Davis’ City of Quartz, Peter Plagens’
“Los Angeles: The Ecology of Evil,” Kevin Starr’s Los Angeles: Portrait of a City, Carey
15

McWilliams’ Southern California: An Island on the Land, various articles from the L.A.
School of Urbanists, and Kevin Lynch’s The Image of the City.
• The account of the art scene in Venice was from art reviews and Andrew Deener’s
thorough account of development along the coast in Venice: A Contested Bohemia in Los
Angeles.
• For issues regarding urban pioneers and gentrification, Ellen Reese, Geoffrey Deverteuil
and Leanne Thach’s essay on Los Angeles as a weak-center city was helpful in
understanding the relative lack of research devoted to urban restructuring in Downtown
Los Angeles. Articles by Elvin Wyly, Daniel Hammel, Robert Morris, Andres Duany, Paul
Grogan, and Tony Proscio were influential as well. Richard Campanella defines the
evolution of urban pioneers used in this thesis. M. Christine Boyer argues that
insensitive historic preservation has the potential to create packaged environments and
destroy authentic history. Boyer’s “Cities for Sale,” Zukin’s Naked City, and research into
Manhattan’s Meatpacking District were used to argue that hyper-gentrification can kill a
neighborhood's character, and that the Arts District will avoid the same fate as the
Meatpacking District. The comparisons to the Meatpacking District are from the blog
L.A. Curbed, The Architect’s Newspaper, Time Magazine, and Variety.
• Jane Jacobs and J.B. Jackson presented formative ideas relating to the value of diversity
in urban areas, and why people are drawn to older buildings and environments.
Although these ideas have been in existence for decades, research into the shifting
values of Generations X and Y enhance the notions originally presented by Jacobs and
Jackson. Information about Generation X and Y was pulled from Nathan Morris’ article
in Placemakers, the Robert Charles Lesser & Company (RCLCO) Consumer Report, and
Daniel Pink’s A Whole New Mind.
• Research on Skid Row references Gary Blasi and Forrest Stuart’s essays on the Safer
Cities Initiative and Edward Goetz’s “Land Use and Homeless Policy in Los Angeles.”
• In examining the early artist and development phase, the most critical resource was
interviews with Stephen Seemayer and his movie Young Turks (Figure 1.5). Seemayer
spoke about why many people migrated to the Arts District in the 1970s (mostly
economic), and his early days developing the neighborhood for artists’ studios. Another
tremendous resource was Carlton Davis’s book, Art Dockuments, which chronicled his
experience in his drive-by gallery in the Citizen’s Warehouse building during the early
16

1980s. This book gave an insight to the living conditions of the artists and the
challenging years following the passage of the Artist-In-Residence (AIR) ordinance.

Figure 1.5: Stephen Seemayer filming Young Turks. courtesy of Stephen Seemayer in Richard Guzman's
“Documentary Focuses on ‘Young Turks’ of Downtown’s 1907s Art Scene,” in Los Angeles Downtown
News. February 6, 2013.

• For the second phase of development, interviews with Linear City, LLC, Tyler Stonebreaker,
Daniel Lahoda, community activist Melissa Richardson-Banks and others were helpful in
understanding the benefits of small-scale development and community representation. Peter
Zellner’s article in The Planning Report supported my ideas about the non-sustainability of large-
scale redevelopment. The Los Angeles Downtown News and L.A. Curbed were essential in
recording development projects in the area, as was the history pulled from neighborhood
websites such as Los Angeles River Artists and Business Association (LARABA.org) and Los
Angeles Downtown Arts District (LADADSpace.com). The shifting demographic information is
provided by a 2012 Jones Lang LaSalle report, and the future of the area as a technology hub
was provided by the L.A. Cleantech Incubator project.
17

Figure 2.1: View of orchard and vineyard, east Downtown Los Angeles, 1865. Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles
Public Library Photo Collection. http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics23/00031390.jpg (accessed August 13, 2013).
Chapter 2
History of the Arts District I: From Viticulture through the 1960s

2.1 Viticulture

In the early nineteenth, what is now the Arts District area was mostly known for cattle ranching.
Viticulture was the first known industry in the Arts District region outside of ranching, and the area
served as a robust winemaking center during the mid-nineteenth century (Figure 2.1).
12
In 1831, Jean-
Louis Vignes (1780-1862) arrived from the Bordeaux region of France, and planted vineyards based on
the region’s Mediterranean-like climate (Figure 2.2). He declared the region to be “just the place to
grow them [oranges and grape vines] to perfection.”
13

12
Wine was being cultivated in the Downtown area prior to the arrival of the Spaniards, and the first vines were
thought to be cultivated in the missions as early as the late-seventeenth century.

13
Cleve E. Kindall, “Southern Vineyards: The Economic Significance of the Wine Industry in the Development of Los
Angeles, 1831-1870,” Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly 41, no. 1 (1959): 30.
18

Vignes acquired 104 acres near the present location of Alameda Street and Aliso Street, in the
northeast corner of the Arts District.
14
His first vintage was said to have been in 1837. By 1847, his
vineyard El Aliso was the largest producer of wine in California, and El Aliso became one of the cultural
centers of local life in early Los Angeles.
15

Vignes operated El Aliso winery for twenty-four years before
selling it in 1855 to his two nephews. Vignes Street, along the northeastern edge of the Arts District
bears his name, which means “vines” in French. According to historian William H. Davis, Vignes
...was one of the most valuable men who ever came to California, and the father of the
wine industry here. He had an intelligent appreciation of the extent and importance of
this interest in the future…He was known by everybody in the vicinity of Los Angeles.
16

14
Blake Gumprecht, The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, (1999): 48. In 1833, he planted grapes that were shipped from the south of France.
15
Tim Gaughan, “Where the Valley Met the Vine: The Mexican Period,” Napa Valley Register, June 19, 2009. He
had over forty thousand vines.
16
William Heath Davis and Douglas S. Watson, Seventy-Five years in California; A History of Events and Life in
California… (San Francisco: J. Howell, 1929) 120-122.

Figure 2.2: Jean-Louis Vignes. Photo courtesy of UCLA Charles E. Young Research Library Department of
Special Collections.

19

Following Vignes, John William Wolfskill (1798-1866) was a cowboy and fruit grower who was
highly influential in the development of California’s early citrus, wine, and cattle industries. Shortly after
arriving in Los Angeles in 1831, he acquired 48-acres of land just south of Vignes’ El Aliso and planted
32,000 vines in 1838 (Figures 2.3 and 2.4). While Vignes planted the first orange grove in Los Angeles in
1834, Wolfskill planted a grove around Fourth Street and Alameda.
17
By the 1850s, Wolfskill’s groves
occupied seventy acres, and by the time of Wolfskill’s death in 1866, he was the largest producer of
grapes in California.
18
French winemakers turned the area into a winemaking center, which became known as “French
Town.”

19

17
Gumprecht, 52.
Italian winemakers, such as Matthew “Don Mateo” Keller and Secundo Guasti, were influential
18
Eugene W. Hollon, “Review of William Wolfskill, 1798-1866: Frontier Trapper to California Ranchero,” Review by
Iris H. Wilson, The American Historical Review 71, No. 3 (1966): 1066. His vineyard produced 50,000 gallons of wine
a year.
19
Gumprecht, 49. Winemakers such as Vignes, the Sainsevain brothers, Wolfskill, Louis Bouchete, Remi Nadeau,
and Louis Lemoreau.
Figure 2.3: Wolfskill Ranch. Photo courtesy of the University of Southern California Digital Library.
http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll65/id/2560/rec/1 (accessed May 4, 2013).
20

as well. Keller established one of the largest vineyards in Los Angeles in 1852, and Mateo Street in the
Arts District bears his name. Guasti opened his winery on Aliso Street in 1886, and in 1889, he moved
from the Aliso Street location to 1234-1248 Palmetto Street (part of the building still stands). As
business grew, he purchased 5,000 acres in Cucamonga and founded the Italian Vineyard Company in
1900, although his offices remained in the Arts District.
20
By 1917, the Italian Vineyard Company was the
largest vineyard in the world.
21

20
James Miller Guinn, A History of California and an Extended History of Los Angeles and Environs: Also Containing
Biographies of Well-known Citizens of the Past and Present, Volume 2 (Los Angeles: Historic Record Company,
1915): 204.
A drought in 1862 led to the fall of the cattle industry, but the thriving
wine industry kept the region afloat economically.
21
Susan Straight, “Spirits of Guasti,” Boom 2, no. 4 (2012).
Figure 2.4: Wolfskill Ranch, between Alameda and San Pedro Streets. Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles
Public Library Photo Collection.
http://photos.lapl.org/carlweb/jsp/FullRecord?databaseID=968&record=30&controlNumber=34895
(accessed July 14, 2013).

21

2.2 The Gold Rush, Citrus Fruit Industry, Railroads, and Population Boom

In 1842, the first documented discovery of gold in California occurred in Placerita Canyon, near
Mission San Gabriel, which led to Los Angeles’ first population boom.
22
By the mid-1840s, Los Angeles
was the largest town in Southern California.
23
The 1849 Gold Rush brought a large demand for
agriculture, due to the Vitamin C that is present in citrus fruit, which is used to protect against the
development of scurvy, a common malady of miners.
24

22
"Placerita Canyon SP," California State Parks, http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=622.
This prompted the growth of citriculture in Los
Angeles, and by the late nineteenth century, citrus groves had largely replaced the grape vineyards
(Figure 2.5).
23
"Los Angeles: History," Cities of the United States, Fifth ed. Vol. 2: The West, (Detroit: Gale, 2006): 129.
24
Michelle-Lee Young, Two Trees and Twelve Fruits That Will Change Your Life Forever, (Victoria, BC: Friesen Press,
2013): 114.
Figure 2.5: Late nineteenth century citrus workers. Photo courtesy of LADADSpace.com, "A History,"
http://ladadspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/he8cujkf-copy.jpg (accessed June 14, 2013).
22

As of 1850, the year of California’s statehood, Los Angeles began to adopt the broader United
States' approach to the use of natural resources and industrialization.
25
Southern California’s first local railroad lines were built in 1869 to link Los Angeles to the port of
San Pedro. The tracks were laid along Alameda Street and a depot was built near the intersection of
Alameda and Commercial Street in the Arts District (Figure 2.6). The national railroad came soon after,
which would have a dramatic effect on the development of Los Angeles.
The 1870s saw a mass influx of
people due to the arrival of the railroads.

25
Office of Education and the Environment, “California Education and the Environment Initiative: Unit 10.3.3:
Growth of Population, Cities, and Demands,” California Environmental Protection Agency (Sacramento, 2010): 3.
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/education/eei/Curriculum/Grade10/1033/1033SE.pdf.
Figure 2.6: Rail lines at intersection of Alameda and Aliso Streets. Photo courtesy from Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics30/00034947.jpg (accessed May 14, 2013).
23

The Southern Pacific Railroad reached Los Angeles in 1876, which connected Los Angeles with
San Francisco. The depot was built on land donated by the Wolfskill family at the southwestern corner
of Alameda and Fifth Street.
26
Within a few years, a small manufacturing complex of warehouse
buildings was built in the Arts District, comprised of refineries, flourmills, slaughterhouses, freight yards,
lumberyards, blacksmiths, foundries, and wagon manufacturers to supports the burgeoning urban
population. These warehouses would begin to displace the vineyards and orchards near the railroad
depots.
27
By 1881, the Southern Pacific Railroad had reached the eastern United States. The Santa Fe
Railroad came in 1885, and built its depot and freight yards on the south side of First Street. Because of
the two railways arriving during this time, thousands of people were pouring into the region. In 1880,
the population of Los Angeles was only around 11,000 people, jumping in 1890 to 50,000.
28

The
population increase was caused by an oil discovery in 1890, and subsequent oil boom (Figure 2.7).

26
Judy Gauntt Liebeck, “The Life of William Wolfskill Part II,” Citrus Roots, April 2011,
http://citrusroots.com/citrograph/March-April-2011.pdf.
27
Gumprecht, 112.
28
Gumprecht, 163.
Figure 2.7: Oil derricks in Los Angeles, circa 1939. Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg1.lapl.org/00085/00085768.jpg (accessed November 20, 2013).
24

Largely due to the discovery of oil, the population had reached 100,000 by 1900, and by 1924,
oil would surpass agriculture as Los Angeles’ leading industry.
29
On July 29, 1893, the Santa Fe Railway opened the La Grande Station on Second and Santa Fe in
the Arts District (Figure 2.8). The building was designed by architect Harrison Albright, and was made
from red sandstone and brick and featured turquoise domes, turrets, and chimneys. It was lauded for its
innovative use of reinforced concrete. However, the terminal was destroyed by the Long Beach
earthquake in 1933, and was replaced by Union Station in 1939.
Art in Los Angeles in the late nineteenth
century was defined by the California Impressionism or “Plein-Air” movement. This style was inspired by
nature and the varied California landscape, particularly the ocean, foothills, mountains, and desert.
Notable art enclaves emerged along the Arroyo Seco in Highland Park, Pasadena, and Laguna Beach in
Orange County.
30

29
Kevin Starr and David L. Ulin, Los Angeles: Portrait of a City, Edited by Jim Heimann. Taschen America, LLC,
(2009): 8. Oil would become as important as agriculture in the further development of the city.
The construction of the depot and the
rail lines would affect the built enviroment and buildings were later built around the contours of the rail
lines. Even today, there is evidence of the former rail lines in the streets, and several existing buildings
have curved exterior walls and trace the rail path. However, there are very few pre-1900 buildings that
still exist in the Arts District (see list in Section 4.7).
30
In 1939, the Works Progress Administration’s projects included the Arroyo Seco Parkway and Union Station,
which was built just north of the Arts District. Union Station is considered the last great inner-city passenger train
terminal to be built in the nation.
Figure 2.8: La Grande Station along Santa Fe Avenue, circa 1911. Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg2.lapl.org/pics26/00047864.jpg (accessed May 14, 2013).
25

2.3 Early Twentieth Century

A 1909 map of Los Angeles identified various companies in the Art District, including a furniture
warehouses, blacksmiths, an electrical station, meatpackers, produce companies, ice and cold storage,
soap and laundry supply companies, hotels, lithograph, lumber, chemical and cannery companies, well
supply companies, boiler machine companies, and others (Figure 2.9).
In the early 1900s, the motion picture industry arrived in Los Angeles, due in part to its mild
climate and bright, consistent light. In 1909, the famous filmmaker D.W. Griffith filmed segments of
Hollywood’s first feature film, In Old California, in the Arts District area. Following Griffith, other
filmmakers continued to use the Arts District as a filming location through the twentieth century.
31

31
“Arts District Filming History,” LADADSpace, http://ladadspace.com/art-district-filming-history (accessed July 8,
2013).
In
the first two decades of the twentieth century, Los Angeles and the Arts District were still largely
agricultural, although orange and grapefruit trees had largely replaced the grapes. Up until 1913, most
of the water dedicated for the agricultural industry had been drawn from the unpredictable Los Angeles
Figure 2.9: Bird’s eye view of the Arts District at First Street and Santa Fe, 1909. Map courtesy The Library of
Congress, “Los Angeles Mapped.” http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/lamapped/ (accessed October 12, 2013).
26

River. The city found additional water 230 miles northeast in Inyo Canyon, spurring the Los Angeles
aqueduct project (1909-1913), spearheaded by city engineer William Mulholland. The aqueduct allowed
for the expansion of the agricultural industry and the Greater Los Angeles Basin continued to flourish as
a capital of agriculture.
The 1920s saw another population explosion, with an increase from 576,673 in 1920 to 1.2
million in the late 1920s. A 1921 report from the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce identified dozens
of businesses in the Arts District, including the Italian Vineyard Company on Palmetto, the Los Angeles
Soap Company at First and Alameda, Swift Meatpackers at First and Santa Fe, various produce
companies, and an electrical station at Alameda and Palmetto.
32
The period between 1920 and 1930 in
Los Angeles is one of the largest migrations of American people in the history of the country, and by
1930, Los Angeles was the fifth largest city in the nation.
33
This was due in part to The Great Depression
(approximately 1929-1939) and concurrent drought, which brought thousands of destitute migrants into
the city looking for jobs. Although the Depression devastated many other areas of the country, Los
Angeles’ successful agricultural, motion picture, airplane, auto, and manufacturing industries allowed
the city to weather the Depression far better than other large cities.
34
The Plein-Air art movement began
to decline during the Great Depression, when artists turned to a new, grittier direction.
35
After two major floods in the Los Angeles River in the 1930s killed over fifty people and created
significant, widespread property damage, the federal government moved to contain the river (Figure
2.10). The river, which delineates the eastern edge of the Arts District, was encased in concrete and pre-
existing plans to add other improvements such as greenbelts and improved circulation were never
realized (Figure 2.11).

36

32
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, The Members' Annual Containing Information about the Los Angeles
Chamber of Commerce, 1921.

33
Kevin Starr and David L. Ulin, Los Angeles: Portrait of a City, 53.
34
Kevin Starr and David L. Ulin, Los Angeles: Portrait of a City, 49. By 1939, Los Angeles County was the first-
ranking county in the country in agricultural wealth and income, and stood first in the production of airplanes and
motion pictures, second in auto assembling, third in furniture production and retail, fourth in women’s apparel,
and fifth in overall value of industrial production.
35
Sue Shepherd, “Franz Bischoff – Detroit’s Own California Plein Air Artist,” Michigan Bungalow,
http://www.mibungalow.com/bischoff.asp.
36
Much of the industrial feel of eastern Downtown is due to the concrete containment of the Los Angeles River,
which never allowed the banks to develop as prime recreational space.
27

2.4 World War II, Suburbanization, and the Decline of Agriculture

During World War II, the majority of the aviation industry was located in Southern California.
Thousands of workers arrived in the city in order to work at the large aviation companies and 1950s Los
Angeles promised a bright new beginning. Post World War II, particularly 1945 through 1960, Southern
California experienced another major housing boom and population increase, during which the middle-
class flourished in Los Angeles. Developer-led, mass-production ensued, partly financed by the federal
government to supply labor to factories manufacturing war materials. This was one of the most
dramatic changes in the city’s built environment, as the city expanded into low-density suburban and
rural communities and moved people further and further away from the city center.
37

The development
of the Los Angeles freeway system following the 1947 freeway master plan encouraged people to live
further and further away from the Downtown area. The car culture that developed in the city led to
large increases in personal automobile ownership and decrease in ridership on railways (Figure 2.12).

37
“Older Suburbs in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area: Decline, Revitalization, and Lessons for other
Communities,” prepared by Strategic Economics for Local Government Commission, Congress for the New
Urbanism, July 2002, http://www.lgc.org/freepub/docs/community_design/reports/older_suburbs_in_LA.pdf.
Figure 2.10: Los Angeles River flooding,
1930s. Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles
Public Library,
http://jpg1.lapl.org/00099/00099563.jpg
(accessed November 29, 2013).
Figure2.11: Los Angeles River, encased in concrete, 1931.
Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics17/00008094.jpg (accessed November 29,
2013).
28

Up until the 1940s, Los Angeles was still agrarian. The demise of agriculture took place post-
World War II. Beginning in the 1950s and lasting through the 1960s, the citrus groves were replaced by
industrial factories, and the Santa Fe Railroad was eventually replaced by the more efficient trucking
industry. The warehouse buildings, which were once used to store inventory, became functionally
obsolete as shipping and distributing evolved from storing goods in warehouses to a more efficient
containerization system in the 1950s. Many of the warehouse buildings were abandoned during this
time, and the Arts District grew squalid.
38

38
"Arts District History," Welcome to LARABA,
http://www.laraba.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&Itemid=530 (accessed July 8,
2013).

Figure 2.12: Congested Los Angeles freeway, 1961. Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg3.lapl.org/pics04/00021833.jpg (accessed November 29, 2013).

29

While the post-war years were enthusiastic, this optimism began to fade in the 1960s, as traffic
congestion and pollution became major problems. The city, once viewed as a modern utopia, began to
develop dystopian problems. In planning, cities in the western United States deliberately rejected
density, congestion, and the land-use and zoning regulations established by older cities. While the
middle-class moved to the suburbs following the mass-produced housing boom, the upper class,
historically centered in the West Adams and Hancock Park neighborhoods near Downtown, moved
further west and north to the beach and hill communities (Figure 2.13).
39

39
Today, the most affluent neighborhoods have remained concentrated along the beach communities and the
scenic hillside along the Santa Monica Mountains. This organization is quite different from other large cities, such
as New York or Chicago, which are organized with class distinction being defined as distance between the center of
the city and its periphery. Los Angeles is considered a decentralized, suburban metropolis, in which there is no
clear connection between the Central Business District and the outlying areas. Reyner Banham concludes that in
Los Angeles, “the higher the ground the higher the income.” Reyner Banham, Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four
Ecologies, Berkeley: University of California Press (1971): 79.
Figure 2.13: Suburban sprawl, 1954. Photo courtesy of the Getty Research Institute Digital
Collections, http://search.getty.edu/museum/records/musobject?objectid=136929 (accessed
July 17, 2013).
30

Downtown declined economically, suffered a downturn, and was considered notoriously
moribund. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the City of Los Angeles, working with the Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA), undertook massive urban renewal projects (Figure 2.14).
40

However, the
Arts District was considered an industrial area that was not viable for renewal, and this saved many of
the early twentieth century buildings from demolition. Urban renewal pushed the residential population
to the outskirts of Downtown, and many businesses followed the residential migration. The August 1965
Watts riots sent shock waves through the city. A 1960 to 1964 plan to revitalize the old urban core (near
Broadway) was cancelled amidst the turmoil.

40
Gary W. McDonough, and Marina Peterson, Global Downtowns, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
(2011): 214. Bunker Hill, once one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city, rapidly declined and the stately
Victorian Mansions that lined the hill became rundown. This led to the Bunker Hill Redevelopment Project in 1955,
which leveled houses and cleared the land for future development in the historic Bunker Hill neighborhood. In
1958, Bunker Hill was re-graded to accommodate new construction. However, this area sat vacant for decades.
Figure 2.14: Bunker Hill regarding. Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg1.lapl.org/00086/00086780.jpg (accessed September 4, 2013).
31

2.5 Artist Movements prior to the Arts District

Up until the mid twentieth century, art enclaves around Los Angeles had been concentrated in
areas like Highland Park, Pasadena, and Laguna Beach, and the art was largely inspired by nature. By the
mid twentieth century, areas in Los Angeles like Hollywood and Venice had developed thriving art
scenes. Venice during the mid-century was considered “the ideal bohemian place to live and create west
coast art defining the new art capital.”
41
In the early 1960s artist Chuck Arnoldi recalls, “[In] Downtown,
all I got was cheap rent – no street life. I suffocated in summer and froze in winter. In Venice, the air was
fresh. I rented a 12,000-square-foot loft for almost nothing, and it was a place beyond the law. The more
space the more freedom. Big lofts have an influence on what you produce.”
42
As the arts culture
flourished, the cultural elite, Hollywood royalty, and the rich embraced the Venice art scene with vigor.
In 1976, the Los Angeles Times called Venice “the art capital of Los Angeles.”
43

Early on, places like
Hollywood and Venice attracted artists due to the cheap rent and available space, but as the artists were
priced out, they were forced to relocate. The Arts District offered cheap rent and large open spaces, and
artists from within Los Angeles and throughout the country began to migrate to eastern Downtown. The
art created in the Arts District would be a very different form of art from the earlier art movements that
focused on the beautiful Southern California landscape.

41
Carlton Davis, The Art Dockuments: Tales of the Art Dock: The Drive-By Gallery, Los Angeles (2012): 2.
42
Michael Webb, Venice, CA: Art + Architecture in a Maverick Community. New York: Abrams (2007): 13-17.
43
William Overend, “Behind the Scenes at Bohemia-by-the-Beach,” Los Angeles Times, July 20, 1976.
32

Chapter 3
History of the Arts District II: From the 1960s to Present Day

3.1 Early Art Scene in the Arts District

Following World War II, the Arts District remained industrial. However, over the next several
decades many of the manufacturing companies moved out of the area, or switched to containerization
methods in the 1950s and abandoned their warehouses. In addition, many of the smaller manufacturers
were absorbed by larger competitors, moved overseas, or simply went out of business, leaving dozens of
vacant warehouses behind (Figure 3.1). The abandoned warehouses “contributed to a dingy, decaying
urban environment” that defined Downtown Los Angeles in the latter half of the twentieth century.
44

44
"Arts District History." Welcome to LARABA.
http://www.laraba.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&Itemid=530 (accessed July 8,
2013).

The subsequent near-abandonment of Downtown’s historic core caused property values to decline
sharply.
Figure 3.1: Abandoned warehouse at Mateo and Palmetto Streets.
Photo by author.
33

As artists became priced out in other areas of the city, they moved into the empty warehouses
of the Arts District beginning in the late-1960s and early-1970s, and slowly began to create a community
near Traction Avenue and Hewitt Street at the north end of the District. At the time, the warehouses
were largely abandoned, homeless were wandering the streets, and there were only a small number of
businesses which served the manufacturing and distribution companies. However, the artists were
attracted to the low rent – often as low as six to eight cents per square foot – and they rented
thousands of square feet of industrial space for less than $500 per month.
45

The buildings were ideal for
creating art and were very attractive to the art community that was looking for an alternative to Venice,
Hollywood, or other art enclaves. The buildings in the Arts District were often built out of heavy
materials like masonry or concrete, had ample natural light from skylights and large windows, large
open floor plans and high ceilings, were relatively private, and perhaps most importantly, their “low-
brow” status allowed the artists to modify them as necessary. The fledgling Arts District offered
something completely new, and bore little resemblance to the tranquil landscapes being depicted
during the Plein-Air movement, or the sunny, vibrant art scenes in places like Venice. According to early
resident Carlton Davis,
The reality of the creative life in Downtown Los Angeles was more like outlaws running
from the posse than beach-attired, avant-garde bohemians of Venice serving coffee to
the elite who have come to see the latest creations.
46

The early artwork was quite dark, and Davis called the Downtown art scene the “tortured
antidote to the sunny, abstract, and cool art of the Westside.”
47

Artist Linda Frye Burham recalled that
the looming danger in the neighborhood kept the rent low and the living standards poor:
Living Downtown was exhilarating after the perfect lawns and expensive lifestyle of
Orange County, where everything smelled like Coppertone. But it wasn’t easy. It was
dangerous, especially in the ‘80s when the crack epidemic blew through L.A. It was filthy

45
Interview with Stephen Seemayer, September 26, 2013.
46
Carlton Davis, The Art Dockuments: Tales of the Art Dock: The Drive-By Gallery, Los Angeles (2012): 1.
47
Carlton Davis, The Art Dockuments,” 58. Many artists were deeply influenced by the psychological terror of life
on adjacent Skid Row.
34

and uncomfortable…We had to drive twenty minutes to get groceries or do laundry or
go to the movies. In winter it was really cold in those cement industrial spaces and in
the summer the thermometer would rise over 100 degrees…
48

In 1975, there were hardly any studio spaces. The early artists were still quite isolated from one
another and from the rest of the city.
49
By the late 1970s and early 1980s, word had spread about the
area, and the “big wave” of artists moved into the area between 1982 and 1987. A 1988 article in the
Los Angeles Times observed the nascent art scene, and nicknamed the area the “Loft District.”
50
By
1990, there were roughly 1,800 residents.
51
As the artist population slowly increased, the art galleries followed, and by the late 1970s, two
or three small studios opened per week, including the Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitions (LACE)
gallery at 1804 Industrial Street, and the Art Dock.

52

48
Linda Frye Burnham, “The Young Turks: The Real Story,” Linda Frye Burnham (blog), July 27, 2013.
http://lindaburnham.com/2011/09/young-turks-the-real-story/.
The Art Dock, run by Carlton Davis, was a drive-by
street gallery in an eight-foot loading dock in the Citizens Warehouse (now known as the Old Pickle
Works Building) at 1001 E. First Street, where many of the early artists lived (Figures 3.2 and 3.3). Davis
thought that LACE and the Art Dock would finally expose the neighborhood to the more established art
scene on the Westside. However, this never happened. He recalls,
49
In order to meet each one another, they would throw potluck dinners to show off their work.
50
Evelyn DeWolfe, “Urban Architects Join Artists in Loft District,” Los Angeles Times, July 24, 1988.
51
Jon Peterson, “The Big Picture: After a Decade of Decline Brought on by the recession, the Downtown Artists
Development Association Is Working to Revitalize the Once-Thriving Art Scene,” Los Angeles Times, June 12, 1994.
52
LACE opened in 1978 and highlighted innovative post-modern exhibitions in its gallery on Industrial Street. The
Art Dock, which was open from 1981 through 1986, was controversial at first, before becoming a community
gallery and one of the highlights of the area. In the early 1980s, Davis would present work from the Art Dock at the
LACE. The Citizens Warehouse became the core of the art community.
35

…the crowds never came. Maybe ten people showed up. Most could never find the
street. Some got lost in the attempt, and, as we were after to hear, they crossed over
the First Street Bridge, landed in the housing projects, became frightened, and sped
back to the safety of the white side of town.
53

Some of the early artist hangouts during this time included the Atomic Café (422 East First Street
- CLOSED), Al’s Bar (Figure 3.4, 303 S. Hewitt Street - CLOSED), Vickman’s Restaurant (1228 E. 8
th
Street -
CLOSED), and the original Hard Rock Café in Skid Row (300 E. Fifth Street - CLOSED).
54
Al’s Bar was
located in basement of the American Hotel, a railroad hotel dating from the 1880s, and housed a
groundbreaking punk rock scene beginning in the mid-1970s up until its closure in 2001.
55

53
Carlton Davis, The Art Dockuments: Tales of the Art Dock: The Drive-By Gallery, Los Angeles (2012): 62.
During its
heyday in the 1980s and 1990s, the bar was one of the best-known venues for hearing edgy music of the
54
Catherine Wagley, “How the Arts District Got Its Name,” LA Weekly, May 2, 2013. The Atomic Café, on First
Street and Alameda was a prime artist hangout in the late 1960s. The original Hard Rock Café was located at 300
East Fifth Street in Skid Row. Not to be confused with the modern chain, this bar “was the kind of bar you could
lose your life in," artist Stephen Seemayer remembers. Peter Morton, the owner of the modern chain of trendy
music-centered restaurants, eventually bought out the name.
55
The bar was run by artist Marc Kreisel. Dustin Schuler’s “Pinned Butterfly” airplane was hung on the exterior of
Al’s Bar, and became a beacon for the neighborhood.
Figure 3.2: Carlton Davis on the Art Dock,
1980s Photo courtesy of Carlton Davis,
http://artdock.net/gratitude/ (accessed
September 4, 2013).
Figure 3.3: Citizen’s Warehouse, 1980s. Photo courtesy of
Carlton Davis, http://artdock.net/wp-
content/uploads/2010/12/Citizens-Warehouse-2.jpg
(accessed September 4, 2013).
36

era, and served as the antithesis of the “yuppie bars” in Hollywood and the Westside.
56
According to
artist Linda Frye Burham, it was “literally the only place for artists to go, a sort of way station for all of us
stranded in the ‘urbs while everyone else was clubbing it up in Hollywood. It was unbelievably grungy.”
57

While Al’s Bar was the heart of the community in the early days of the Arts District, the Art Dock was the
brain of the community. This era represented a “wild and wonderful” time according to Davis, who
believes that “when living in industrial buildings was illegal, the art scene was vibrant and self
confidently new.”
58
The years between 1979 and 1985 are considered the Golden Age in the district
when the vibe was akin to the Wild West.
59

56
Cale Ottens and Roger Vincent, “Long-Closed Punk-Rock Bar Still Has a Fan in New Building Owner,” Los Angeles
Times, June 20, 2013.
57
Linda Frye Burnham, “The Young Turks: The Real Story,” Linda Frye Burnham (blog), July 27, 2013.
http://lindaburnham.com/2011/09/young-turks-the-real-story/.
58
Carlton Davis, "Meet Carlton Davis," Bipolar Bare Book. http://www.bipolarbarebook.com/meet-carlton-davis/
(accessed July 15, 2013).
59
Linda Frye Burnham, “The Young Turks: The Real Story,” Linda Frye Burnham (blog), July 27, 2013.
http://lindaburnham.com/2011/09/young-turks-the-real-story/.
Figure 3.4: Al's Bar in the American Hotel. Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg3.lapl.org/pics20/00029664.jpg (accessed December 1, 2013).
37

3.2 Artist-In-Residence Ordinance

The Arts District was zoned for industrial use, and the buildings did not meet code requirements
for residential occupation, meaning that during building inspections, the artists would have to hide any
indication that they lived there.
60
As the population grew, many of the artists wanted to create a legal
living situation, and the matter eventually went to the City. In 1979, the State of California passed
live/work legislation, and the Artist-in-Residence Ordinance (AIR) was implemented by the City of Los
Angeles in 1981, with the help of several major backers at City Hall. City Councilman Gilbert W. Lindsay
was instrumental in the passage of the ordinance.
61
Lindsay understood that it was advantageous for
Downtown to have a greater residential population, and if he supported the artists’ efforts to live legally
in the area, they would support him at the polls.
62
Councilman Joel Wachs was also a major supporter of
the ordinance and the arts community in Los Angeles, saying that with the passage of the AIR,
“Recognition is beginning to set in that the arts and artists are essential to what this city is all about. If
Los Angeles is ever to achieve the potential greatness as a world center, the arts must be a large part of
its development.”
63
The AIR made the residential use of formerly industrial buildings legal. The ordinance applies to
buildings that are no longer viable for industrial use, and the artist tenants are required to have a
business license. The philosophy of the ordinance was to allow live/work units, in which the primary
focus of the unit would be a place to work, and the secondary focus would be a place to live.

64

60
Carlton Davis describes an early incident where the building inspectors came to the Citizen’s Warehouse
Building, where he and other artists had been living illegally for years. The inspector identified numerous
violations, including a bathroom without doors, ventilation violations, inadequate lighting, lack of seismic
reinforcement, and stairs that went to nowhere.
The
ordinance also included legislation that would ease building and safety codes so that the loft spaces
could be efficiently renovated to meet more flexible building standards. Once the AIR was passed, the
artists, building inspectors, and fire department went through a sharp learning curve in order to adapt
to the new regulations, as most of the makeshift construction had been done without permits and was
61
Lindsay, known as “The Emperor of the Great 9
th
District,” was the city’s first black City Council member who
served the Downtown area, then called the Ninth District, for twenty-seven years.
62
Interview with Stephen Seemayer, September 26, 2013.
63
Maria La Ganga, "L.A. Artists Now can Live in Lofts," Los Angeles Times, September 14, 1981,
http://search.proquest.com/docview/152911378?accountid=14749. Wachs, one of the first openly gay politicians
in Los Angeles, was known for his promotion of the arts and advocacy of rent control.
64
Los Angeles City Planning Department, Department of City Planning Recommendation Report, June 9, 2009. AIR
buildings were marked with a red “A” to indicate to firefighters that the dwelling was occupied (the “A” stands for
artisan).
38

required to be revised to meet code (Figure 3.5).
65

The AIR now required a designated sleeping area, fire
alarms, and other requirements that would allow the artists to live in their studio spaces legally. Within
the community, opinions about the AIR were divided. While some artists celebrated being able to live
legally in their lofts, others were discouraged about the looming change that it would bring.

3.3 Early Artists-Driven Development

Early development in the 1970s and 1980s was led by the artists, not seasoned developers.
Artists-turned-developers included Jon Peterson, Michael Tansey, George Rollins, Howard Klein, Stephen
Seemayer, and Norm Solomon. Jon Peterson moved into the Arts District in 1975, when there were
hardly any artists living in Downtown. He recalls, “There was so much space. People were just moving
into empty spaces everywhere.”
66

65
Interview with Stephen Seemayer, September 26, 2013.
His 2,500-square-foot loft, near Fourth Street and Spring Street cost
$75 per month. Jon Peterson and Michael Tansey launched Peterson & Tansey Development in 1977,
66
Jason Mandell, “The Loft Pioneers,” Los Angeles Downtown News, September 30, 2002.
Figure 3.5: View of artist loft in Arts District, 1980s. Photo courtesy of Carlton Davis,
http://artdock.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Loft-space-1.jpg (accessed December 1,
2013).

39

and in 1983, they completed a 23-unit adaptive reuse project on Alameda Street, the first legal artist-in-
residence project in Los Angeles.
67
In 1985, they completed a 39-unit AIR adaptive reuse project at 688
Santa Fe Avenue, which still exists as artist housing. Stephen Seemayer is considered one of the first
artists to master lease empty warehouse space Downtown, subdivide it, and rent it to other artists.
68

When Seemayer first moved into the area in 1976, it was based purely on economics. The area was still
quite dangerous, and the rents were cheap: Seemayer paid $180 per month for a 3,000-square-foot loft
on the third floor of an abandoned building built in 1905.
69
At that time in the 1970s, artists would get
large, open loft spaces for very little money, and could build whatever they wanted with no code
interference.
70
In 1982, seafood magnate Howard Klein developed an old papermaking factory into the Factory
Place Lofts at 1308 Factory Place (now Factory Place Arts Complex), another early AIR project in the
neighborhood.

71
Norm Solomon moved into the Arts District in 1983. Solomon and his investment
partner, Gary Osheroff, had their office in the former Challenge Creamery building, a two-story 1926
structure at 929 E. Second Street (Figure 3.6, still standing). The partners purchased the building and
rehabilitated it to lofts in 1982. A global recession in the early 1980s resulted in less investment in
Downtown, but the Arts District continued to grow. Said Solomon, “This area was in a steep decline.
Buildings were half-vacant. Nobody wanted them. We turned the area around with no government
grants or Community Redevelopment Agency subsidies. We’re the only people Downtown who don’t
want to move.”
72

67
“Michael Tansey,” Arts District Los Angeles, http://artsdistrictla.org/committee_michael_t.html (accessed
December 17, 2013).

68
Seemayer says that he went into development not only to make a profit, but also to help his artist peers. The
low cost of living allowed him to be able to sell two to three paintings per month, and still make rent. Seemayer
was part of the group of artists that participated in the seven Red Zones, a series of illegal guerilla art shows staged
in the early 1990s, at 800 E. Third Street where Wurstkuche is now located. The building was formerly a print shop,
and after the owner left at night, Seemayer and other artists would paint the building bright red, with the tag, “Art
Above the Law,” in black and white. The shows, which were staged without permission or insurance, would often
be shut down by the LAPD.
69
The building served as a hotel and a brothel. It was boarded up for twenty years before the owner decided to
rent out the large loft space on the third floor. It is at the intersection of Center and Olympic Streets.
70
Interview with Stephen Seemayer, September 26, 2013.
71
The building was a former Department of Water and Power facility to build water meters.
72
Bob Pool, "Artists Maintain Lofty Demands," Los Angeles Times, November 9, 1998.
40

John Pastier, an editor of Arts & Architecture magazine, agreed. Pastier understood the value of
the community-based development occurring in the Arts District in the early 1980s. “The east side of
Downtown is still not part of the general public consciousness,” he said. ”But the element of the
revitalization of Downtown that is the most heartening is its small-scale and individual approach.”
73

As more loft spaces were added and the population increased, the Arts District developed a
thriving underground arts scene (Figure 3.7). “There were around 3,000 artists living here in the early
1980s,” said Tim Keating, who moved to the area in 1984. Keating adds, “In the 80s and 90s, it was kind
of a free-for-all. There were no rules, no sets of tradition we were breaking.”
74

73
Suzanne Slesin, “Downtown Los Angeles: The New Settlers,” The New York Times, April 12, 1984.
Elsewhere in the city,
there were signs that creative districts were popping up in formerly run-down areas. For example, in the
74
Tim Keating interview, October 30, 2007, in Rebecca Meichi Ford’s “Bohemian Paradise Lost,” Master’s Thesis,
University of Southern California, 2008.
Figure 3.6: Former Challenge Creamery Building, 929 E. Second Street. Photo by author.
41

late 1980s, Melrose Avenue became one of the most fashionable shopping areas in the city, even
though it used to be a low-rent, light-industrial area just fifteen years before. In 1988, the Los Angeles
Business Journal identified several areas throughout the city as “future Melroses,” which had the
potential to become attractive, funky, urban environments: Washington Boulevard in Venice, Hyperion
Avenue in Silver Lake, and Traction Avenue in the Arts District.
75

However, while the art scene thrived in the early-80s, the majority of Downtown was in decline
and the Arts District saw increasing car break-ins, drug deals, prostitution, and gang activity.
76

75
Morris Newman, "Melroses of Future: Urban Pioneers Set Up Shop and Spruce Up the Street," Los Angeles
Business Journal 10, no. 19 (1988): 1-6.
In 1987, a
temporary summer homeless encampment was created by the city in the Arts District area, located in an
abandoned Regional Transportation District (RTD) railroad yard near Santa Fe and Fourth Street. The
76
In 1983, musician Peter Ivers, host of the “New Wave Theater” was murdered in his loft on Third Street. The
death caused great fear in the community.
Figure 3.7: Downtown L.A. Arts Fair exhibit by Gallery by the Water, held near
Seventh Street and Santa Fe Avenue on June 30. Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles
Public Library, http://jpg3.lapl.org/pics19/00029444.jpg (accessed December 1,
2013).
42

tent city spilled over from adjacent Skid Row, and was blamed for the increased burglaries. “It was the
tent city that changed the neighborhood,” said resident Qathryn Brehm.
77
Skid Row is one of the most notorious homeless districts in the country, and is located directly
west of the Arts District. Although the size of Skid Row is only .85 square miles, it has by far the densest
population of homeless people in the county.

78

Within the Arts District, Skid Row has played a complex
role in the neighborhood’s relationship to the rest of the city. In some ways, it served as a barrier
between the Arts District and the rest of the Downtown area, and allowed the Arts District to develop
autonomously. It also served as inspiration to many of the early artists. To this day, the relationship with
Skid Row and homelessness is a complex social and political issue that creates challenges as the Arts
District continues to develop.

3.4 Skid Row and Its Impact on the Arts District

Skid Row is an area in Los Angeles that is associated with a transient, homeless population
(Figure 3.8). The history of Skid Row as a place for the destitute began in the early twentieth century
when the area was a popular hub for transportation and industrial activity, particularly in agriculture.
Many small hotels were built in the area between 1880 and 1930 to house the seasonal, short-term
workers. “Some of [the hotels] were for tourists, but there were also a lot of low-cost hotels for working
men, and it was the zone that was close to the train station and later, the bus depot,” says former USC
Geography Professor Jennifer Wolch.
79

77
Southern California Public Radio, Blog Downtown, “Arts Guards: Jay Lopez and Edgar Varela Continue Work in
Arts-Centered Neighborhoods,” Blog entry by Ed Fuentes, August 12, 2010.
The area also served as a first stop for poor migrants who came
to Los Angeles during the Depression. As many of the jobs left Downtown during the mid-twentieth
century, the low-cost hotels and the destitute population remained. “So it sort of built up that way as
you got into the 60’s and 70’s,” said Larry Hurst of the Los Angeles County Department of Mental
Health. “There became a greater concentration of other agencies that came into the area that also
provided social services and federal programs through housing and urban development that provided
78
There are 6,218 beds for the homeless concentrated in the area, which represents about half of the shelter and
housing program beds in the County of Los Angeles.
79
Jennifer Wolch, University of Southern California Geography Professor, interview by Mike Fanous, February 11,
2003.
43

funding for the creation of such hotels that provided supportive housing.”
80
Once the support services
were built, many destitute World War II and Vietnam vets moved into the area for the services.
81

In 1976, policy-makers adopted the policy of “containment” of the homeless along Fifth Street
in Downtown, away from the Central Business District (CBD).
82
Businesses in the CBD were enthusiastic
about the policy, seeing as it would remove much of the homeless population from the central core. The
policy was largely orchestrated by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) that looked to create a
“24-hour Downtown rivaling any world class city” but agreed to provide housing and services for the
poor and homeless in return.
83

80
Larry Hurst, Director of Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, Interview by Mike Fanous, February
18, 2003.
According to Ellen Reese’s 2010 “’Weak-Center’ Gentrification” study,
81
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, “History of Skid Row,” October 22, 2008,
http://www.lachamber.com/clientuploads/LUCH_committee/102208_History_of_Skid_Row.pdf.
82
Ellen Reese and Geoffrey Deverteuil, and Leanne Thach. ‘Weak-Center’ Gentrification and the Contradictions of
Containment: Deconcentrating Poverty in Downtown Los Angeles.” International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 34 (2010): 310–327. The containment was made through a concentration of homeless services in the
area, and selective policing of public nuisance laws.
83
Edward C. Goetz “Land use and Homeless Policy in Los Angeles,” International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 16, (1992): 544.
Figure 3.8: A homeless man sleeps on the sidewalk in Skid Row, 1987. Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles
Public Library,
http://photos.lapl.org/carlweb/jsp/FullRecord?databaseID=968&record=2&controlNumber=59251
(accessed December 1, 2013).
44

When capital investment in Downtown Los Angeles expanded in the 1970s, Skid Row
initially acted as a convenient pool for society’s outcasts, and over time, this socio-
spatial arrangement became entrenched with the policy of containment, protecting, and
attracting Downtown investments in other areas.
84

However, the energy crisis in the 1970s and the financial crisis in the 1980s and created an
explosion of homeless in Skid Row, and the city garnered the reputation as having the largest homeless
population in the country. By concentrating this level of homelessness, mental illness, and illegal activity
in such a small area, official policy made Skid Row one of the most dangerous areas in the world.
85
While the containment policy appeased the central core businesses, it infuriated the Central City
East Association (CCEA), which at the time represented less influential, smaller businesses located to the
east of the CBD.

86

In 1985, the CCEA, led by toy dealer Charlie Woo, pushed for police sweeps of the area
and issued this statement:
Downtown Los Angeles is on the cusp of an urban renaissance. Our fondest dreams of
Smart Growth, with workers living in affordable, high-density buildings near transit,
employment, cultural, and retail centers may finally become a reality in Downtown.
However, this renaissance is threatened every day by street encampments, drug deals,
overdoses, and panhandlers.
87

As business associations pushed the homeless away, the city responded to the need for
homeless services and low-income housing by building shelters and relegating a number of old hotel
buildings to single-room occupancies (SRO-housing), to accommodate very low-income people living in
Downtown. Prior to this, the CRA bought and rehabilitated nearly 100 old hotels in the 1970s in order to
conserve the amount of low-income housing available in Downtown.
88

84
Ellen Reese and Geoffrey Deverteuil, and Leanne Thach. ‘Weak-Center’ Gentrification and the Contradictions of
Containment: Deconcentrating Poverty in Downtown Los Angeles,” 323.
In the 1980s, James M. Woods,
85
Mike Davis, City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles London: Verso, (1990): 161.
86
In the 1980s, the businesses mostly included fish-processing plants and toy manufacturers.
87
Blasi, “Policing.”
88
Most SRO hotels were originally constructed to house the transient, mostly male population that came to Los
Angeles for short-term or seasonal work in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The hotels have
small rooms and shared baths, quite like a dorm.
45

the former Chairman of the CRA, helped guide a policy in which any plan to revitalize Downtown Los
Angeles must include the redevelopment of the Skid Row area (Figure 3.9).
89
The SRO policy prevented
developers from demolishing many of the low-income and homeless residences in Skid Row, and
ensured that SRO housing would remain in the area for years to come. As Downtown has undergone
various changes since the early twentieth century, Skid Row remained relatively intact and changed very
little. This is due in part to the concentration of homeless people and services; the SRO-style housing
that accommodates very low-income people; and Skid Row’s reputation as an extremely disorderly
downtown area.
90

89
The Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation was established in 1984 to preserve the single-room
occupancy hotels in the area and provide safe and affordable housing, manage public space, and administer social
support services. In 1989, the Skid Row Housing Trust was established to help salvage hundreds of SRO housing
units that otherwise would be lost to demolition or redevelopment. By the mid-2000s, SRO Housing Corporation
was working on rehabilitation of many of the dilapidated SRO hotels. Prominent Los Angeles architects such as
Killefer Flammang Architects, Michael Maltzan Architects, and Lehrer Architects, all have worked on SRO or
housing for Skid Row.
90
Bernard E. Harcourt, “Policing L.A.’s Skid Row,” Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper (University of
Chicago, 2005): 6.
Figure 3.9: SRO housing at the Leo Hotel, 501 S. San Julian Street, 1988. Photo courtesy of the
Los Angeles Public Library, http://jpg2.lapl.org/pics40/00054937.jpg (accessed September 4, 2013).
46

3.5 Development in the 1990s

In 1988, the Downtown Strategic Plan intended to make Los Angeles the world-class city it once
was. The plan originally focused on the Downtown core, but was later expanded to include the eastern
portion of Downtown. However, Downtown Los Angeles reached its economic nadir in the early 1990s,
suffering from a recession, a declining urban population, disinvestment in the urban core, and rising
social inequity. Most Downtown residents were poor and homeless, and absentee property owners let
their buildings fall into disrepair. In the Arts District, the manufacturing base continued to relocate
outside of the city and many of the small businesses that once thrived off the manufacturing workforce
closed for good. The infamous 1992 riots further pushed the city into decline (Figure 3.10). The lingering
concerns that came after the riots caused more businesses to give up on Downtown and move to safer
neighborhoods (Figure 3.11).
“After the riots, people feared being in Downtown. People were afraid of the criminal element mixed
with the homeless.”
91

91
Vanessa Hua, "Artists' District Poised for Lofty Rebound; Neighborhoods: Attracted by the Energy of 2,500 Loft
Dwellers, Businesses Begin to Move into the Once-Fading Area East of Downtown. Art shows Attract Large
Turnouts," Los Angeles Times, February 23, 1998.
In 1993, Vickman’s Restaurant, a popular artist spot along East 8th Street and
Merchant Street that first opened in 1930, closed its doors. Vickman’s owner Ilya Kleiman said in 1993,
“The business left us about two or three years ago. Sixty percent of the buildings around here are for
Figure 3.10: Damage from riots, 1992. Photo
courtesy of the Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics47/00043447.jpg (accessed
September 4, 2013).
Figure 3.11: Exterior view of the Cameo Theater, 528 S.
Broadway, 1990. Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles
Public Library, http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics41/00040328.jpg
(accessed December 1, 2013).

47

lease or for sale.”
92
Following the riots, the 1994 Northridge Earthquake damaged many of the older
buildings in Downtown and shut down the city’s major freeways, albeit temporarily.
93
Although Los
Angeles banned unreinforced masonry buildings in 1933 and passed a seismic retrofit ordinance in 1981,
many older damaged buildings were posted unsafe, or “red tagged” by city inspectors which indicated
life-threatening structural damage. The effects of the earthquake were felt for years and delayed
development of Downtown as resources were used to repair the earthquake’s damage.
94
After the riots and the earthquake, the city, through the CRA, spent hundreds of millions on
commercial revival efforts in the late-1990s that were largely unsuccessful in bringing back a residential
population into the urban core. The redevelopment of Bunker Hill was spurred by $2 million of public
tax subsidies that enticed banks and corporate headquarters to move back into the Downtown they
abandoned in the 1960s.

95
The Grand Avenue project, a $1.8-billion revitalization project along Grand
Avenue (on Bunker Hill), included investments in cultural institutions such as MOCA, The Walt Disney
Concert Hall, Grand Park, and the future Broad Museum. In 1999, the architectural firm RTKL master
planned a 33-acre area now known as the L.A. Live, the city’s first major investment in attracting people
back to Downtown through entertainment venues. All these projects largely transformed the
commercial nature of the city, but by the end of the workday, the city streets were dead. A 2001 article
in the LA Weekly assessed the city’s lack of Downtown residents: “Re-populating Los Angeles’
Downtown has been a project much like nuclear fusion: huge investment, but no sustained
reaction….it’s hard to think of a bigger challenge than making Los Angeles’ old Downtown attract, rather
than repel, inhabitants.”
96
In contrast to the large-scale redevelopment projects taking place on the other side of
Downtown, the Arts District continued to grow and establish a strong community. The second wave of
artists arrived in the Arts District during the 1990s, and soon, there were roughly 5,000 people living in

92
Carla Hall, “Vickman’s Calls It a Day After 74 Years of Serving Breakfast,” Los Angeles Times, June 15, 1993.
93
Michel Bruneau, “Performance of Masonry Structure during the 1994 Northridge (Los Angeles) Earthquake,”
Canada Journal of Civil Engineering, no. 22 (1995): 378-402. The 6.7 magnitude earthquake occurred on January
17, 1994.
94
“The January 17, 1994 Northridge, CA Earthquake,” L.A. Fire, March 1994.
http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/1994-0117_NorthridgeEarthquake/quake/01_EQE_exsummary.htm
95
Mike Davis, 228; the city transplanted the corporate and financial district from Broadway and Spring Streets to
Bunker Hill, a half-dozen blocks to the west. The redevelopment agencies promised to restore pedestrian access to
Bunker Hill in the 1990s.
96
Marc B. Haefele, “Two Toms,” LA Weekly, September 12, 2001.
48

the eastern edge of Downtown.
97
In 1986, Joel Bloom, considered by many to be the honorary mayor of
the Arts District, moved to the Arts District and became a pioneering community activist and was
influential in helping to bring services to the neighborhood. To combat safety issues from adjacent Skid
Row, Bloom and Arts District residents organized weekly foot patrols with the LAPD beginning in 1993.
98

In 1994, he opened his popular Bloom’s General Store on the corner of Traction and Hewitt Streets
(closed in 2009). Bloom believed that the rest of the city should see the creative potential of the
neighborhood: “The problem is we’ve always been dismissed as that industrial area east of Downtown.
Well, we’re more than that. There’s a heart here. And a soul.”
99
Bloom successfully petitioned the city in
the mid-1990s to officially name the area the “Arts District.” After Bloom, other neighborhood activists
emerged, such as Tim Keating, Qathryn Brehm, and Melissa Richardson-Banks.
100
In 1998, Arts District
resident Victoria Mihatovic said the community felt like “Mayberry. We tend to know everyone.”
101

3.6 Adaptive Reuse Ordinance

After years of neglect in Downtown Los Angeles, private capital played a major role in its
revitalization.
102

97
LARABA. Businessman Gideon Kotzer opened his discount electronics store, Crazy Gideon’s on Traction Avenue
in a 1917 warehouse structure. Artist Jim Fittipaldi started the underground art space Bedlam on Molino Street.
Downtown Los Angeles had the advantages of mostly low-cost land, an available labor
pool, deflated property values, a central location, and a stock of vacant older buildings. Developers such
as Ira Yellin, Wayne Ratkovich, and Tom Gilmore saw the potential in reinvesting in Downtown. While
most of Downtown’s redevelopment was focused on building new skyscrapers on the re-graded Bunker
Hill and new sports venues, these developers focused on restoring and rehabilitating old office and
manufacturing buildings.

The late Ira Yellin was one of the first developers to rehabilitate a building in
98
Vanessa Hua, "Artists' District Poised.” Residents in the adjacent Little Tokyo neighborhood also participated in
the patrols. “We had a common problem, and we had pride in our neighborhood,” said Little Tokyo resident Brian
Kito.
99
John M. Glionna, “Downtown Arts District Fair Aims to Bring Loft Talent Out into the Open,” Los Angeles Times,
June 22, 1997.
100
Bloom died of cancer in 2007 at the age of 59, and his general store was closed soon after. The store was
considered the unofficial heart of the area. Former council member Jan Perry recalls of Bloom, “He gave the Arts
District its personality, and he was unabashed in his great love for it. Joel was charismatic and ruled the roost over
there for many, many years.” From Valerie J. Nelson’s "Obituaries; Joel Bloom, 59; Activist Helped Shape the Arts
District in L.A," Los Angeles Times, July 14, 2007.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/422164614?accountid=14749 (accessed November 27, 2013).
101
Vanessa Hua, "Artists' District Poised.”
102
Los Angeles City Planning Department, 2009.
49

Downtown Los Angeles, and he is considered a civic leader and longtime champion of the city. Yellin
restored Grand Central Market at 317 Broadway and 121 affordable and market rate housing units and
about 18,000 square feet of office space in four historic buildings at Red Line subway portal. The Grand
Central restoration project served as a catalyst for additional restoration projects in addition to Grand
Central, Yellin work on restoring the Bradbury Building, the Million Dollar Theater, the old Metropolitan
Water District headquarters, Union Station, and Santa Fe Station in the Arts District, the future home of
SCI-Arc. However, many of Yellin’s projects were rehabilitated prior to the implementation of the
Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, and the obstacles he encountered encouraged city officials to pursue a
policy that would incentivize development of Downtown’s old buildings.
In 1996, a workshop was convened at the urging of Downtown stakeholders, including the
Central City Association (CCA). In 1997, the Adaptive Reuse Live/Work Task Force was organized by
interested parties in both the public and private sectors. On June 3, 1999, the city’s landmark Adaptive
Reuse Ordinance went into effect. The ordinance aimed at revitalizing Downtown Los Angeles, whose
renaissance was quite late compared to cities like New York and Chicago.
103
In general, the ordinance
streamlined the development process and provided flexibility to zoning and building code requirements
for the conversion of pre-1974 commercial buildings into residential uses, such as live/work units
(apartments and condominiums), and hotel guest rooms.
104
The ordinance was created to offer
numerous incentives for development in the form of less costly code upgrades, and to allow developers
alternate interpretations of restrictive modern building codes.
105
The ordinance was highly successful as a residential development program by bringing more
professionals back into Downtown through an expansion of the definition of who could occupy
live/work spaces.

106

103
Reese, et. al, 317.
Prior to the ordinance, only those defined in the AIR as “artists and artisans,
including individual architects and designers” could live in live/work units. The ordinance expanded this
104
Typically, a live/work unit is a small-scale, home-based business. Larger business enterprises would push the
live/work unit into the commercial occupancy use category, and the unit would have to comply with stricter
commercial occupancy standards. Live/work units must be one third living area and the other two thirds is a
business area. The code also requires the residential units to be at least 450 square feet. The ordinance was
initially applied only to Downtown Los Angeles, but gradually was increased to encompass areas of Hollywood,
Mid-Wilshire, and Koreatown. Soon after, it was amended to apply citywide.
105
No new parking or loading space is required, and new mezzanines are allowed. For a historic building, floor
area, setback, and height are “grandfathered in,” meaning that a variance is not required. Under the ordinance,
conversion of the entire building is not required. Buildings turned to residential use are required to be seismically
upgraded.
106
James Sterngold, “New Life for Old Area of L.A.: Downtown Revival in Full Swing” The San Francisco Chronicle
27, 2003. Most of the units were in the form of lofts, condominiums, and luxury apartments.
50

list to include the following: accountants, attorneys, computer software and multimedia related
professionals, consultants, engineers, insurance, real estate, and travel agents, photographers, and
other similar occupations. According to Hamid Behdad, former director of the city’s Adaptive Reuse
projects, the ARO is “not about art. It was initiated by artists but is completely transformed to a different
thing…the urban lifestyle was there, dampened by suburbanization. It was just a natural thing; some
people had suppressed it for awhile but it’s coming back.”
107
Following the passage of the ordinance, old buildings began to be converted at an
unprecedented rate, particularly in the Historic Core. The “lofting” of the Historic Core was made
possible by the ARO, and the ordinance was responsible for saving dozens of old buildings that
otherwise would have been threatened by large-scale redevelopment projects or left vacant due to the
high cost of reuse required by the strict reading of the building code. In the Financial Core, developer
Tom Gilmore was one of the first developers to use the program, when his company converted the 1902
Hellman Building, the 1904 Continental building, and 1907 San Fernando Building, located on Fourth
Street between Main and Spring Streets.
In 2000, the Planning Department
established the Arts District neighborhood, originally called the Commercial and Art Craft District. The
boundaries were First Street to the north, the Los Angeles River to the east, Sixth Street to the south,
and Alameda Street to the west. However, the early ARO did not apply to the Arts District, which was
left out intentionally to protect industrial land use.
108

107
McDonough and Peterson, 219.

108
When Gilmore first began his work in Los Angeles, the Downtown core was all but abandoned. As the first
developer to utilize the ARO, Gilmore opened up a new avenue for the urban renaissance in the city. His project
concepts were so new, that investors were nervous about financing his projects.
51

Gilmore purchased and rehabilitated four abandoned historic buildings, called the “Old Bank
District,” and by 2005, the area had been completely transformed from near vacant to fully occupied.
109

109
Following the success of Gilmore, Arts District developers Tansey and Peterson got back into development, and
purchased the 1920s Westinghouse Building on San Pedro between Fourth and Fifth Streets, now called the Little
Tokyo Lofts.

However, because the ARO did not include the Arts District, early adaptive reuse projects in the Arts
District had to go through lengthy legal processes in order to be able to convert industrial buildings to
residential use (Figure 3.12).
Figure 3.12: Adaptive Reuse Ordinance project area, 2005. Map from the City of Los Angeles. “Adaptive
Reuse Program.” Second Edition. February, 2006.
http://www.downtownla.com/pdfs/econ_residential/Adaptive-Reuse-Book-LA.pdf (accessed September
21, 2013).
52

The Toy Warehouse Lofts (2001) and the Toy Factory Lofts (2003) were two early adaptive reuse
projects in the Arts District and the developers encountered challenges trying to get the proper zoning
established and had to apply for special variances. For example, residential developments such as
Howard Klein’s Sixth Street Lofts needed variances on eighteen zoning requirements from the City
Planning Department.
110
By the mid 2000s, it was apparent that the neighborhood would see further
building conversions, and it would benefit by the incentives established in the ARO.
111

In 2005, the
ordinance was expanded to include the Arts District and eventually the entire City of Los Angeles.

3.7 Developers Respond to Skid Row

As development increased on the western side of Downtown, Skid Row became more
challenging. The tent city and other concerns would incentivize artists and business owners in the Arts
District to form the Los Angeles River Area Business Association (LARABA) in the early 1990s. LARABA
was created in order to bring the community together, and challenge the city over issues like the tent
city and fight for the preservation of the neighborhood’s most significant buildings.
112

The original 1985
push by the CCEA for the city to address the chronic homelessness was unsuccessful. It was not until
2002 that the more influential Central City Association (CCA) became involved that the city seriously
considered the effects of Skid Row on adjacent neighborhoods to the east. The CCA argued that the best
way to handle the homeless population was by dispersal, not concentration. However, there continues
to be resistance from other parts of the city to operate homeless services, in fear of bringing the Skid
Row reputation to their neighborhoods. A 2005 Shelter Partnership study commissioned by the County
of Los Angeles produced the following:

110
Chris Coates, “Lofty Aims on Sixth Street,” Los Angeles Downtown News, June 27, 2005.
111
Kathryn Maese, “Uneasy Revolution in the Industrial District,” Los Angeles Downtown News, August 29, 2005.
112
In 2002 and 2006, LARABA held two major urban planning workshops called the "Uncommon Ground," which
defined the interests of the community as it was transforming and being developed. LARABA has also worked with
the film industry to keep the Arts District a popular filming location. According to LARABA, “What was once major
abuse of a low cost backlot has now become a viable collaboration for both the film industry and the
neighborhood at large.” One of the major preservation battles was to save the historic Santa Fe freight depot
building which was being threatened by demolition from the Los Angeles Unified School District. District
administrators had proposed a $23-million, 250,000-square-foot distribution facility in the area, but the residents
felt that the project would disturb the thriving artist atmosphere, due to hundreds of noisy trucks arriving and
departing each day.
53

To this day, the NIMBY issue remains at the forefront of the siting difficulties for
emergency shelters and transitional housing and represents one of the greatest
challenges for both consumers and developers of housing for disabled
populations. Even the most benign development projects encounter this form of
opposition for a variety of reasons, including lack of information, fear, conflicts
of interest, issues unrelated to the proposal itself, or discriminatory attitudes.
113

In September 2005, the Los Angeles Police Department implemented the Safer Cities Initiative
(SCI), a 68-week program aimed at reducing crime and the density of homeless encampments in the Skid
Row area.
114
The program claimed it would work in conjunction with City Council offices, the Business
Improvement Districts, and the City Attorney to “impact the problem of the criminal homeless.”
115
The
full-scale program included placing fifty full-time officers in the area, adding additional surveillance of
the area, and targeting public intoxication, drug use, and prostitution.
116
While homeless shelters and
services are an important part of taking care of the city’s most vulnerable homeless population, the SCI
was successful in reducing crime by targeting a certain group of the homeless population that had
criminal intent.
117

113
Shelter Partnership, Inc., An Assessment of Los Angeles County’s Emergency Shelter System, 77 (August, 2005).

114
The critical features of the program were first laid out in an internal LAPD memorandum in 2002, titled,
“Homeless Reduction Strategies.”
115
The encampments in this area were deemed “public health nuisances” and were subject to sanctions.
116
Gary Blasi and Forrest Stuart. “Has the Safer Cities Initiative in Skid Row Reduced Serious Crime?” Research
Report, School of Law and Department of Sociology, UCLA. 2008. In 2007, UCLA School of Law Professor Gary Blasi
analyzed the first year of the SCI program. The results of the program that crime was reduced to roughly seventy
percent of the pre-intervention of the program, property crime was reduced sixty-five percent, and violent crime
was reduced sixty-one percent. The program also analyzed whether crime in the Skid Row was displaced to nearby
areas (including the Arts District) as it was decreasing in Skid Row. The analysis found that there was no evidence
of crime increasing in other surrounding areas, due to Skid Row inhabitants simply moving to outlying areas. In
fact, there were “spillover effects,” meaning that the program appeared to reduce crime in surrounding areas.
Overall, there has been a significant decline in serious crime in Skid Row since the SCI was implemented, but crime
has been reduced in other parts of the city in the same period, suggesting that the SCI is more complicated than it
first seems. In 2008, Blasi and Stuart reevaluated the crime data and concluded that, contrary to claims, the
program has not been as effective in reducing serious crimes as previously thought.
117
According to the Central City East Association.
54

As criminal activity in Skid Row was targeted, development continued at an intense pace. By 2006, there
were more than 26,000 new residential units built in Downtown since the ARO was adopted, and the
population increased to around 30,000.
118

Hamid Behdad said in 2006 of the ARO,
The program has since realized the completion of 4,252 loft units, and promises 4,100
units that are currently under construction, followed by an additional 3,200 units in the
development pipeline. The program is responsible for an estimated $6 billion in
stimulated economic investments.
119

3.8 Further Development and Adaptive Reuse in the Arts District

In the Arts District, the full-fledged transition began in the 2000s, with many building conversion
projects occurring during this time.
120
For the architectural community, a major event occurred in 2001,
when the Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) moved the school’s campus from Marina
Del Rey to the century-old Santa Fe freight depot building that stretches between Third and Fourth
Streets along Santa Fe (Figure 3.13). SCI-Arc, the arbiters of “cool” in Los Angeles architecture, has a
reputation as an innovative, anti-establishment institution, and the fact that the school elected to move
their campus to a historic depot along the Los Angeles River, was read by many as a sign that there is
“something great” happening in the area. According to director Eric Owen Moss, “For a while it was
Westwood. Now Westwood is pretty dead on a Saturday. Then it was Melrose, or Old Town Pasadena,
or somewhere else. Los Angeles is Downtown, right now. I think it has the potentiality for the most
intense and diverse and contradictory energies. You’ve got everything flying in all directions.”
121

118
Michael Webb, “Looking and Building in all the Right Places,” The Architect’s Newspaper, June 7, 2006;
According to the Downtown Center Business Improvement District (DCBID), the average cost per square foot in
2006 was $547.80, an 18.8% increase over a year. Downtown population increased by 28,878 people in 2006, and
39,537 in 2008.
119
Quoted in Brady Westwater, “Hamid Behdad – Adaptive Reuse Czar and Mr. Downtown to Leave Public
Service!” L.A. Cowboy, December 4, 2006.
120
However, in 2008, the Downtown real estate market was floundering due to over-building, the credit crunch,
and the national recession. Many of the adaptive reuse projects that were under design were abandoned as
developers were unable to finance their projects. However, many of the projects picked back up in the last several
years.
121
Reed Johnson, “Downtown Like Never Before,” Los Angeles Times, October 16, 2003.
55

The art scene was also gaining national attention.
122
According to Craig Stephens, “[Downtown] is
rapidly becoming the epicenter of an adventurous scene. The adventure is associated with a romantic,
underground feeling, largely inspired by the hidden charms of its semi-industrial landscape.”
123
Following the initial development efforts by the artists, a small group of experienced developers
began to acquire properties in the mid to late-2000s and take advantage of the ARO. This was during a
time when the city was struggling to understand how to preserve its industrial land while promoting
residential development along the Los Angeles River. In a 2007 report compiled by the City titled, Los
Angeles’ Industrial Land: Sustaining a Dynamic City Economy, the Arts District was identified as “the only

122
That same year, the Los Angeles Downtown Arts District Space (LADAD Space) was created to offer grants to
local arts organizations and individual artists. The group advocates for affordable housing, grant money, and has
been influential in planning projects. LADASpace runs the District Gallery, which promotes Los Angeles artists, and
has been supported by the LARABA, and by donations from film productions in the neighborhood. One of the
founders of LADAD was Stephen Seemayer, one of the early artist/developers.
123
Craig Stephens, "Downtown: Los Angeles' Newest Shining Star,” Art Business News, May 2004: 62. Academic
OneFile.
Figure 3.13: SCI-Arc in the former Santa Fe depot building along Santa Fe Avenue. Photo from Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SciArc_SantaFe.jpg (accessed September 4, 2013).

56

district in which City policy encourages residential development in an industrial area.”
124

The second wave of development took place between 2001 and 2008, after the ARO was passed
and prior to the 2008 recession. The developers included Linear City, LLC, KOR Group, and others. The
developers acquired the buildings when land values were still deflated from years of Downtown decline.
For example, when Linear City acquired the 1924 Toy Factory building in 2002 at 1855 Industrial Street,
the building was used by a bankrupt toy company to store stuffed animals. However, the land was not
zoned for residential use, and Linear City had to navigate the entitlement program to convert the
building into artist-in-residence housing before the 2005 expansion of the ARO. At the time of the
purchase, the building’s value was assessed at $2.7 million. When Toy Factory Lofts, a project consisting
of 119 live/work units opened in 2004, the building was assessed at $60 million.
125
During this time,
Downtown Los Angeles was a rental market, and Linear City had tapped into an in-demand market for
for-sale housing. “In five years,” says Linear City Partner Yuval Bar-Zemer, “we have changed the
perception of the Arts District…We see ourselves as pioneers, and this is the new frontier.”
126
As residents moved in, businesses slowly followed. The highly regarded French restaurant
Church and State, still popular today, opened at the ground level of the Biscuit Company Lofts at 1850
Industrial Street in 2008. In 2005, when owner Yassmin Sarmadi was scouting a site for the restaurant,
she decided to find a location that offered a different experience from dining on the Westside. The Arts
District was what she was looking for: it was still relatively hidden, gritty, and old. Sarmadi saw the
potential in the area, and liked the energy and creativity of the neighborhood. When Church and State
opened in 2008, the residents were in the neighborhood, but only a few restaurants and retailers served
the local population.

The technology industry also began to trickle into the Arts District in the 2000s. In 2007, when
Oblong Industries set up shop in the Arts District, rents were less than half of what rates were in other
technology hubs in Santa Monica and Culver City. “The cost to be in Santa Monica and Culver City has
become so expensive that we're seeing some of those companies now considering Downtown,” said

124
City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, “Los Angeles’ Industrial Land: Sustaining a Dynamic City
Economy.” Prepared by the Department of City Planning and the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Los Angeles, December 2007.
125
Paul Eshman, “Pioneers,” The Jewish Journal, August 1, 2012.
126
Ibid.
57

Andrew Lustgarten, corporate managing director at the real estate firm Studley Inc. “It's the new place
to be for these creative companies.”
127
In 2008, the Central City North Community Plan revised the boundaries of the Arts District
neighborhood, by expanding the southern boundary from Sixth Street to Violet Street. The expansion
excluded areas that contained new industrial buildings that were not considered viable for potential
conversion to AIR housing. The expansion also excluded areas that had a greater intensity of industrial
uses. The aim of the Community plan is to provide an AIR area with joint live/work quarters as a cultural
resource for the community.

128

This expansion shows that the Arts District is beginning to shift south to
include areas south of 7
th
Street (Figure 3.14).

127
Natalie Jarvey, “True Grit: Tech Firms Connect With Downtown Arts District,” Los Angeles Business Journal 1,
July 2013.
128
Los Angeles City Planning Department Recommendation Report, “Case No. CPC-2008-3417-GPA Plan
Amendment,” November 13, 2008. http://cityplanning.lacity.org/StaffRpt/InitialRpts/CPC-2008-3417.pdf.
Figure 3.14: Arts District community plan expansion (highlighted) to Violet Street, 2008. Map from
the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Los Angeles City Planning Department
Recommendation Report – Case No. CPC-2008-3417-GPA,
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/StaffRpt/InitialRpts/CPC-2008-3417.pdf (accessed October 6, 2013).

58

However, as Downtown Los Angeles was undergoing a vibrant renaissance following the 1999
ARO, the 2008 financial crisis and recession caused banks to stop lending, and many of the on-going
projects were scraped or put on hold indefinitely.

3.9 The Arts District Today

As the Arts District continues to develop, it is still holding on to its early artistic roots. The
passionate, vocal, and active community has made efforts to keep the area from losing its soul. Perhaps
one of the most distinct character defining features of the Arts District is the presence of street art and
graffiti on the old industrial buildings.
129

129
Overall, there are more than 100 murals in the Arts District, and the murals allow the neighborhood to connect
back to its artistic roots.
While street art walks a fine line between criminal behavior,
political activism, and fine art, in the Arts District, it is not viewed as reckless defacing of the properties,
but as a distinguishing feature that enhances the vibe of the neighborhood (Figures 3.15 and 3.16).
Figure 3.15: Graffiti and graffiti art on the American Hotel building, 303 S. Hewitt Street. Photo by author.
59

Los Angeles was once known as the “mural capital of the world,” before the city enacted a
moratorium on murals on private property, as it tried to grapple with insensitive commercial advertising
on buildings. Unfortunately, artwork was caught up in the ban and street artists were issued fines for
any work on a privately owned building. However, as the Arts District was still off the city’s radar, artists
continued to paint freely in the neighborhood, and the art was embraced by the community.
In 2009, Arts District resident Daniel Lahoda launched the L.A. Freewalls projects, a technically
“illegal” process in which Lahoda brokered an agreement between artists and building owners.
130

130
Deborah Vankin, “Downtown L.A.’s ‘mural mayor’ Daniel Lahoda Draws Praise, Controversy,” Los Angeles Times,
July 5, 2013.
The
building owners are looking for a unique identity for their property and the artists are looking for a
canvas to display their work. The process has been highly successful in the neighborhood and is one of
its most distinctive characteristics. Businesses benefit from the project because they can use the murals
Figure 3.16: Chipmunk mural on the Urban Radish building, 661 Imperial Street. Photo by author.
60

as a way to brand themselves. Instead of typical signage, the murals act as their own form of signage,
create a vivid and memorable image, and even act as an organizer of activity. The street art becomes a
method of way finding in the Arts District (Figure 3.17).
131
Buildings are visually organized through the
neighborhood based on their wall art. Lahoda believes that the Art District is the right kind of
neighborhood to support street art. “We’re able to pull it off because we have widespread community
support. But we’re keeping it in the Arts District where people are tolerant. I wouldn’t do this in Beverly
Hills.”
132

131
In 2013, the City Council lifted the ban on private-property murals. The proposal to lift the ban has been
supported by eastside Councilman Jose Huizar. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, public attitudes
toward murals and its aesthetic kinfolk – graffiti and street art – have evolved considerably over the last several
decades as these forms have been assimilated into popular culture.

132
LA Freewalls brokers deals between businesses and street artists, offering building owners new murals to cover
up unwanted graffiti. He launched his business in order to fight the citywide ban on new murals enacted in 2003.
LA Freewalls decided to tackle this issue by producing street art in a more organized fashion In the Arts District
(many artists paint on the run), and business owners were worried that their property was going to be defaced.
The program is effective because taggers are much less likely to deface the murals made by artists they respect;
Deborah Vankin, “Downtown L.A.’s ‘mural mayor’ Daniel Lahoda Draws Praise, Controversy,” Los Angeles Times,
July 5, 2013.
Figure 3.17: Daniel Lahoda in front of one of the L.A. Freewalls murals, 2013. photo by Irfan Khan, Los Angeles
Times, in Deborah Vankin's “Downtown L.A.’s ‘mural mayor’ Daniel Lahoda Draws Praise, Controversy,” Los
Angeles Times, July 5, 2013. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/lat-murals-la0010250973-
20130629,0,3241982.photo#axzz2lJQtenNB (accessed July 6, 2013).

61

By the time the city was aware of the project, it had gained enough traction to become one of
the defining features of the community. For Lahoda, it was a way to preserve the artist presence in the
neighborhood; even if the artists could no longer afford to live in the Arts District, they still could
connect to the neighborhood through expression. By late 2011, the city began discussions on whether or
not to lift the moratorium. L.A. Freewalls was highly active in negotiations with the city to implement a
new mural ordinance that would include a citywide permitting process that would not only allow, but
protect, mural projects.
133
Within the last decade, the Arts District has been defined by an injection of creative businesses
into the area (Figure 3.18). A 2012 estimate from the office of the 14th District City Councilman Jose
Huizar stated that the population of the entire Arts District is around 2,600 residents, many of whom are
employed in the creative industry.
In September 2013, the ban was officially lifted.
134

133
Interview with Daniel Lahoda, November 4, 2013.
134
Richard Guzman, “Arts District Grocery Store Urban Radish to Open This Week,” Los Angeles Downtown News,
July 1, 2013.
Figure 3.18: Work Space, Painting Studios, Retail for lease in Arts District. Photo by author.
62

However, the “creative industry” may not be considered artists in the traditional sense, such as
the early residents of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The creative industry represents not only those
working in art, but in film, design, technology, and other “production” professions. While the first wave
of revitalization (pre-2008) was significantly residential due to the ARO, the second wave is bringing in
more businesses to serve the residential population.
135
Following new restaurants, retail is moving in.
“There’s already been a great food renaissance Downtown,” said Derrick Moore, principal of the real
estate firm Avison Young, “Now there’s the beginning of an explosion of soft [retail] goods.”
136
Most of the Arts District is zoned M3-1 for Heavy Industrial Land Use. The zoning allows for all
types of uses and makes the Arts District attractive to companies engaging in on-site manufacturing. The
zoning allows Creative Space, a company that acts as a medium between the creative world and the
legal and business world, brought Handsome Coffee Roasters (582 Mateo Street) to the Arts District in
2012. The company was having trouble finding an area in the city that would allow them to roast their
beans on-site. Handsome found that much of the zoning in the city prevented them from roasting and
serving as a coffee shop, but the flexible M-3 zoning in the Arts District allowed them to do both.
Businesses have evolved from gritty and eclectic to the more artisanal and boutique. Matt Klein, son of
one or the original artist/developers Howard Klein, whose family owns several properties in the Arts
District, understands that the neighborhood will now support this. "[Creative Space] have their finger on
the pulse of where the Arts District is now, and a vision we share on where it's going," Klein says. “They
are bringing the next generation of tenants to the area.”

137

135
In 2012, The Architect’s Newsletter noted that while the 1999 Adaptive Reuse Ordinance was successful in
bringing residents back into Downtown, in 2012, the same rehabilitations were focused on restaurants and retail.
136
Robin Heffler, "Business, Civic Leaders Trumpet a Revitalized Downtown," USC Price School of Public Policy,
2013.
137
Alissa Walker, “Downtown’s Arts District Is One of L.A.’s Hottest Neighborhoods. Thanks [or blame) Tyler
Stonebreaker,” LA Weekly, May 2, 2013.
63

Chapter 4: Social, Cultural, and Economic Issues of Revitalization
in the Arts District

4.1 Introduction

As Downtown and the Arts District continue to develop, it brings up critical social, economic,
and cultural questions that city officials, developers, designers, preservationists, and community
activists all need to evaluate. The 2008 recession allowed a momentary pause in development and
allowed a brief period to question and assess what is happening in the rapidly evolving Downtown. In
many ways, the AIR and ARO ordinances saved Downtown from continuing to become an urban center
without a solid residential population. The reintroduction of a residential base in the city has injected
life and capital back into Los Angeles’ urban core. However positive revitalization has been for the city,
there are critical issues related to it that need to be explored. As the Arts District is poised to become
one of the major creative centers the city, it must evaluate how to best adapt while preserving the
character that made it popular in the first place. This chapter examines the changing demographics of
Downtown and the Arts District, the pros and cons of revitalization and gentrification (including what is
driving young “urban pioneers” back into the city), how Skid Row affects the Arts District, and the issue
of residential use pushing out industrial businesses. The chapter ends by exploring how the Arts District
differs from Manhattan’s Meatpacking District, and how specific aspects of the Arts District will help it
avoid the Meatpacking’s fate of over-gentrification and commercial takeover.

4.2 Urban Restructuring of Downtown Los Angeles

Over the last decade, there have been major investments in Downtown that have resulted in
higher property values and a larger residential population. In 2013, the Downtown Central Business
Improvement District (DCBID) found that the property values of their 2,638 parcels have doubled since
64

1998.
138
There has been $15.7 billion in investments, and 93,000 new jobs created.
139
Overall, the
Downtown residential population has grown from 18,000 to more than 50,000 since the late 1990s, one
of the most drastic city migrations in the country. The speed of the construction surprised even longtime
observers, and the demographics of people moving back into the city mark a stark contrast to the
existing residents. The metropolis of Los Angeles has been historically understudied by urban planners,
and the greater region has only recently emerged as a fascinating contrast to the more established
Chicago School of urban theory. The Chicago School maintains a “modernist” view of the city as a unified
whole, meaning that a city is a coherent regional system in which the center organizes its hinterland,
and that further development will take place outward from a central core. The emergence of the Los
Angeles School of urban theory in the 1980s introduced the beginning of scholarly research that
proclaimed that Los Angeles is “an aberrant curiosity distinct from other forms of urbanism.”
140
Los Angeles differs from many other ‘strong-center’ patterns found in older, more established
cities such as New York, Boston, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and San Francisco, because in these cities,
there is high demand to live near the Central Business District (CBD) because that is where the jobs are.
Unlike cities with a strong CBD, Los Angeles is a vast, multi-nodal (polycentric) city with a historically
weak CBD, where the urban evolution has highly deviated from the Chicago model. According to Urban
Geography, polycentric urban regions with a weak CBD, such as Los Angeles, have seen their inner-city
areas devalue since the 1970s, contrary to the gentrifying experience of strong-CBD urban regions like
those listed above.

141
In early research examining the gentrification trends in Downtown areas over the
last twenty years, Los Angeles has been largely overlooked because its urban center revitalization
happened quite late and it is most associated with mass suburbanization.
142

Researchers find analyzing
urban revitalization and gentrification in Los Angeles difficult because
…not one center, not even Downtown Los Angeles, exerts anything more than a weak
gravitational pull on the entire urban region…For these reasons, studying gentrification

138
Downtown Center Business Improvement District, release date October 31, 2013,
http://Downtownla.com/pdfs/DowntownLAcom-RFP-2013-10-31.pdf.
139
Robin Heffler, "Business, Civic Leaders Trumpet a Revitalized Downtown," USC Price School of Public Policy,
2013. http://priceschool.usc.edu/business-civic-leaders-trumpet-a-revitalized-Downtown/.
140
Michael Dear, “Los Angeles and the Chicago School: Invitation to a Debate,” in The Urban Sociology Reader, ed.
by Jan Lin and Christopher Mele (London: Routedge, 2005), 134.
141
Jason Hackworth, "Emergent Urban Forms, Or Emergent Post-Modernisms? A Comparison Of Large U.S.
Metropolitan Areas,” Urban Geography 26, no. 6 (2005): 484-519.
142
From “‘Weak-Center’ Gentrification.” As of September 2008, a keyword search in Sociological Abstracts on
‘gentrification’ and ‘Los Angeles’ revealed only two journal articles.
65

in Los Angeles should provide an interesting counterpoint to the currently dominant
evidence from strongly-centered urban regions.
143

Because of the vastness of the city, revitalization and gentrification have occurred in various
“pockets” throughout the city, and traditional nonlinear development has been usurped by a more
seemingly disjointed, chaotic process.
144

The Arts District represents one of these pockets. However, as
Downtown Los Angeles has entered a new phase, it is essential to examine the positive and negative
issues that are inherent in revitalization and gentrification that will greatly affect the future of the Arts
District.

4.3 The Pros and Cons of Revitalization

Revitalization comes in two forms: planned and organic. Planned revitalization is large-scale,
redevelopment projects meant to change a neighborhood rapidly and significantly. They are usually
conceived by city officials or large development companies, often nationally or internationally based.
Projects like the Bunker Hill Redevelopment Project (1955), Staples Center (2000), L.A. Live (2009), and
the Grand Avenue Redevelopment all fall under planned revitalization (Figure 4.1). In contrast to this
type of planning, organic revitalization is generally small-scale, community-driven efforts that produce
small changes that take effect over the course of many years. These efforts are typically organized by
active members of the community or small developers with direct connections to the neighborhood.
The Arts District, Culver City’s Hayden Tract, Silverlake’s Sunset Junction, and Venice’s Abbott Kinney all
represent this type of revitalization. Whether large-scale or small-scale in its nature, revitalization and
gentrification will undoubtedly affect the neighborhood and its existing residents.

143
Ellen Reese, Geoffrey Deverteuil, and Leanne Thach, ‘Weak-Center’ Gentrification and the Contradictions of
Containment: Deconcentrating Poverty in Downtown Los Angeles,” International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 34 (2010): 314.
144
Michael Dear, “Los Angeles and the Chicago School: Invitation to a Debate,” in The Urban Sociology Reader, ed.
by Jan Lin and Christopher Mele (London: Routedge, 2005), 136.
66

The positive aspects of revitalization are numerous. “White flight,” failed renewal efforts,
companies relocating to the suburbs (due to financial issues and functional obsolescence of the existing
buildings), and increased crime rates all contributed to Los Angeles’ historic urban core falling into
disrepair. Revitalization became the solution to counteract the urban decline that resulted during this
era of flight, and is “one of the few positive trends in recent urban socio-economic analysis.”
145

Revitalization in its most optimistic view will not cause social conflict but will produce neighborhoods
that are an exciting mix of different races, classes, and lifestyle groups living together.
146

145
Michael H. Lang, Gentrification Amid Urban Decline: Strategies for America’s Older Cities, (Cambridge, Mass:
Ballinger Publishing Company, 1982): 27.
In the Arts
District, the adjacency to Skid Row, Little Tokyo, Chinatown, Boyle Heights, and the industrial area to the
south is an example of a diverse populations living in close proximity. Revitalization can rejuvenate a
blighted neighborhood, leading to increased property values and greater taxes for the city, and can lead
to improved public services and other neighborhood amenities. Once neighborhoods are seen as safer
and more vibrant, businesses move in, which keeps amenities located close to the residents. Urban
146
US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1979. The HUD Displacement Report takes the position
that revitalization offers a ‘unique opportunity’ for integration.
Figure 4.1: Nokia Theater at L.A. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NokiaTheaterLA-Live02.jpg (accessed September 2, 2013).
67

revitalization is bringing more working professionals back into the city, which locates people closer to
where they work and eases congestion on the over-crowded Los Angeles freeways. When public transit
is available, dense, urban living is a more environmentally friendly approach than suburban sprawl, and
promotes the preservation of open space. As noted by the National Trust for Historic Preservation,
reusing and retrofitting vacant and underused buildings – including approximately 10 million-square-
feet of vacant space in the Los Angeles urban core – can help the city reuse the existing built
environment and meet demands for office space and housing.
147
The Art District’s revitalization has
repurposed the embodied energy spent building up those districts for intensified building use and
density.
148
In contrast to concerns from affordable housing advocates, not all revitalization efforts seek to
displace the lower-income residents, and residents are often offered some type of assistance from
developers or public-sponsored programs that support the desire for a mixture of income levels (to be
discussed in “Future Development and Housing Concerns” section).

149
The most crucial factor to consider regarding gentrification is the displacement of current
residents and businesses. Areas that are revitalized or repurposed can change the character of a
neighborhood. An influx of new residents can lead to racial and cultural tension in areas where people
from different backgrounds are suddenly forced to live within the same vicinity. Economics play another
major role: it is inevitable that the cost of living in a revitalized area will increase if no policy decisions
have been implemented to keep existing residents in their homes and some of the original businesses
operational. Many of the early residents and businesses are unable to afford the increasing real estate
prices and have left. This becomes crucial when housing laws fail to protect existing tenants, affordable
housing is nonexistent, and no new public housing is built to relocate homeless people from the streets.
While revitalization often creates conflicts between people of various demographic backgrounds, it can
also create conflicts between various land uses. For example, in the Arts District, the residential use of
functionally obsolete industrial buildings brings up questions on whether the city should fight to
Revitalization can lead to the
preservation of older buildings, as evident by the adaptive reuse projects carried out since the ARO.

147
National Trust for Historic Preservation, “Building Reuse Key to Meet Housing and Office Demand in LA,” Press
Release, October 11, 2013. http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-
communities/green-lab/partnership-building-reuse/100113_PBR_release_FINAL.pdf.
148
“Peter Zellner Discusses SCI-Arc’s Focus on Sustainability,” The Planning Report, December 19, 2011,
http://www.planningreport.com/2011/12/19/peter-zellner-discusses-sci-arc-s-focus-sustainability.
149
Such efforts include affordable housing, which offers subsidies or affordable rental rates.
68

preserve the land for light and heavy industrial uses. The City of Los Angeles continues to grapple with
this problem, and these concerns will be addressed later in this chapter.
In the 1960s, “gentrification” as first identified by sociologist Ruth Glass, fascinated urban
planners because it defied conventional planning theory: that the middle class would continue to flee
cities and live exclusively in the suburbs.
150
The issues of gentrification, urban restructuring, and middle
and upper class relocation are widely debated today, and it has become an important element of
contemporary planning theory. In terms of urban migration, gentrification can be seen as a reverse
reaction to the concept of white flight, and the relocation of middle and upper class households to
inner-city neighborhoods as a revitalization strategy has been broadly discussed as a new dimension of
gentrification.
151
However, no matter what term is used, this marks an era where people – particularly those in
their 20s, 30s, and 40s – are gravitating toward an authentic urban environment, unlike the suburbs
where many of them grew up. In the 1960s, only the counterculture occupied the non-traditional loft
spaces. The new wave of urban revitalization by young artisans and professionals is a significantly
different force: the new gentrifiers are civically engaged, affluent, and employed in white-collar and
professional occupations.
The terms gentrification and revitalization are often used interchangeably along with
“reinvestment” “urban renaissance,” or “revival.” The nomenclature differs amongst professions, and
marks a fundamental disagreement on how each discipline views the subject.
152
According to Carol Schatz, executive director of the Downtown Central
Business Improvement District (DCBID), “Most residents moving Downtown are between 25 and 35
years old, with sizable disposable incomes, making $100,000 or more per year, and they are moving
here because they want a cool, hip, nontraditional living experience.”
153

150
The idea that the middle class was migrating back into the central city and rejecting suburban life was
contradictory to traditional planning theory.
In a 2012 Arts District survey
compiled by the since-dissolved Arts District Business Improvement District (ADBID), of the residents
surveyed, 71% are Caucasian, 89% are employed, 86% have a college degree or higher, the median age
151
“Neighborhood Change: Gentrification,” The Center for Urban Research and Learning (CURL), Loyola University,
(Chicago:2002): 4. In the United States, following decades of suburban sprawl starting in the mid-1940s and
continuing through the late 1960s, many urban neighborhoods were drastically altered as the middle class fled to
the suburbs, a phenomenon known as “white flight.”; Brian Berry, “Islands of Renewal in Seas of Decay,” In The
New Urban Reality, edited by Paul Peterson, 69–96, (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1985): 72.
152
Brian Berry, “Islands of Renewal in Seas of Decay,” 71; Heffler, "Business, Civic Leaders Trumpet a Revitalized
Downtown." In 2011, the Downtown residents had a median age of thirty-three, 80% have a college degree, and
the median income was $86,300.
153
William Booth, “Angelenos' New Refrain: 'I Love (Downtown) L.A. 'City's Once-Wasteland Is Hipster Heaven,”
Washington Post, September 30, 2007.
69

is 38, and they have an average annual income of $126,000.
154
This “newly arrived gentry” in a former
deteriorated neighborhood provides a sharp contrast to the decline of central-city housing that defined
Los Angeles since the mid-twentieth century.
155
Generation X and Y (Millennial Generation) who are employed in Los Angeles’ burgeoning
creative industry represent a high percentage of the professionals moving back into the city.

156

Milennials have been marked to cause the great migration of city dwellers of the twentieth-first century,
and 77% of this generation plan to live in an urban core.
157
A large percentage of these two generations
grew up in suburban environments that were often isolated from Downtown centers, and as adults they
are looking for new, exciting experiences and are particularly drawn to a lifestyle they did not have
growing up.
158
As children, their lives were often based on the car culture and many were not exposed
to the “grit” of an urban environment.
159
While the Baby Boomer generation was drawn to acquiring possessions in their lifetimes, Gen X
and Gen Y crave experiences.

160
Many Gen X and Yers crave a stronger connection to society and
history, and are attempting to live and work in a more “genuine” place. Daniel Pink’s formative book A
Whole New Mind looked at this phenomenon, where a societal shift has taken our culture from being
more knowledge-based (accountants, doctors, etc.) to more culture-based (artists, designers, writers,
etc.). Pink argues that more than ever there is a premium on aesthetic, emotional and even the spiritual
aspect of goods and services. Historic urban environments and older buildings are seen as more
authentic and the antithesis of the suburbs.
161

154
Los Angeles Arts District Business Improvement District, “Downtown Los Angeles Arts District Demographic
Study: Characteristics, Behaviors and Perceptions,” Executive Summary. June 2012. Respondents represented five
overall segments: residents, employees, business owners, students, and visitors.
In J.B. Jackson’s The Necessity for Ruins, he argues that
aged objects serve as a chronicle of everyday existence and are a reflection of our nostalgia for the
vernacular past. “That is what I mean when I refer to the necessity for ruin: ruins provide incentive for
155
Brian Berry, “Islands of Renewal in Seas of Decay,” 71.
156
Generation X: Those born from 1965 through 1980. Ages from 33-47. Generation Y: Those born from 1981
through 2000. Ages from 13-32.
157
RCLCO Consumer Research, “Impact of Generation Trends: Generation Y, “ Presented at ULI Southwest Florida,
March 2013. http://www.rclco.com/pub/doc/presentation-2013-03-01-
Impact_of_Demographic_Trends_Generation_Y.pdf.
158
According to Generation iY: Our Last Chance to Save Their Future.
159
Nathan Morris, “Why Generation Y is Causing the Great Migration of the 2First century,” Placemakers, April 9,
2012. http://www.placemakers.com/2012/04/09/generation-ys-great-migration/.
160
Ada P. Kahn, The Encyclopedia of Work-Related Illnesses, Injuries, and Health Issues (New York, N.Y.: Facts on
File, 2004): 37.
161
However, author DJ Waldie argues that there is far more value and authenticity of the American Dream in the
suburbs in his seminal novel Holy Land.
70

restoration.”
162
Creative people are drawn to the quality of a place, and a real connection to it
vernacular history.
163
As young professionals move into these formerly blighted neighborhoods, they are viewed as
“urban pioneers,” who will be in the midst of a chaotic and unpredictable city, in contrast to the
homogeneity of the suburbs.
The appeal of the Arts District is it offers a much different experience from other
areas of Los Angeles, where manicured lawns, conflicting Revival styles of architecture, and lack of
walkable amenities make up the landscape. As argued by preeminent city observer Jane Jacobs, diversity
(in income levels, building types and ages, variety of businesses, etc.), are the ingredients for a great
urban environment. While many parts of Los Angeles represent the corporate giant, the Arts District is
still the “urban village” for which Jacobs argued.
164
In many ways, moving into back into the city is seen as an adventure and
gentrification is the packaging of a lifestyle “through the vocabulary of the frontier myth.”
165
Urban pioneers, as argued by geographer Richard Campanella, can be broken into four distinct
groups.
The next
section will briefly explore the evolution of the urban pioneer, from the poor and homeless, who are
forced into living in abandoned buildings, all the way the bona fide gentry, who drive up the property
values exponentially.
166

The initial wave
...are seeking alternatives to societal norms. This group typically settles, squatter-like, in
the roughest neighborhoods.

Right on their heels come the “hipsters,” who

...also fixate upon dissing the mainstream but are better educated and obsessively self-
aware. They see these punk-infused neighborhoods as bastions of coolness.

162
John Brinckerhoff Jackson, The Necessity For Ruins, And Other Topics, (Amherst: University of Massachusetts
Press, 1980): 102.
163
Richard Florida, “What Draws Creative People? Quality of Place,” Urban Land Institute online, October 11, 2012.
164
Urban Land Institute Report, 1976.
165
Neil Smith, "New City, New Frontier: The lower East Side as Wild, Wild West," In Variations on a Theme Park:
The New American City and the End of Public Space, edited by Michael Sorkin, 61-94, (New York: Hill and Wang,
1992).
166
The following definitions of “urban pioneers” are from Richard Campanella’s “Gentrification and its Discontents:
Notes from New Orleans,” published in The Louisiana Weekly in March 2013.
71

Following the hipsters, are the “bourgeois bohemians,” who are

...free spirited but well-educated and willing to strike a bargain with middle-class
normalcy. This group is skillfully employed, and engages tirelessly in civic affairs.

Once a neighborhood attains a full-blown “revitalized” status, the final group arrives: the bona
fide gentry, who are the

...lawyers, doctors, moneyed retirees, and alpha-professionals from places like
Manhattan or San Francisco. Real estate agents and developers are involved at every
phase transition, sometimes leading, sometimes following, always profiting.

Gentrification rapidly brings all these groups together in close proximity, and tensions can
develop. This linear progression produces a slower, more gradual change in a neighborhood. At this
time, the Arts District still has a solid mix of the first three: many of the original artists that moved into
the neighborhood when it was cheap and dangerous still live there. The presence of Skid Row, single-
room occupancy, and affordable housing (to be discussed later in this chapter), has kept a mix of
transient and low-income people in the area. The hipsters and bourgeois bohemians have arrived, and
the neighborhood is currently adapting to accommodate these populations. At present, the combination
of these residents has made the Arts District attractive to those looking for a diverse urban
environment. This may be an indication that there can be cohabitation and mutual tolerance between
these groups.

4.5 The Changing Face of the Arts District and How Skid Row will affect Revitalization

The Arts District is geographically positioned in somewhat of an awkward location: it is bounded
by the 101 Freeway to the north, the Los Angeles River to the east, and a distribution/warehouse center
to the south. The District borders the infamous Skid Row to the west. A 1982 economic study referred to
the artists as “a buffer for Downtown commercial interests against the ugliness of Skid Row.”
167

167
Davis, 105.

72

However, the proximity to the homeless enclaves has produced issues that will be critical in Downtown’s
revitalization. The influx of financially well-off residents has produced an intense spatial proximity of
social realities that could not be any more polarized.
168
The concentration of homeless in Skid Row in the 1970s involved a wide range of organizations,
including the public sector (City and County officials, LAPD), the private sector (business associations and
BIDs), and the non-profit sector (service agencies and homeless advocacy groups). During urban renewal
in the 1960s, many of the small, transient hotels (originally constructed in the early twentieth century
for seasonal workers), were found to be noncompliant with modern fire and safety codes and were
demolished by the owners who claimed economic hardship. The hotels were being used as SROs to
house Downtown Los Angeles’ low-income residents. Following urban renewal, the SRO units went from
approximately 15,000 in the early 1960s to 7,500 in the early 1970s. In 1976, civic leaders called for the
preservation of the housing stock to accommodate the area’s poor population.
While the early artists were inspired by the
grittiness of the neighborhood and the existence of Skid Row was part of the experience of living in the
industrial area of the city, the revitalized Arts District has a more complex relationship with Skid Row.
Decades later, following the wave of redevelopment after the passage of the ARO, the city
became concerned that development would further diminish the amount of transient housing in
Downtown, leaving more poor on the streets. The ARO was passed to reactivate the underutilized
buildings and never intended to address issues of affordable housing.
169
In 2005, the Los Angeles
Housing Department found that at least ten SRO hotels with more than 1,087 units had been
demolished or closed because of nuisance claims or they had been converted to upscale lofts.
170
In
2006, the Los Angeles City Council delayed the demolition of about 240 flophouses in the 50-square-
block area in Skid Row for two years, a move that allowed policy makers to buy time in figuring out what
to do with the current mix of low-income residents. The CRA ultimately issued guidelines for a 55-year
commitment by ‘transient’ hotels to offer ‘affordable’ housing units.
171

168
Nadine Marquardt and Henning Fuller, “Spillover of the Private City: BIDs as a Pivot of Social Control in
Downtown Los Angeles,” European Urban and Regional Studies 19, no. 2 (2012): 156.
The city needed to balance how
169
“Adaptive Reuse Program Will Continue to Enliven L.A.’s Urban Core in Absence of Longtime Director,” The
Planning Report, February 2007, http://www.planningreport.com/2007/02/09/adaptive-reuse-program-will-
continue-enliven-las-urban-core-absence-longtime-director (accessed January 16, 2014).
170
Carla Rivera, “A Tale of Two Hotels – and the Future of a City,” Los Angeles Times, November 1, 2005. At the
time, subsidized units rented for $66 per month and the affordable rented for about $425 per month. Two blocks
away at the new Santee Court lofts, a unit rented for over $1,400 per month.
171
The city previously imposed moratoriums on demolition and conversion of single-room-occupancy hotels, most
recently in 1989, expiring in 1994: Nadine Marquardt, Henning Fuller, Georg Glasza, and Robert Putz, “Shaping the
Urban Renaissance: New-build Luxury Developments in Berlin,” Urban Studies 50, no. 8 (2013): 1547.
73

they should encourage revitalization while providing a mixed of affordable or subsidized housing in the
rapidly changing area.
172
In 2008, the City Council enacted a permanent anti-conversion law to protect
16,000 SRO units. While the law does not prohibit property owners from converting or demolishing the
hotels, it lays out guidelines that make it expensive and difficult to do so. While the 2006 moratorium
applied only to Downtown, the 2008 ordinance was citywide and currently protects close to 19,000 units
in and around Downtown. However, Carol E. Schatz, president and CEO of the CCA, believes that
preserving all the older buildings to be continuously used as SROs is a poor policy. Schatz stated in 2006,
“Preserving units built in the early 1900s to house migrant railroad workers that have no bathrooms or
kitchens does not strike us as the best low-income housing policy for the city.”
173
To date, SRO Housing
has built twenty new buildings for more than 1,700 low-income residents.
174
However, the unintended
consequence of preserving the SRO units has been that other communities have sent their homeless
and problem populations to Downtown.
175
In contrast to preserving SRO housing in Downtown, another policy sees concentration as a
particularly poor method to address Skid Row. In 2006, Los Angeles County developed a plan to
construct homeless shelters away from Downtown due to the resistance from the powerful CCA on
concentrating the homeless in the Skid Row area.

176
However, the plan was met with much opposition.
A 2010 study that examined deconcentrating poverty in Downtown Los Angeles concluded that the city
did little to disperse homeless people away from Downtown. The resistance was from the homeless
population, the homeless advocates, the now-defunct CRA, and the general NIMBY-ism in the
surrounding neighborhoods and cities. The greater the concentration it seems, the greater the
resistance.
177
While the SCI program targeted criminal activity in Skid Row, Downtown BIDs stepped up
surveillance by assisting publically funded police officers in monitoring the criminal homeless and
As other neighborhoods in Los Angeles have evolved considerably since the early
twentieth century, Skid Row has changed very little due to these factors.

172
Andrew Glazer, “Los Angeles Bans Demolition of Downtown Flophouses to Slow Gentrification,” Associated
Press, May 11, 2006; Former Councilwoman Jan Perry backed the measure, and former Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
proposed a $1 billion bond measure to pay for subsidized apartments, which would include housing and social
programs.
173
Glazer, “Los Angeles Bans Demolition.”
174
Los Angeles Community Action Network, “Historic Protections for LA’s Housings of Last Resort Will Help Prevent
Gentrification City-Wide,” July/August 2008.
175
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, “History of Skid Row,” October 22, 2008.
http://www.lachamber.com/clientuploads/LUCH_committee/102208_History_of_Skid_Row.pdf
176
The areas included neighboring cities such as El Monte, Glendale, Long Beach, Pasadena, and West Covina.
177
Ellen Reese, Geoffrey Deverteuil, and Leanne Thach, “‘Weak-Center’ Gentrification and the Contradictions of
Containment: Deconcentrating Poverty in Downtown Los Angeles,” 323.
74

providing their own safety officers.
178
The Arts District BID opted to provide extra security to monitor
crime through increased surveillance and policing the streets and businesses after hours. Overall, the
BIDs have found the safety officers have improved the perception of criminal activity. According to
Schatz, “All you have to do is walk down the street and you can see the change we’ve brought about.
There’s not one person who could say the area hasn’t improved because of BIDs.”
179
Today, approximately 8,000 people live permanently or semi-permanently in SRO hotels and
2,000 people live in shelter or transitional housing. The number of people living on the streets in Skid
Row varies seasonally and can range from 2,000 to 5,000 people.

180
The concentration of the homeless
population in Skid Row will continue to be a contentious issue in the revitalization of the city. There is a
general sentiment that it will be better for all residents, especially the homeless, if services and
affordable housing are more evenly spread throughout Downtown and the rest of the city and county.
As the Downtown core becomes increasingly residential, the voter base will become more vocal on
providing greater services including mental health care, SRO housing in Skid Row, and distributing the
homeless services throughout the city. With the dissolution of the CRA, SRO Housing Corporation, a
major provider of emergency, transitional, and permanent housing in Skid Row stands to be particularly
hard hit when it loses the approximately $500,000 that the CRA commits annually.
181
Other means of
funding for these projects will need to be secured. Anita Nelson, Executive Director of the SRO Housing
Corporation, a non-profit homeless advocacy group believes that the homeless population can be
intermixed into the reviving areas: “We can coexist,” she says, “The residents here, when they have
supportive services, are just like any other residents.”
182

178
Ellen Reese, Geoffrey Deverteuil, and Leanne Thach, “‘Weak-Center’,” 320. In Downtown, there are over 100
private security officers who are paid for by the eight local BIDs, which subcontract to private security companies.
179
William Wan and Erin Ailworth, “Flak Over Downtown Security Guards,” Los Angeles Times, June 8, 2004; The
Arts District Business Improvement District was dissolved in June, 2013, when a Los Angeles judge ordered that the
BID be shut down because a portion of the budget had been used for branding and promoting the neighborhood.
The Arts District BID was funded from a fee assessed to all property owners that fall within the District’s
boundaries. According to the Los Angeles Downtown News, seventy-two percent of the budget went to security
patrols, street-cleaning services and other neighborhood improvements. The fight to dissolve the BID was led by
resident Vincent Gallo and the group “RID the BID.” Many residents are working to reestablish the BID.
180
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, “History of Skid Row,” October 22, 2008.
http://www.lachamber.com/clientuploads/LUCH_committee/102208_History_of_Skid_Row.pdf.
181
Ryan Vaillancourt, “CRA Demise Paints Bleak Future for Affordable Housing,” Los Angeles Downtown News,
January 3, 2012.
182
Carla Rivera, "Checking in to Life Off the Street; Nonprofit Hotels are a Big Step Off Skid Row for those Who
Qualify, but a Gentrifying Downtown Puts their Future in Doubt," Los Angeles Times, November 28, 2005.
75

4.6 Is Residential Use Pushing Out Industrial Use?

As industrial building conversions increased in the Arts District following the passage of the ARO,
the city was not prepared on how to accommodate the influx of residents into the area that was still
highly industrial (Figure 4.2).
183

183
See appendix, “Rehabilitation Projects in the Arts District,” for a list of projects.
In 2005, Len Betz, project manager for the CRA said, “There are a few
projects like the Santa Fe Arts Colony [at 2421 S Santa Fe Ave, not in the Arts District] and Toy Factory
Lofts, but we didn’t contemplate that it would happen so quickly and that there would be these
competing uses for land.” As residential and light commercial use overtakes the formerly industrial use,
it changes the authentic “industrial” feel of the neighborhood. This raises specific questions about urban
revitalization in former industrial areas. For example, what happens to the tax base and the
concentration of manufacturing jobs in the neighborhood, and is the presence of manufacturing and
industrial processes necessary for the “industrial” character of the neighborhood to remain?
Figure 4.2: General Zoning Plan of Downtown Los Angeles, showing industrial use centered on the Arts District.
Map from ZIMAS, http://zimas.lacity.org/.

76

In the early days of the ARO, the Arts District was purposefully excluded to discourage
residential encroachment into industrial areas.
184
City Planning and the CRA were opposed to upzoning
in the neighborhood based on the concern that converting industrial zones to residential would result in
industrial uses becoming uneconomic. In 2004, roughly eight percent of the city’s land was zoned for
industrial use and thirty-one percent is located in Metro Los Angeles (which includes the Arts District).
185

Converting industrial buildings into residential units means that the city loses land that has been
dedicated to industrial processes for years. In 2004, during the development of the Toy Factory and
Biscuit Lofts, Jack Kyser, senior vice president and chief economist for the Los Angeles Economic
Development Corporation said, “It’s an ongoing tension. There is this huge demand for industrial space
and we’re running out of land. In many cases, it's hard to do new development because there's this
competition, and because retail and residential can spend more money.”
186
However, it was evident that residential units were in high demand, and the Central City East
Association (CCEA) organized an effort to get zoning policies revised in the area.
Critics also feared that
residents would demand the same environmental quality and public services that are found in other
areas of the city. The industrial processes operating in close proximity to residential would ultimately
trigger significant environmental and air quality concerns. The city would also need to invest in public
services such as improved infrastructure, bus lines, emergency services, and public safety. That same
year, former Mayor James K. Hahn’s office issued the report “Key Industrial Land Use Findings and
Issues,” which argued for the city’s role in retaining and expanding its industrial base.
187
By 2005, the city,
CRA, and CCEA were involved in discussions on whether to make the area fall under flexible zoning.
Those pushing for flexible zoning argue that industrial companies are moving to the Inland Empire,
Carson, the City of Industry, and other areas not because of the squeeze from residential use, but
because land is cheaper. Bart Pucci, senior vice president at real estate services firm CB Richard Ellis said
of the migration, “They’ve been doing that forever. It has very little to do with residential.”
188

184
“Adaptive Reuse Program Will Continue to Enliven L.A.’s Urban Core in Absence of Longtime Director.”
In addition
to the cost of staying in Los Angeles, many of the warehouse buildings were in dire need of
185
Industrial Development Policy Initiative for the City of Los Angeles, Key Industrial Land Use Findings and Issues.
Mayor’s Office of Economic Development, First Quarter, 2004.
http://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/presentations/industrial/LA-Industrial-Report.pdf.
186
Chris Coates, “The New Industrial Revolution,” Los Angeles Downtown News, December 13, 2004.
187
While the AIR projects were covered under the ARO, the ARO did not apply to market-rate housing in the area,
and developers had to go through a long, costly, and uncertain approval process. Although the AIR program offers
a great opportunity for the artists to live in their workspace, they cannot purchase AIR units, which are zoned
mixed-use commercial.
188
Chris Coates, “The New Industrial Revolution.”
77

rehabilitation, and the neighborhood had outdated infrastructure. The report “Key Industrial Land Use
Findings and Issues” identified multiple factors that challenge further industrial development
Downtown, including: land availability and cost; building and site limitations; basic infrastructure and
access limitations; brownfields uncertainties; entitlement process in the City of Los Angeles versus
elsewhere; and national and global economic influences.
189
This meant that even with continued
industrial use, the buildings and land would need an immense injection of capital. Delores Conway,
director of the USC Casden Real Estate Economics Forecast, added that Downtown is lacking the space
needed to run efficient distribution centers: “The space for Class A [buildings] for shipping and
distribution centers is really moving to the Inland Empire," she says. “There's too much congestion on
streets Downtown and there isn't enough space (Figure 4.3).”
190
Converting industrial land into
residential use also increases the city’s tax base because there is generally a lower assessed valuation of
industrial land.
191

189
Industrial Development Policy Initiative for the City of Los Angeles, Key Industrial Land Use Findings and Issues.

190
Chris Coates, “The New Industrial Revolution.”
191
Industrial Development Policy Initiative for the City of Los Angeles, Key Industrial Land Use Findings and Issues.
Figure 4.3: Continued industrial use in the Arts District, 2013. Photo by author.
78

The Arts District BID, the Historic Cultural Neighborhood Council, and the Los Angeles City
Planning Commission have all recognized that many of the buildings that were originally excluded from
the ARO in order to protect industrial use were in poor quality and were ill suited for modern industrial
requirements.
192
The Arts District is riddled with decaying infrastructure dating back to the beginning of
the twentieth century, and the narrow street pattern has changed very little since it was first mapped in
1909. The decaying infrastructure includes substandard streets, crumbling pavement, a lack of adequate
loading dock space, limited truck access, and tiny land parcel sizes that cannot accommodate large-scale
industrial processes.
193
In “Key Industrial Land Use Findings and Issues,” the Central City East Association
(CCEA) identified forty-three problem locations in the six-mile area that served as major impediments
for truck movement, including the streets themselves and inadequate traffic control devices.
194
In 2007,
the Central City Association (CCA), through CBRE Consulting, found that the City’s recommendations to
preserve industrial land through the Industrial Development Policy Initiative (IDPI) could have significant
negative economic consequences for Downtown, and redevelopment industrial land into mixed-use
projects could provide employment opportunities and increase the city’s tax base.
195

Tara Devine, the
former economic development representative for Mayor Jim Hahn believes that the area is no longer
attracting the big industrial businesses it once was, and only small or medium-sized companies are
interested in housing their operations in the Arts District. Linear City, LLC stated in July 2013:
Taking buildings that have lost their viable use and adapting [them] to a new viable use
is the way the city improves. This is not displacement of a 250,000 square foot Ford
manufacturing plant to convert to residential. This is a building that stood half-empty,
underutilized, with dangerous conditions. We made a mixed-use project that created
250 to 1,000 percent more employment than what used to be here.
196

192
The Historic Cultural Neighborhood Council represents the Arts District, Chinatown, El Pueblo, Little Tokyo,
Solano Canyon, and Victor Heights neighborhoods.
193
Kathryn Maese, “Uneasy Revolution in the Industrial District,” Los Angeles Downtown News, August 29, 2005.
194
Industrial Development Policy Initiative for the City of Los Angeles, Key Industrial Land Use Findings and Issues.
195
CB Richard Ellis (CBRE), “Industrial Versus Mixed-Use Zoning Economic Impact and Job Creation,” prepared for
the Central City Association, February 15, 2007,
http://ccala.org/downloads/LegAffrsPublications/Industrial_Zoning_Econ_Report.pdf (accessed January 16, 2014).
196
“Plaintiff Yuval Bar-Zemer Challenged LA City ‘Arts District’ BID, and Judge Ordered Dissolution,” The Planning
Report, July 11, 2013, http://www.planningreport.com/2013/07/11/plaintiff-yuval-bar-zemer-challenged-la-city-
arts-district-bid-and-judge-ordered.
79

There are still warehouse buildings in the Arts District that are being used for industrial use,
particularly in the southern area of the neighborhood. The Sixth and Alameda Food and Produce Center,
built in the 1960s, provides cold storage and wholesale distribution along Sixth Street, directly across the
street from the Factory Place Arts Complex, and the Showa Cold Storage building (built in the early
1980s) runs along Industrial Street, just west of the Biscuit and Toy Factory Lofts. There are still a
number of warehouses along Alameda and near Santa Fe and Jesse Street. The presence of semi trucks
navigating the increasingly busy streets in the Arts District is common (Figure 4.4). Most of the
warehouses are dedicated to cold storage for produce.
Although there are arguments that the area should remain a center for traditional
manufacturing, there are people and businesses in the Arts District who are “manufacturing” on an
entirely different level from what was done in the past. The transition from industrial to creativity and
technology has shifted the identity of the neighborhood from one that is based on manufacturing and
distribution, to a one that is based on the creative industry. The Department of City Planning identified
this as a “new economy” of industrial jobs that are replacing “smokestack” industries with more light
manufacturing, apparel, biomedical, logistics, and creative industries.
197

197
City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, “Los Angeles’ Industrial Land: Sustaining a Dynamic City
Economy,” December 2007.
Figure 4.4: Trucks navigating Mateo Street, 2013. Photo by author.
80

4.7 Issues Relating to Historic Preservation

As the Arts District was isolated from urban renewal in the 1960s and redevelopment in the
1990s, many of the area’s older buildings and original street pattern have been preserved. The
preservation of this neighborhood was in many ways, accidental, because it was considered insignificant
for so long. While developers in the Historic Core, such as Ira Yellin and Tom Gilmore, saw the potential
in preserving older buildings not only for their inherent beauty, but also as a revitalization strategy, the
preservation in the Arts District has been unique. It was saved only because it was considered too
industrial to be included in the original ARO, and a misperceived notion that industrial uses there were
viable. Only recently have local preservation advocates been concerned with the neighborhood and the
preservation of its buildings. Although the Arts District contains some of the oldest brick buildings in the
city, and has a fascinating history identifying with viticulture, agriculture, transportation, and a vibrant
underground art scene, there are very few historic landmarks in the neighborhood. At this time, the
following buildings have been landmarked as historically significant. The designations are either local
(Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument or locally significant), national (National Register of Historic
Places), or potentially eligible. Building information was obtained through the City of Los Angeles Zone
Information and Map Access System (ZIMAS), The National Register of Historic Places, the Los Angeles
Office of Historic Resources Historic-Cultural Monuments list, and the Downtown Los Angeles
Neighborhood Council Historic Resources Committee, which recognized buildings as potentially eligible
for the National Register or locally historic.
198

Buildings in the Arts District with local or national historic significance are:

• The Citizen’s Warehouse, or “Pickle Works” building at 1001 E. 1
st
Street, built in 1888. In 2005
the building was recognized as a historic resource eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places and as a rare example of a Victorian-era brick industrial building (Figure 4.5).
• Former Brininstool Lubricating Co./Nate Starkman Warehouse, 544 Mateo Street, built 1906,
now used for filming, possibly eligible for National Register.

198
Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council, “Historic Resources – Building List,”
http://dlanc.com/planning/projects/historic-resources-survey/historic-resources-building-list/ (accessed January 5,
2014).
81

• Santa Fe Inbound Freight House, now SCI-Arc, 970 E. Third Street (355 S. Santa Fe), built 1907,
National Register of Historic Places, Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument #795.
• Former R.L. Craig Co. Wholesale Grocery, 215 S. Santa Fe, now Toy Warehouse Lofts, built 1907,
Morgan & Walls Architects, (California Office of Historic Preservation Historical Resources
Inventory, evaluated 1994).
• 7
th
Street Bridge, E. 7
th
Street between Santa Fe Street and Meyers Street, built 1910/addition
1927, Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument #904, California Register eligible.
• Former Poultry Producers , 1738 Industrial Street, built 1923 by A.C. Martin, locally recognized
as significant.
• The Biscuit Company Building, 1850 E. Industrial Street, built 1924, Los Angeles Historic-Cultural
Monument #888, possibly eligible for National Register.
• Merchants National Bank, 2001 E. 7
th
Street, built 1924, possibly eligible for National Register
• 1
st
Street Bridge, E. 1
st
Street between Vignes, built 1929, Los Angeles Historic Cultural
Monument #909, California Register eligible.
• Former Hills Bros Office and Warehouse, 635 Mateo Street, built 1929, possibly eligible for
National Register.
• 4
th
Street Bridge, E. 4
th
Street between Santa Fe and Mission Road, built 1930, Los Angeles
Historic Cultural Monument #906, California Register eligible.
• 6
th
Street Bridge, E. 6
th
Street between Mateo Street and S. Boyle Avenue, built 1932, Los
Angeles Historic Cultural Monument #905, California Register eligible.
• Former Graybar Electric Co. Warehouse, 201 S. Santa Fe, built 1934, (California Office of Historic
Preservation Historical Resources Inventory, evaluated 1994), determined eligible for the
National Register, Listed in the California Register.

However, other buildings have been identified as potentially having historic significance even
though they are not currently landmarked. They are:

• Italian Vineyard Company “P” Building, 1248 Palmetto, possibly built pre-1900.
• American Hotel (also known historically as the Canadian or Palace Hotel), Al’s Bar, Bloom’s
General Store, 303 S. Hewitt Street, built 1901.
• Former Heinz Ketchup building, 712 S. Santa Fe, built 1911.
82

• District Millworks, 917 E. 3
rd
Street, built 1913.
• Former John A. Roebling’s Sons Co. Wire Works building, now Angel City Brewery, 216 S.
Alameda Street, built 1913.
• Former Ford Motor Company/Imperial Toy/American Apparel building, 2060 E. 7
th
Street, built
1913/1923.
• Stover Seed Co. building (still operating since 1922), 1415 E. 6
th
Street, built 1922.
• Maxwell Coffee Building, 405 Mateo Street, 1924.
• Engine Company No. 17, 710 S. Santa Fe Avenue, built 1928.
• Former LACE Gallery, 1820 Industrial Street, date unknown.

As development in the Arts District is happening quickly, community leaders are grappling with
the economic opportunities that come with revitalization and gentrification, alongside the loss of the
sense of community. As property and land values have soared, some of the older buildings in the
Figure 4.5: Citizen’s Warehouse, “Pickle Works” building. Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles
Public Library, http://jpg1.lapl.org/00110/00110863.jpg (accessed December 2, 2013).
83

neighborhood are threatened with demolition. The following are buildings and businesses in the
neighborhood that are threatened to be demolished or have recently closed:

• The Old Pickle Factory building is currently owned by the city and was used as a construction
staging area during the extension of the Sixth Street Viaduct. The building was built in 1888 for
the California Vinegar & Pickle Company and is one of the last remaining vacant brick buildings
in the area.
199
• In 2009, Bloom’s General Store shut down, after being in operation for fifteen years. The store
was hit with a fifty percent increase in rent.
The Pickle Factory, formerly called the Citizens Warehouse, was the site of the Art
Dock. Artists moved into the building in the 1980s, and from 1990 until the early 2000s, it was
home to a vibrant artist community. Since the city purchased the building, there are looming
threats to demolish it to further facilitate the bridge expansion.
• Businessman Cedd Moses’ new craft brewery and restaurant will take over the Crazy Gideon’s
store (Figure 4.6). The plan has seen much backlash from the community, particularly long-time
residents. Says 35-year resident George Rollins, “We want it to remain the Arts District and not
the bar district.”
200
LARABA, which originally supported the project, reversed its position and
urged the city to deny the permit.
201

199
The building is an important remnant of early Los Angeles. It was originally a pickle and tallow factory, then as a
storage facility for furniture and possessions for people immigrating to Los Angeles, then a soy sauce storage
facility.

200
Ryan Vaillancourt, “A Brewery Battle in the Arts District,” Los Angeles Downtown News, May 6, 2013.
201
The city approved the project, but an appeal is expected from the area’s residents.
Figure 4.6: Crazy Gideon's in the 1990s. Photo from Wikipedia, http://wikimapia.org/1342289/Crazy-
Gideon-s (accessed December 2, 2013).

84

• The famous Al’s Bar, one of the centers of activity in the early Arts District, closed in 2001. The
17,000-square-foot American apartment building (where Al’s Bar was located), is currently used
as SRO-style artist-in-residence housing. The 47-unit building was bought by Mark Verge in early
2013. Verge plans to update the building, but does not intend to redevelop the project
completely. “It's just kind of an old historical building, so I think little by little, I'm just going to
try and make it nicer," Verge said. "The tenants are great. I'm not trying to reinvent the place;
right now I'm just trying to learn it. It's kind of a fun project. I'm not a flipper.”
202
Resident and
business owner Jason Ha worries about what the upgrades could mean for residents of the
building in the long term. “Once they get the upgrades and the leases are up, it’s hard to
imagine there won’t be an increase in rent. There are a lot of artists and residents who have
been here a long time and the American has a history.”
203
• The historic Sixth Street Bridge will be replaced by the new Sixth Street Viaduct Project (Figure
4.7).

202
Cale Ottens and Roger Vincent, “Long-Closed Punk-Rock Bar Still Has a Fan in New Building Owner,” Los Angeles
Times, June 20, 2103.
203
Richard Guzman, “Upgrades for Arts District Projects,” Los Angeles Downtown News, March 19, 2012.
Figure 4.7: Historic Sixth Street Bridge. Photo courtesy of the from Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics19/00009402.jpg (accessed September 4, 2013).

85

Some of these places have been recognized as potentially eligible for the National Register (such
as the Citizen’s Warehouse), but others are locally significant and represent the neighborhood’s
industrial and artistic historic, such as the John Roebling building and Bloom’s General Store. The places
listed above are important remainders of the early artist phase, and their loss is concerning for the
history of the neighborhood. “There were a lot of great places that were part of our life as artists down
here, and they are completely gone. They don’t exist anymore,” says one of the early artist/developers
Stephen Seemayer.
204

In a 2013 interview, Seemayer assessed the change in the neighborhood since he
first arrived:
Well, I don’t mean to be a harbinger of doom and gloom. I am not so sure this is the
same neighborhood that it was 30 years ago. If I were an artist starting out right now,
and I was to come to Downtown, I actually don’t think I would get a studio right in this
district right now…I don’t think I could afford a studio in this district right now...If I were
starting out and I was 21 again…and I came down here, I would head over the bridge
and go over to east LA, and I would go into a neighborhood that still has it, that’s still
tough, that still has problems, that still is not gentrified, and I would pioneer that
neighborhood, because there are warehouses and garages that you can probably get
pretty cheap, but I don’t think I would do it here. I think that’s it’s changed now, it’s not
that it’s bad, it’s just very different....You will have to go to places where it’s still dicey,
it’s still cheap to live, because it’s not a safe environment….We’re sitting in a brewery
right now. It used to be a warehouse.
205

However, some residents do not view the development as negative. Long-time resident Michael
Tansey, one of the original artist/developers, said, “I’m sympathetic with the idea that it ought to stay
that alcove of non-development, but I don’t think it’s doable and I don’t think it’s good for the
neighborhood.”
206
The residents recognize that the area was not going to remain a well-hidden secret
for long: “The good old days of cheap rent are gone,” says artist/developer Jon Peterson.
207

204
Stephen Seemayer, The Changing Downtown Landscape.
Even with
the loss of some of the iconic businesses, many of the current residents and business owners appreciate
205
Stephen Seemayer, The Changing Downtown Landscape.
206
Vaillancourt, Ryan. “A Brewery Battle in the Arts District.”
207
Barbara Thornburg, “You Call This a Loft?” Los Angeles Times, March 12, 2006.
86

the raw, gritty, and industrial nature of the buildings and are keeping the industrial aesthetic intact. For
example, when Church & State Restaurant owner Yassmin Sarmadi adapted the former loading dock on
the ground level of the Biscuit Company Lofts for her restaurant, she opted to keep many of the features
that referenced the original use of the space as a loading dock, such as the sloped brick floor (used for
drainage), the clerestory windows, and the exposed piping and duct systems.
For the Arts District, the repurposing of the buildings has contributed to the preservation of
many of the older industrial structures, and injected much-needed life into east Downtown. However, it
is critical that the Arts District acknowledge, record, and act to preserve its history by identifying which
elements are contributing to the character of the neighborhood. Whether formal historic preservation is
appropriate for the Arts District is debatable. While landmarking can save many of the buildings from
insensitive development, it runs the risk of turning an existing neighborhood into a “precious” or
“packaged" place. A “packaged” environment is one that is not clear about the real history of the
neighborhood. M. Christine Boyer, who has written extensively on the indirect effects of historic
preservation, argues that preservation districts can potentially create a falsely authentic, ‘packaged’
experience, stating, “...the developments are premised design packages that reproduce preexisting
urban forms.”
208
While many of the people moving back into the city are searching for authentic environments
as a consciously chosen lifestyle, the search for authenticity through preservation can problematic,
especially in the Arts District. However, as M. Christine Boyer states, “What the hell is authenticity?”

209

According to sociologist Sharon Zukin, the idea of authenticity can represent “being primal, historically
first or true to a traditional vision,” or “being unique, historically new, innovative, and creative.”
210
Authenticity in the Arts District is not only about preserving only the oldest brick buildings; it is
about acknowledging the various phases and transformations that the neighborhood has gone through
and carefully extrapolating the many layers of its history. Graffiti art, ad-hoc galleries and performance

Authenticity can also be used as an economic and political tool to claim ownership over the look and use
of urban places and a means of displacement, as happened in the Meatpacking District (see following
section).

208
Christine Boyer, "Cities for Sale: Merchandising History at South Street Seaport," In Variations on a Theme Park:
The New American City and the End of Public Space, edited by Michael Sorkin, 181- 205. (New York: Hill and Wang,
1992): 184.
209
James Way, “Packed with Potential. Will the Meatpacking District’s Recently Approved Landmark Status Help –
Or Hinder – Its Architectural Edginess?” The Architects Newspaper, November 10, 2003.
210
Sharon Zukin, Naked City: The Death and Life Of Authentic Urban Places (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)
4.
87

art shows, installations, and experimentation are part of the neighborhood, and traditional preservation
may limit the area’s ability to function as a creative hub if preservation approaches are not customized
to the unique circumstances of the neighborhood. Even the connection to Skid Row should be
considered relevant. The early artist residents were inspired by the derelict environment, which offered
them cheap, flexible workspaces, and an up-close view of the underbelly of the city. The exposure to
suffering, abandonment, and failed urban renewal attempts produced the darker form of Downtown Los
Angeles art, which distinguished it from the landscape paintings of the Plein-Air movement, and the
sunny optimism of the art produced on the Westside. The fact that Skid Row has served as a buffer from
possible urban renewal and redevelopment is highly significant in the Arts District’s history as well.
Preservationists also must be aware that the neighborhood’s character is based on the presence of
street art on the buildings, and the creative approaches to adaptive reuse that have taken place since
the early artist days. These approaches include the original loft modifications made by the artists, and
the more recent rehabilitation projects since the AIR ordinance and the ARO (Figure 4.8).

However, there are multiple approaches to historic preservation. A traditional “restoration”
treatment approach on a building would require that the building be returned to its “period of
significance.” The neighborhood has significant periods relating to viticulture, transportation, industry,
Figure 4.8: Adaptive Reuse of an old brick building incorporating modern features while keeping the character,
2013. Photo by author.
88

and art. Deciding which of these periods is most significant, and which elements are “character defining
features” can be challenging. Defining Traditional landmarking or declaring the neighborhood a historic
district may limit the type of creative expression allowed in the Arts District. The neighborhood needs
visible street art to keep the artist presence alive. If the buildings are restored to their original
appearance, wall murals would be inappropriate and creative approaches to rehabilitation would be
difficult. However, preservation in the neighborhood can be customized to allow for sensitive, reversible
artistic expression on the buildings. For example, when L.A. Freewalls applies a mural to a historic or
potentially historic building, Daniel Lahoda uses removable pasted images (rather than paint) to help
preserve the façade, proving that the neighborhood does not have to sacrifice creative expression in
order to preserve the historic buildings (as seen on the 1913 building where Angel City Brewery is
located).
The emerging creative and technology industries bring a new era to the Arts District, and the
neighborhood will have to find an appropriate way to adapt to this new phase. The low-rise buildings in
the Arts District mean the neighborhood is less dense compared to areas of the city. When housing
stock is low and demand is high, the cost of living will ultimately go up. City organizations,
preservationists, residents, and developers should balance preservation with densification and the
creation of affordable units geared toward artists (this will be discussed later). Adaptive reuse,
restoration, and new construction should be combined in a way that is sensitive to the past but
embracing the future of the neighborhood as one of the creative hubs of the city. One solution may be a
trade between developers and the neighborhood, in which a few high-density projects are built in
exchange for preserving some of the existing buildings in the neighborhood as cheap/flexible space for
artists. The new construction should have an “industrial” aesthetic in order to fit into the neighborhood,
and should reference features in the neighborhood.
Jane Jacobs argued for authenticity as a democratic expression of origins, for a neighborhood’s
right, against the decisions of policy makers, to determine the conditions of its own survival.
211

Preservation can be used as a tool to prevent the loss of the built environment, and can help keep the
history of the neighborhood visible. The most important way that historic preservation can work in the
Arts District is by implementing policy decisions that preserve the neighborhood’s function as a creative
enclave and a place of artistic expression.

211
Sharon Zukin, Naked City, 13.
89

4.8 Case Studies in Gentrification: The Meatpacking District

As the Arts District evolves, there are concerns that it will change so quickly that much of the
history and original character-defining features will be lost. This is a trend that is happening in formerly
industrial neighborhoods throughout the country, most notably Manhattan’s Meatpacking District. By
2013, many had compared the Arts District to Manhattan’s Meatpacking District, an area that serves as
the prime example for how gentrification can make a formerly industrial, gritty neighborhood turn into a
bastion of high-end fashion and high priced real estate that is more known as a tourist destination than
a realistic presentation of Manhattan’s former meatpacking industry.
212
While the Meatpacking District
certainly offers an example that should serve as a cautionary tale for the Arts District community, the
Arts District in a much better position to control and maintain its identity.
213
A 1997 article in New York Magazine declared, “It will take more than economic and political
pressure to wash away the two centuries of blood that meatpackers have spilled on these streets.”
Although the Arts District
and the Meatpacking District are different in many ways, there are some distinct similarities between
the two neighborhoods. Both neighborhoods are revitalized industrial areas in the middle of a large city
that are struggling with maintaining a sense of history, with rising real estate prices and popularity. This
similarity makes the Meatpacking District a good case study for how the Arts District can best manage
change in the rapidly evolving neighborhood.
214
By 2004, it earned the title as the city’s “most fashionable neighborhood.” Following the 2009 opening
of the High Line, the Meatpacking District went from grit to glitz seemingly overnight, with rents
commanding up to $500 per square foot.

215
Within four years, housing prices have shot up to $400,000
for a studio, to over $20 million for a penthouse – up to $1,300 per square foot.
216

212
Adrian Glick Kudler, “Oh God, is the Arts District Going to be the Next Meatpacking?” L.A. Curbed, January 21,
2013 and Whitney Friendlander, “Downtown Los Angeles’ Biscuit Company Lofts Attract A-Listers,” Variety, August
2, 2013, http://variety.com/2013/biz/features/justin-lin-perfect-storm-biscuit-lo.fts-trigger-street-kevin-spacey-
1200569984/.

213
Hannah Fons, “Grit and Glamour,” The Cooperator, July 2001. Historically, New York City’s Meatpacking District
was bustling with meat wholesalers, packers, and cutters up until World War I, when the economy shifted and the
demand for meatpacking businesses shifted. In the early twentieth century, there were nearly 100 meatpacking
businesses in the area, but by the late 1960s, the meatpacking businesses had declined by half. In the early 1990s,
there were roughly 30; by 2004, there were 25; nine in 2010, and there are only five as identified by the
Meatpacking Neighborhood Improvement Association in 2013.
214
Matt Pincus, “Meat the Neighbors,” New York Magazine (March 3, 1997): 30.
215
Adrianne Pasquarelli, “Ugg! Tide of Unstylish Stores Sullies Meatpacking's Status; Trendy Pioneers Who Put Area
On The Map Getting Squeezed Out By Its Mall-ification,” Crain’s New York Business, April 30, 2012.
216
Jake Mooney, “The Corner of High Life and High Line,” The New York Times, October 1, 2010.
90

Back in 2003, New York City preservationists sensed that the old low-rise buildings were
threatened by high-rise development, and the Gansevoort Market Historic District (GVSHP, the official
name of the area) was created to grant landmark protection to about two-thirds of the area, roughly
eleven blocks and 102 buildings.
217
In 2007, the neighborhood was added to the National Register of
Historic Places.
218
Although the name of the neighborhood points back to the early industrial days, there is little
about the Meatpacking District that reveals its gritty history (Figure 4.9).
The landmark status protects only the exterior of the buildings, not their use, so the
meatpacking buildings remain, but the meatpackers are mostly hidden.

While the city has negotiated to keep some of the meat packing businesses in the area, of the
approximately five, all are tucked into discrete industrial buildings under the High Line in the Gansevoort

217
Creating the historic district helped to establish height limits for new development, encourage preservation,
and eliminate “bonuses” for hotel development.
218
The designation allows the New York City Landmarks Commission (LPC) to review changes to the neighborhood.
Now any new construction, demolition, or alterations must be reviewed.
Figure 4.9: Manhattan's Meatpacking District, 1970s. Photo courtesy of Greenwich Village Society for
Historic Preservation, http://www.gvshp.org/_gvshp/preservation/index.htm (accessed September 4,
2013).
91

Market “Co-op.”
219
Many people who live or frequent the neighborhood believe that all the meat
packers are gone.
220
At the surface, the story of the Arts District is similar to the Meatpacking District in several ways.
For example, when New York City rezoned West Chelsea in 2003 to allow for residential use, the
Meatpacking District was left untouched in order to retain its manufacturing zoning, quite like the Arts
District’s original exclusion from the ARO in the early 2000s. Like the Meatpacking District, real estate
values in the Arts District have increased dramatically, and a more affluent population, pricier
restaurants, and boutiques have moved in. There are several major differences between the two
neighborhoods that may save the Arts District from succumbing to a similar fate. Unlike the Arts District,
which spent decades creating a unique residential identity, the Meatpacking District had very little time
to mature; it went from industrial to hyper-luxury in too little time. The transition from bloody meat
markets to the High Line happened so quickly that the neighborhood had very little time to stop and
pause – it became too trendy, too fast. In contrast, the Arts District’s slow development has kept the
character of the neighborhood relatively intact. The artist residents in the Arts District formed a more
powerful and active community which allowed them to collectively organize efforts to preserve their
community. The meatpackers on the other hand, had little power to resist the speed of revitalization.
This is true with many other evolving industrial industries throughout the country. Many of the
professions were becoming obsolete, so there is very little resistance to change. The pioneers into the
Meatpacking District did not follow the more natural progression of gentrification as described by
Campenella; the evolution skipped several steps. The bona fide gentry arrived too quickly, literally
replacing aging meat with Alexander McQueen. The Arts District is evolving in the way Campenella has
predicted, but there are many factors that will stifle its transition into full-blown gentrification. In areas
like the Meatpacking District, high-end, global retailers moved in who had significant power. Of the
businesses in the Arts District, roughly three-quarters of the business owners and operators live directly
in the Arts District, and 79% are self-employed. Half of the businesses are independent entrepreneurs,
and half run small companies with five employees or fewer.
The presence of the meat industry is more symbolic than anything.
221

219
The City offers subsidies for the meat businesses under the High Line. All are in the Gansevoort Market with the
exception of the Weichsel Beef Co.
Michael Sorkin would argue that
obliterating the elements of a thriving urban life, as defined by Jane Jacobs (diversity of uses, the mom-
220
Lauren Croghan, “Meatpacking District's Remaining Nine Businesses Thrive At Gansevoort Market Meat Center,”
New York Daily News, January 24, 2011.
221
Los Angeles Arts District Business Improvement District, “Downtown Los Angeles Arts District Demographic
Study: Characteristics, Behaviors and Perceptions,” Executive Summary. June 2012.
92

and-pop stores, and the mix of rich, poor, and middle class), will destroy a neighborhood. While the
Meatpacking District did little to protect these elements, the Arts District is concerned with keeping
these elements intact, as evident by the continuing neighbor activism by both long-established and new
residents.
Within Manhattan and other denser cities throughout the country, the industrial areas
represent some of last remaining pockets left to develop.
222
The new Sixth Street Viaduct Project or the Los Angeles River Revitalization Project could run the
potential of becoming the next High Line (Figure 4.10). However, the location of the Arts District and the
multi-nodal nature of Los Angeles may limit the accessibility of these projects.
Typically, former industrial areas are much
more open than the densely packed residential areas of older cities. This offers a major contrast to the
Arts District. If people are looking for gritty neighborhoods in Los Angeles, there are plenty of spaces to
still explore, with aging, low-rent buildings, abandoned storefronts and socio-economic diversity. Where
places like the Meatpacking District represent one of the few low-rise, open areas of a dense city, Los
Angeles is a multi-nodal city with many areas that represent the “new frontier.” Because there is always
a “new frontier” in Los Angeles, there is less pressure on the Arts District to develop.

222
Hannah Fons, “Grit and Glamour,” The Cooperator, July 2001.
Figure 4.10: Standard Hotel above High Line in Meatpacking District. Photo from from Flickr,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobistraveling/6886012785/sizes/z/in/photostream/ (accessed
September 4, 2013).

93

Conclusion

5.1 How Isolation Has Saved the Arts District

The Arts District’s association with derelict warehouses and its isolated geography allowed it to
develop relatively unnoticed by the city for decades. This isolation was geographical (Los Angeles River),
through infrastructure and urban planning (the freeways, containment of the river), social (Skid Row),
and economic (concentration of manufacturing facilities). The isolation of the area prevented it from
being razed during urban renewal of the 1960s, redeveloped during the 1990s, and absorbed into other
neighborhoods throughout its history. It was allowed to evolve with smaller-scale, community-based
development through the efforts of the early artist/developers. These incremental – rather than
monumental – changes allowed the neighborhood to adapt while maintaining a genuine connection to
the early history of Los Angeles, and community-driven design decisions, allowing the neighborhood to
develop its own unique aesthetic. The Arts District does not feel like a manufactured environment
detached from history, and is a stark contrast to the large, sweeping redevelopment projects
undertaken in Los Angeles such as L.A. Live, Universal City Walk, and Grand Avenue. According to Los
Angeles architect and SCI-Arc professor Peter Zellner,

A clear distinction to the top-down approach promulgated during the boom years in L.A.
should be made: the current approach should be cumulative, collective, and bottom up.
Redevelopment in L.A. on the micro scale should be experimental, innovative, and
attuned to community involvement and outreach.
223

The Arts District is attracting a group of creative professionals looking for a more authentic
version of Downtown Los Angeles, and the neighborhood is poised to become one of the creative hubs
of the city, and perhaps even the country.

223
Peter Zellner, “Think Small,” The Architect’s Newspaper, February 18, 2013.
http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6503.
94

Ten years ago, no one would believe that such a rapid and sweeping revitalization of Downtown
Los Angeles would be possible, particularly in the former Warehouse District. The area is coming to
terms with this rapid evolution, although there are several pressing issues that need to be addressed.
First, the future development of the neighborhood will see combinations of preservation, adaptive
reuse, and new construction. How to best integrate these varying designs into the fabric of the
neighborhood is critical. Affordable housing for artists is currently a major issue, and while SRO housing,
artist-in-residence hotels, and an allocation of affordable units in new projects work to address this, it is
essential to provide inexpensive studio space to keep many of the artists in the area. Although the term
“artist” has evolved considerably, there are people who contribute to the neighborhood’s character and
community who will have difficulty affording in the market-rate rental units. Once this happens, the
artists will move on and explore the next “frontier” of Los Angeles, and the Arts District may risk losing
its artist population.

5.2 Future Development and Affordable Housing Concerns

Although private residential developers have been involved in the neighborhood since the
1990s, most of the early developers still live in or are highly active in the neighborhood. Even the second
phase of developers, such as Linear City and Creative Space, are highly connected to the community.
Unlike the Meatpacking District – which had very little time to mature and was overtaken by global,
high-end companies and developers – the Arts District has a more community-centered history of
development. This has allowed the community to influence many of the decisions made in the
neighborhood. However, as larger development companies will be active in the area soon, the Arts
District must find an appropriate balance between small, medium, and large-scale development. In the
past, big government intervention and private parties working separately failed at solving inner-city
problems. The blend between public-private partnerships, with early involvement and constant
consultation with community groups is required to make true “urban renaissance” a reality. While the
Arts District has benefitted from community-driven development, its future depends on a combination
of public and private initiatives, which are essential to augment the efforts made earlier on by local
organizations, residents, and businesses (Figure 5.1).
95

Although the Arts District will continue to bring in new businesses and their employees, there
are very few residential units to accommodate people coming to the neighborhood for work. Based on
the 2012 Jones Lang LaSalle report, the residential inventory is 98% occupied and roughly half of those
working in the neighborhood are commuting from other areas in the city, defeating the notion of Jane
Jacobs’ walkability concept.
224
As other neighborhoods of Downtown have experienced transformation –
such as the Historic Core, the Old Bank District, and Little Tokyo – the popularity of these
neighborhoods has made the development and preservation of the Arts District even more pressing.
Particularly Generations X and Y (which just surpassed the Baby Boomers in numbers), are pushing for
urban living where economic diversity, walkability, and proximity to jobs is critical.
225

224
Los Angeles Arts District Business Improvement District, “Downtown Los Angeles Arts District Demographic
Study: Characteristics, Behaviors and Perceptions,” Executive Summary, June 2012; Jones Lang LaSalle, “Arts
District Becomes a Hotbed for Redevelopment,” Study conducted by the Los Angeles Development Corporation,
June 2012. The office vacancy remains below 2% (under the Los Angeles average of 18%); the industrial vacancy
stands at 5% (similar to the 4.7% average in the city).

225
RCLCO Consumer Research. “Impact of Generation Trends: Generation Y." Presented at ULI Southwest Florida,
March 2013. http://www.rclco.com/pub/doc/presentation-2013-03-01
Impact_of_Demographic_Trends_Generation_Y.pdf.
Figure 5.1: Arts District residents planting trees, 2007. Photo from Flickr.
96

There is approximately 7.7 million square feet of vacant commercial space in Downtown, so new
construction or adaptive reuse for office and retail space is unlikely for the time being. Most of the
development in Downtown will be geared toward adding residential units (Figure 5.2).
The rental market continues to be more favorable in the Arts District than for-sale housing. The Barker
Block, which features over 300 units, is one of the only for-sale projects to be developed in the last
several years. Many of the properties were originally designed and built as condominiums before the
2008 recession, and were meant to switch back to condominiums after the economy picked up.
However, many remain apartments. Condominiums remain more expensive to build because of the
following factors: they are typically larger, built to exceed the building code, require a heftier marketing
budget, and require costly insurance. With the median Downtown condominium sale around $400,000,
Figure 5.2: Potential reuse project on Seventh Street and Santa Fe Avenue. Photo by author.
97

“There’s still a ways to go before building condos makes sense,” says developer Bill Witte.
226
The issue of affordability will continue to be one of the most pressing concerns, and it is
essential to keep a mix of affordable housing options available, particularly if keeping artists in the
neighborhood is important. The early artist-turned-developers foresaw this issue back in the early
2000s. Joel Bloom said, “There is a big need for affordable housing. You can't stop non-artists from
moving here, but you have to start finding a way of making things more affordable. Develop market rate
but also space that artists can afford.”
However,
while the neighborhood could benefit from more housing, it is critical to evaluate what type of housing
is appropriate in the Arts District. The large-scale multi-family projects that are being built throughout
Downtown might not be the best solution for the neighborhood. While increasing density could benefit
the neighborhood financially, its outdated street system does not support a heavy increase in traffic.
The character of the neighborhood is also based on the concentration of creative professionals, and new
residential development should be directed at keeping artists in the area.
227
The Arts District served as a creative “incubator” for many
young artists starting their careers who were unable to afford rent in other areas of the city. Providing
incubator areas to support the creative industry is used to spur urban prosperity. Currently, the housing
prices in the Arts District have increased dramatically; prices average $500,000 to $700,000 for a 1,500
square foot loft, up from $500 per month (in rent) in the early 1980s.
228
There are several different types
of affordable housing. Some affordable housing comes in the form of subsidized housing, such as
government-owned public housing, or publicly subsidized, privately owned affordable housing.
However, there are often long waiting lists for these units, and the system often places people in
neighborhoods not of their choice, but as units come available.
229

226
Ryan Vaillancourt, “Amid Apartment Boom, a Shortage of Condos,” Los Angeles Downtown News, April 3, 2013.
This is not always the best way to
build a community, because people are not necessarily choosing to live in the neighborhood and might
not be as invested in contributing to keep its history and character intact. This system does not
automatically benefit artists looking for affordable housing because it is based on a waiting list. Other
methods include rent stabilization, which designates a certain percentage that property owners can
increase rent per year. Under California law and city law, developers are given incentives to offer a
certain percentage of units as affordable. For example, a project may qualify for a density increase if the
227
Kathryn Maese, “Expanding Its Canvas,” Los Angeles Downtown News, February 25, 2002.
228
From Redfin.com search, October 2013. From $400 to $600 per square foot; interview with Stephen Seemayer
September 26, 2013.
229
“Building Healthy Communities 101,” Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department.
http://lahd.lacity.org/lahdinternet/Portals/0/Policy/curriculum/takingaction/findhousing/index.html
98

developer sets aside a certain percentage of low-income units where the rent cannot exceed a
percentage of the area’s median income.
230
In July 2013, Los Angeles’ Department of Cultural Affairs (CAD) received a $75,000 grant from
the National Endowment for the Arts to help offset the loss of artists due to rising rents in the Arts
District. The NEA initiative, called “Our Town,” is aimed at strengthening creative neighborhoods and
destinations. The department will set up the Affordable Artists’ Housing Partnership, a referral service
that will connect artists with subsidized rentals in the area. According to Olga Garay-English, executive
director of the CAD, the program’s goal is to house ninety artists in new private residences in the area,
at one half of the rental price. The federal subsidy is for people who earn about half of the area’s
median income.
SRO-style housing and artist-in-residence hotels are a viable
way to keep many of the low-income residents in the neighborhood. However, the city and community
activists need to be vigilant about keeping affordable units available for artists, in order to preserve the
community’s artistic culture.
231
While some artists can afford to stay in the neighborhood, others are being priced out. Many
are moving to the less expensive Boyle Heights across the Los Angeles River.
Specific programs like this may be the best way to keep the area affordable
specifically for artists. If the community would like to preserve the artistic culture, this is an appropriate
way to do so.
232

5.3 Issues Related to Adaptive Reuse

As new housing is integrated into the neighborhood, future development will be a mix of
adaptive reuse of the existing buildings and new construction, particularly infill housing. There is little
doubt that the ARO was a springboard for adaptive reuse in Downtown, but fourteen years after it was
implemented, there may be signs that the ARO is slowing. Downtown, which is in the early stages of a
second housing boom (following the early 2000s), seems to be turning to new construction instead. A
large percentage of the new residential projects in Downtown are from the ground-up, not
rehabilitations of older buildings. It may simply be too expensive to convert old buildings due to

230
“Affordable Housing Incentive Guidelines,” City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, 2005.
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/Code_Studies/Housing/DRAFTUPDATEDAffordHousingGuide.pdf.
231
This equals about $29,000 per year for individuals and $33,000 per year for a two-person household.
232
Roger Vincent, "Gaining Traction," Los Angeles Times, January 20, 2013.
99

construction costs, which are significantly higher today, and land values have soared by as much as
400% since the early 2000s, while rents have only increased 30%. Many of the buildings that would be
most appropriate for reuse are being held onto by owners who are waiting for the right time to sell or
convert them. The popularity of Downtown has driven up demand for housing, making depressed
property values increase significantly. According to Tom Gilmore, “Buildings that used to go for $3
million or $5 million are now $20 million. It is fundamentally more expensive to do this now.”
233
In 2011,
Gilmore stated the Downtown housing boom was “over…for now.” The market, which was white hot for
some time, has cooled slightly. Gilmore calls the slower development rate “a more realistic diet.”
234
After the initial wave of conversions, there were concerns that many of the older buildings that
had the potential to be adapted have already gone through rehabilitation. However, in an October 2013
report presented at the Transit Oriented Los Angeles conference by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), the
organization said that numerous Downtown adaptive reuse projects are still possible. The report found
that most of the properties that are being demolished in the city are from the 1960s through the 1990s,
which means many of the older brick warehouses are being preserved.

Thus, in order for the program to have success in the future, it may be necessary to revise it. The ARO
works for the conversion to residential units, but not to commercial. Gilmore believes that the
ordinance must be updated to work better for hotels.
235
However, because these older
concrete and masonry buildings are popular for adaptive reuse, their values have soared, as their
numbers have dwindled. The Partnership for Building Reuse, an organization between the National Trust
for Historic Preservation and the ULI, has used Los Angeles as a testing ground to understand demolition
and development trends and to identify key barriers to reuse. The report offers strong recommendation
to promote building reuse in Los Angeles, including modernizing the city’s zoning regulations (including
preventing abuse of the California Environmental Quality Act), streamlining city approval processes, and
promoting the economic, social, and environmental benefits of recycling existing buildings (Figure
5.3).
236

233
Ryan Vaillancourt, “With Adaptive Reuse Options Limited.”

234
The Planning Report, 2009.
235
Eddie Kim, “Adaptive Reuse Isn't Dead, But It Is More Difficult, Study Finds,” Downtown Los Angeles News,
October 11, 2013.
236
National Trust for Historic Preservation, “Building Reuse Key to Meet Housing and Office Demand in LA,” Press
Release, October 11, 2013. http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-
communities/green-lab/partnership-building-reuse/100113_PBR_release_FINAL.pdf. Their 2013 report, Learning
from Los Angeles, recommended the following for policy leaders:
100

Additionally, developer Allen Gross believes that the minimum size requirements of the ARO
should be reduced.
237
The idea of the “micro-unit” is a very topical concern in cities where densification
is the goal.
238

1. Modernize outdated zoning and building regulations to align them with comprehensive plans for re-
urbanization, including the reuse of existing structures, alongside strategic infill construction.
Many young professionals (Gen X and Y) are willing to sacrifice space for a more urban
lifestyle (authenticity, walkability, diversity, and proximity to jobs). Certain organizations in Los Angeles
are analyzing the idea of the micro unit, such as the L.A. Forum for Architecture and Urban Design, who
discussed the idea as applied to Los Angeles in their May 2013 exhibit titled “How Small is Too Small?”
Their argument is that a growing number of urban dwellers are single or two-person households, and
2. Remove regulatory barriers to make building reuse easier, rather than adding layers of review and
process.
3. Create more flexible zoning code definitions of building use to make it easier, faster, and less expensive to
adapt to changing market needs.
4. Integrate building reuse as a goal in other policy initiatives and reforms, such as zoning code updates,
building code reforms, parking policy changes, transit-oriented development guidelines and climate
adaptation plans.
5. Use Downtown as a policy innovator to test new ways to encourage building reuse.
237
Ryan Vaillancourt, “With Adaptive Reuse Options Limited.” The minimal size of units is 450 square feet, with an
overall project average of 750 square feet minimum.
238
Typically sized between 150 and 300 square feet.
Figure 5.3: Available masonry building at Fourth Street and Merrick Street in the Arts District. Photo by author.
101

that the fastest growing jobs in the region are low paying.
239

Artist-in-residence housing, Skid Row
transitional housing, and affordable units could all benefit from the idea of the micro-unit.

5.4 The Changing Aesthetic – New Construction in the Arts District

New construction will increase in the Arts District. Projects such as One Santa Fe and Megatoys
are introducing a new scale and new aesthetic into the neighborhood. The One Santa Fe project,
currently under construction, is a six-story, 500,000-square-foot project located adjacent to the former
train depot occupied by SCI-Arc (Figure 5.4).
240

239
Alissa Walker, “Micro apartments in Los Angeles: 'How Small Is Too Small?’” Los Angeles Times, June 13, 2013.

240
Architect Michael Maltzan designed the $140-million project.
Figure 5.4: One Santa Fe under construction from Third Street and Santa Fe Ave. Photo by author.
102

Upon completion, it will provide 439 rental units, a 5,000-square-foot community arts center, a parking
garage, and 50,000 square feet of retail space.
241
The project is pitting those who wish to preserve the
industrial feel of the neighborhood against the avant-garde design of one of the city’s most prestigious
architects. According to architect Michael Maltzan, the “building’s quarter-mile length echoes the
strong, linear forms of the surrounding regional infrastructure, including the Los Angeles River, nearby
rail lines, and the former freight depot that is now SCI-Arc.”
242
Although some residents protested the design during a Planning Commission meeting, the City
Council elected to approve the project and pass the appropriate zoning changes.
Although the project somewhat mimics
the linearity of the Santa Fe Depot, it is more expressive of the overall regional context rather than the
local neighborhood context, and the aesthetic is very much in line with Maltzan’s signature clean, white
formalism, rather than the gritty, informal nature of the neighborhood. However, the developer of the
project has been proactive about engaging the community, and has expressed a commitment to display
wall art on the project through LA Freewalls.
243
However, Maltzan
was very proactive about approaching the neighborhood through the Los Angeles River Artist and
Business Association (LARABA) to see how his building could best integrate with the neighborhood. A
majority of neighborhood organizations have supported the project, including the Historic Cultural
Neighborhood Council, LARABA, and SCI-Arc, which would benefit immensely from the additional
housing and retail for students. “It’s going to provide a lot of neighborhood amenities that have been
desperately needed for years,” said long-time resident Tim Keating.
244

241
Ari Bloomkatz, “Artist are Sharply.” The MacGregor Company, the developer of One Santa Fe, has offered the
Arts District a 5,000 sq. ft. space Arts District Center for the Arts to Tim Keating’s neighborhood arts organization,
LADADSpace for $1 per year. LADADSpace will build the internal renovations and administer the facility.

The project will set aside twenty
percent of the units as affordable.
242
Michael Maltzan Architecture, “One Santa Fe,” http://www.mmaltzan.com/projects/one-santa-fe/ (accessed
June 3, 2013).
243
Ari Bloomkatz, “Artist are Sharply.”
244
Ari Bloomkatz, “Artist are Sharply.”; Of the students, only 27% live in the Arts District, and their average income
is only $23,000. Providing affordable housing options will allow students to remain close to campus. Provided by
the Los Angeles Arts District Business Improvement District, “Downtown Los Angeles Arts District Demographic
Study: Characteristics, Behaviors and Perceptions,” Executive Summary. June 2012.
103

Figure 5.5: One Santa Fe under construction with SCI-Arc in foreground. Photo by author.

The Megatoys project at 905 E. Second Street has been set back in motion after being shelved
for four years. Charlie Woo, the co-founder and CEO of Megatoys, a toy manufacturing company, is the
founder of the Toy District and a longtime Downtown leader and landowner. He moved his
manufacturing plants to Commerce, which allowed him to develop the site for residential use. The two,
five-story buildings will have 320 condominiums and will demolish two existing warehouses on the site,
which Megatoys has owned for twenty years (Figure 5.6).
Figure 5.6: Former Megatoys building being demolished for new mixed-use project, November 2013. Photo by author.
104

The original design had very little connection to the industrial feel of the neighborhood and was met
with backlash from the community. The developer has revised the design somewhat, and calls it
"contemporary with an industrial edge.” Overall, it is a stark contrast to the neighborhood, has much
less connection to the context of neighborhood, even on a regional level (like One Santa Fe). The project
is currently in demolition phase, and the loss of the buildings is being lamented by the community.
Instead of approaching the project with adaptive reuse in mind, the project is completely demolishing
the potentially historic buildings.
This project, along with One Santa Fe, marks an era of new construction in the Arts District,
which community activist and preservationists need to be engaged in to ensure their appropriateness
with the neighborhood, while understanding that a new form of architectural expression will continue to
develop in the neighborhood. While preservation may best be implemented in situations such as the
Megatoys project, preservationists must approach the neighborhood with a different mindset that has
been used in other areas of the city. Keeping the potentially historic or industrial built environment is
critical, but allowing preservation to be used as a tool to preserve the neighborhood’s character is most
significant.
There continues to be infrastructure improvements in Downtown that will directly serve the Arts
District. One of the most important undertakings is the effort to increase public transportation in
Downtown. The Metro Expo/Blue line will extend the service from the Seventh Street Metro System to
the Little Tokyo/Arts District station, and in 2012, voters approved funding to construct a Downtown
streetcar system. In March 2013, the City Council approved a $30-million to redesign the Sixth Street
Viaduct.
245
The project includes a new 3,500-foot long bridge to replace the current bridge, which was
built in 1932. Although the destruction of the bridge was challenged by historic preservationists, the city
concluded that it is the “most at-risk bridge in the city to collapse during a major earthquake.”
246

245
In conjunction with local firms Michael Maltzan Architecture, AC Martin.

Construction will begin in 2015 and the bridge is expected to be open in 2019. The project will include
recreation spaces and an outdoor plaza to be created on the Arts District side of the bridge (Figure 5.7).
246
Southern California Public Radio, Blog Downtown, “City Awards Design Firm $30 Million Contract for new Sixth
Street Bridge,” Blog entry by Hayley Fox, March 8, 2013.
105

5.5 Development as Creative and Technology Hub

Overall, strong growth is predicted in the creative and technology sectors, and the Arts District is
well on its way to becoming one of the most important areas in Los Angeles for innovative development,
especially among entrepreneurs and start-up companies. “If ever there was an 'innovation district' in
cities, it is this Arts District in Downtown Los Angeles,” says Henry Cisneros, one of the developers of the
Barker Block loft project and former secretary of the federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
247
Product design, industrial design, and digital media are expected to grow 7.5%, with an
annual growth rate of 10.4%.
248
Although technology companies moved in during the 2000s, the area will soon be one of the
most significant technology centers in Los Angeles. The La Kretz Innovation Campus, located at 537
Hewitt Street, will be part of the Cleantech Corridor, a four-mile corridor for green technology that will
Green technology will increase immensely in the neighborhood.

247
James Brasuell, “Barker Block Moving on Arts District’s Only New For-Sale Units,” LA Curbed. April 22, 2013,
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/04/barker_block_moving_on_arts_districts_only_new_forsale_units.php.
248
Jones Lang LaSalle, “Arts District Becomes a Hotbed for Redevelopment,” Study conducted by the Los Angeles
Development Corporation, June 2012.
Figure 5.7: Rendering of future Sixth Street Bridge from Arts District to Boyle Heights. Rendering
courtesy of HNTB, http://rageoneart.com/6thstreetviaduct/120909_Sixth_Street_Boards.pdf
(accessed November 2, 2013).

106

run along both sides of the Los Angeles River, scheduled to open in 2014 (Figures 5.8, 5.9, and 5.10).
249

The city estimates that the Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator (LACI) will create 1,600 direct and indirect
jobs over the next five years and has unofficially renamed the neighborhood the “Arts and Innovation
District,” which predicts that the city is interested in keeping the area zoned for industrial and
manufacturing purposes.
250
According to Fred Walti, executive director of the La Kretz Innovation
Campus, “The LACI will be a game-changer for the Arts District and the Clean Tech Corridor.”
251

The
Campus will serve as a permanent location for the Arts District clean tech industry, which had been
housed temporarily up the street.

249
The Clean Tech Corridor is an area bounded on the north by Union Station, on the south by Washington Street,
on the west by Alameda, and on the east by the Los Angeles River. At the heart of the campus is the Los Angeles
Cleantech Incubator (LACI), an organization that provides funding for green technology, which will be housed in a
new 30,000-square-foot facility. The LACI is a private, non-profit that was founded by the city to accelerate new
research into green technology. In total, the La Kretz campus will include flexible office space, research and design
labs, manufacturing space, and CEO coaching and mentoring. Start-ups will be able to use the facility’s labs and do
work and research in a more communal fashion. The campus will also provide a public park on the corner of Fifth
and Hewitt. The project has significant redevelopment opportunity, and was part of the city’s vision to channel
economic development relative to clean tech into that area.
250
LA Cleantech Incubator, “The City’s Cleantech Business Incubator,” 2012. http://laincubator.org/about/.
251
“L.A.'s Clean Tech Incubator: Anchoring a Greentech Cluster,” The Planning Report. September 15, 2011,
http://www.planningreport.com/2011/09/15/las-clean-tech-incubator-anchoring-greentech-cluster
Figure 5.8: Future location of LACI, across from Barker
Block on Hewitt Street. diagram courtesy of John
Friedmann Alice Kimm Architects, from from LA
Cleantech Incubator, http://laincubator.org/
(accessed December 6, 2013).

Figure 5.9 Rendering of interior of LACI
rendering courtesy of John Friedmann Alice Kimm
Architects, from from LA Cleantech Incubator,
http://laincubator.org/ (accessed December 6, 2013).
107

Figure 5.10: Map of Cleantech Corridor. Map courtesy of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA), from LA Cleantech Incubator, http://laincubator.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/dtwn_CleanTech-
base_ULI_ASept2010.pdf (accessed December 6, 2013).

108

5.6 Dynamic Equilibrium

Today, the Arts District seems to be enjoying a happy medium. A highly creative population is
prospering in an environment of abandoned and graffitied buildings. “There are very rough patches,”
says architect Scott Johnson who lives in a condominium on Industrial Street, adding, “It’s muscular. It’s
complicated. It’s interesting.”
252

For decades, the creative class had been flocking to the Westside, mid-
Wilshire, or Hollywood, and the Arts District’s new status as one of the epicenters of creativity is a
surprise to many. Much of the art produced in Los Angeles draws inspiration from the sun, the beach,
palm trees, the pool culture, Hollywood, luxury, and relaxation (Figure 5.11). The Arts Districts was the
anti-thesis of that vision. Artists in the Arts District were exposed to a controlled natural element (the
Los Angeles River) as opposed to the vastness and inspiration of the Pacific Ocean, commercial and
residential abandonment as opposed to the nodes of suburban luxury developing throughout the city,
and massive human suffering in Skid Row as opposed to the expensive enclaves on the Westside (Figure
5.12).

252
Roger Vincent, “Commercial Real Estate.”
Figure 5.11: Pool culture as represented by David
Hockney, 1967. Source: Flickr.
Figure 5.12 Arts District art in the Art Dock, early
1980s. Photo courtesy of Carlton Davis,
http://artdock.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/In-
the-name-of-God-2_906.jpg (accessed September 2,
2013).
109

People are moving to the Arts District because Los Angeles is a city that thrives on innovation
and creativity, and many of those employed in these industries are looking for an authentic connection
to history. Los Angeles is a city that in many ways masks and remakes it authentic history; it is so heavily
associated with the film industry that it is envisioned as a Hollywood movie set or as one of the sunny
beach communities. However, as the urban core has revitalized, the collective imagery of the city
changed and the Arts District will continue to become the preferred neighborhood for many of the city’s
creative companies.
According to USC professor Robert Harris, in the Arts District, “Creative people are willing to
take some risks. They may not be in the position to live in a more expensive area, but they know the
difference between the mean and the beautiful. It’s wonderfully located and accessible. There’s nothing
but momentum to be seen in the months and years ahead.”
253
The progression in the Arts District does
not mark the end of history or the destruction of culture, but rather, the next chapter of both. The
mixture in the Arts District can be viewed as “dynamic equilibrium,” meaning that the range of diversity
amongst the residents, businesses, and activities can balance, and enhance one another.
254

253
Hua, "Artists' District Poised.”
The vibrancy
of the Arts District is tied to its
contradictions: a gritty
neighborhood in a world-class
city; the presence of graffiti
art on the older industrial
buildings; its acceptance of all
types of artists, from
struggling to successful; and
its celebration of its history in
a Downtown that is striving to
find its place. Preservationists
must be cognizant that
historic districts can create a
controlled environment that
can potentially seem fabricated. The community should strive to promote the real history of the area
254
Richard Campanella, "New Orleans Gentrification and its Discontents," The Louisiana Weekly, March 2013.

Figure 5.13: Layers of history: rail lines, old brick buildings, and graffiti art.
Photo by author.
110

and distinguish what is old from what is new. The area is not designated as a historic neighborhood, so
varying approaches to developing the area will be implemented. These approaches should be embraced
as long as the community, developers, preservationists, and policy makers understand the importance
of the area’s history, in order to manage change in the neighborhood and preserve its unique character.
At present, it is a critical time to engage with the early artists that initially moved into the neighborhood
when it was cheap and dangerous. Collecting and recording their memories of the neighborhood is
necessary in order not to lose this era.

5.7 Recommendations

As discussed in the Historic Preservation section, in order to “best manage” the neighborhood’s
evolution, the city can use development to enhance the neighborhood and actively preserve some of
the character defining features. For example, in order to keep the low density and openness of the
neighborhood, several high-density residential buildings can be built with the requirement that a
number of the existing warehouse buildings are preserved. This “appropriate densification” adds more
residential units to the Arts District (which is essential given the projected growth of the neighborhood
with the launch of the Cleantech Corridor), while keeping the lowbrow, flexible warehouse buildings
available for artists. New buildings should include design features that reference the history and unique
aspects of the neighborhood. Some of the physical “character defining features” of the neighborhood
are:

• Graffiti art and murals
• Rail lines in the streets
• Old brick buildings
• Warehouses
• Open areas reserved for creative expression (such as performance art, installations, and
filming)
• “Ghost signs” from the industrial period
• Creative approaches to adaptive reuse that are unique to the Arts District

111

Preservation does not necessarily always refer to the physical aspects of a place. Policies should be
implemented in order to preserve the area as an artistic and creative enclave, such as keeping the area
zoned as industrial and providing incentives for small-scale manufacturing. Cultural characteristics and
policies that should be preserved are:

• Cheap/flexible warehouse space for artists
• Artist-in-Residence housing
• Industrial zoning
• Strong neighborhood activism and community groups

In addition, the area should maintain its industrial built environment and aesthetic in order to
keep the film industry in the Arts District. Due to its industrial nature and the concentration of old brick
buildings in the area, filmmakers often use the Arts District to portray older cities. Keeping the
industrial, gritty aesthetic intact is necessary in for the neighborhood to remain a popular filming area.
The City of Los Angeles is concerned that filming is moving out of the city at an alarming rate, so keeping
the Arts District as a filming destination should be a priority for the city.
255
Not only does this keep
filming (Los Angeles’ homegrown industry) in the city, it contributes to the city’s tax base. Mayor Hahn’s
2004 report found the motion picture industry in Downtown’s industrial areas to be the largest
contributor of industrial business tax revenue collected.
256

255
Johnson, Ted. “L.A. Mayor Declares State of ‘Emergency’ As Movie, TV Production Flees Hollywood.” Variety.
August 26, 2013.
The Megatoys building (formerly 905 E. 2
nd

Street), recently demolished for a new mixed-use project, is one less industrial building that contributes
to the industrial character of the Arts District. The city should find this loss concerning because the film
industry will move elsewhere if the industrial buildings continue to be demolished. The loss of Megatoys
represents one less movie set, and one less contributing building to the neighborhood’s character.
Preservation and neighborhood groups must encourage the city to see the economic and cultural value
of keeping the built environment intact.
256
Industrial Development Policy Initiative for the City of Los Angeles, Key Industrial Land Use Findings and Issues.
Mayor’s Office of Economic Development, First Quarter, 2004.
http://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/presentations/industrial/LA-Industrial-Report.pdf.
112

Through a combination of preserving the character defining features, neighborhood activism,
and policy tools the Arts District can maintain a strong connection to its past while continuing to evolve
into its next phase.
113

Appendix A
Case Studies: Different Adaptive Reuse Approaches in the Arts District

A.1 Introduction

What attracts people to industrial areas like the Art District? In the beginning, it is purely
economics. The early artists moved in due to the ability to rent large studio spaces for as little as six to
eight cents per square foot. However, as explored in Chapter 4, once the neighborhood continues to
develop, those that can afford to live in other areas of the city have chosen to live in the Arts District for
other reasons, including the search for authenticity and an appreciation for historic buildings and
environments. However, the inherent features of the many of the industrial building support creative
endeavors. The artists were also attracted to the building features that allowed them to use the
abandoned buildings as studios. The large, open floor plans, high ceilings with exposed structure, and
generous light that are essential for manufacturing and industrial processes are also ideal for making art.
Says early artist Qathryn Brehm, "Once you live like this you become so comfortable with it. I compare it
to a goldfish in a bowl. If you give it a bigger bowl, it will grow. Lofts free you spiritually and mentally.”
1

Later, these features would become a desirable aesthetic for artists and non-artists alike, and are
particularly attractive to the creative industry in the neighborhood.

A.2 Case Studies in Adaptive Reuse in the Arts District

This appendix presents four projects that each represents an important adaptive reuse
approach in the neighborhood: SCI-Arc, the Toy Warehouse Lofts, the Seventh+Bridge Lofts, and the
Biscuit Company Lofts. Future development will be a combination of restoration, rehabilitation, and new
construction, and these four projects can serve as examples of appropriate responses to addressing the
neighborhood’s character and history. SCI-Arc is a major anchor in the Arts District, and is an example of
how a former industrial building can become a creative incubator and support the school’s activities.

1
Kathryn Maese, “Expanding Its Canvas,” Los Angeles Downtown News, February 25, 2002.
114

When SCI-Arc purchased the building in 2011 (after leasing it for decades), it showed that they have
commitments to remain active stakeholders in the neighborhood and will undoubtedly influence the
aesthetic of the neighborhood in the future.
The Toy Warehouse Lofts represents one of the first projects to be converted to condominiums
following the passage of the ARO. The earlier AIR ordinance did not allow artists to actually purchase
their studio spaces, and this project marked a new era of ownership in the neighborhood. Although the
project experienced construction defects in the beginning, it remains one of the most important projects
in the neighborhood because it launched ownership in the Arts District. It was also watched closely by
many of the developers that later came in.
The Biscuit Company Lofts represents a successful, traditional loft approach to a historic
building. As one of the tallest buildings in the neighborhood at seven stories, it serves as an important
vertical landmark in the neighborhood. The building is listed on the National Register and is a Los
Angeles Historic Cultural Monument, meaning that its conversion and rehabilitation followed
preservation standards with city ownership. This building is most reminiscent of loft projects in older
cities and Downtown’s CBD. The project was one of the earliest conversions during the second phase of
development (following the passage of the ARO), and most closely resembles a traditional adaptive
reuse project, where the building is restored to its former appearance. Although there are some visible
alterations, it is the most stately, well-preserved 1920s building in the neighborhood.
In contrast to the Biscuit Company Lofts, the Seventh+Bridge project (2121 Lofts) represents a
more modern, creative approach to adaptive reuse - one that is distinctly Los Angeles. The building is
not landmarked, which allowed the architects to experiment with keeping many elements of the original
structure, while adapting it to best suit contemporary needs. From the outside, the project retains much
of its industrial feel, and the blending of contemporary elements is sensitive and innovative. This
particular project represents a sensitive and thoughtful conversion in the neighborhood.

115

A.3 SCI-Arc
960 E. 3
rd
Street

SCI -Arc is regarded as one of the most avant-garde, experimental, and forward-thinking
architecture programs in the country. The school was first located in a derelict industrial warehouse
turned LSD-factory in Santa Monica and later in Marina del Rey. In 2000, the school moved into the 1907
Santa Fe Freight Depot building in the Arts District, when the neighborhood was still considered quite
gritty, and embarked on a $6.1-million rehabilitation project.
2
The building is constructed with reinforced concrete, and was the second use of the material in Los
Angeles. In the 1990s, the western depot building was demolished. When SCI-ARC first occupied the
building, it was a stripped down shell. The rehabilitation was lead by architect and SCI-ARC faculty
member Gary Page of GPS Studio, in collaboration with SCI-ARC faculty, alumni, and students. The
building has subsequently undergone a series of upgrades since the school moved in, including the east
façade being changed to plate glass to allow more light into the studio spaces (Figure A.3.2). With SCI-
ARC, the building enhances the creative activities of the architecture students. “We like the unrelenting
and extreme nature of the building,” says Gary Paige. “There are a lot of things that are really a good fit
for us. One is the part of town it’s in. We wanted to be downtown. We really see this as an opportunity
The depot was designed by architect
Harrison Albright as two parallel, 1,250-foot long by 40-foot wide twin structures positioned along Santa
Fe Avenue, adjacent to the Los Angeles River (Figure A.3.1).

2
Christopher Reynolds, “First the Trains, Now the Arts; Museums and Other Cultural Groups are Putting Old Rail
Facilities to Useful Purposes, but the Projects are Fraught with Difficulties,” Los Angeles Times, July 21, 2002.
Figure A.3.1: SCI-Arc (Santa Fe Freight Deopt) looking east. One Santa Fe under construction in background. Photo
by author.
116

to be a catalyst in the city.”
3
The spatial layout of the depot was a perfect match for the experimental
architecture school. “The fact that it’s horizontal is emblematic of an attitude that we have about
organizations – far less hierarchical than most institutions. The building in a certain way is a physical
manifestation of that.”
4
SCI-ARC had leased the building until 2011, when they purchased the depot for $23-million from
property seller Legendary Investors Group. The purchase made the Santa Fe Freight Depot the school’s
first permanent home in its thirty-nine year history. According to SCI-ARC,

For downtown Los Angeles, the sale of the land and the Santa Fe Freight Depot building
to SCI-ARC is a key moment in the economic stability of an underdeveloped area of the
city – the eastern edge of downtown. By owning its campus, SCI-ARC becomes a
permanent player with a significant stake and role in the long-term revitalization of the
area – the third major redevelopment zone in downtown Los Angeles with LA Live and
Grand Avenue.
5
The school believes the purchase of the building is symbolic in many ways. “The scale of the
property, and the purpose of the school, offer an advantage for rethinking a city for the 21
st
-century,
using the best and brightest minds to reinvent economically sound and culturally relevant urban
solutions.”

6

3
Christopher Reynolds, “First the Trains.”
4
Christopher Reynolds, “First the Trains.”
5
“SCI-Arc Buys Its Downtown Los Angeles Campus,” Southern California Institute of Architecture.
http://www.sciarc.edu/news.php?id=1941 (accessed August 7, 2013).
6
“SCI-Arc Buys Its Downtown Los Angeles Campus.”
Figure A.3.2: New plate glass on west elevation. Photo by
author.
117

Overall, the presence of SCI-ARC in the Arts District provides continuity, by acting as an “anchor”
and stakeholder in the area. The school is connected to innovation, and helps attract young professional
and student population to the Arts District. But as the school itself continues to evolve, the building will
also adapt with the changing needs of the program. “You can watch history move right in front of your
face. Once, the Santa Fe [locomotive] was pulling up. And now it’s a school. It gives you a sense of the
continuity of ideas, and the movement of a city over time. And you have to think, ‘Well, if it’s a school
now, what might it be in another 75 years.”
7

A.4 Toy Warehouse Lofts
215 S. Santa Fe

The 1907 Toy Warehouse Building was one of the first rehabilitation projects in the Arts District,
and helped pioneer adaptive reuse in Downtown. It was renovated by Torrance-based Decoma
Properties, LLC into twenty lofts in 1999, becoming one of the first for-sale loft conversion projects in
Los Angeles (Figure A.4.1).

7
Christopher Reynolds, “First the Trains.”
Figure A.4.1: Toy Warehouse Lofts. Photo by author.
118

In 2001, Decoma Properties purchased the brick building for $3.2 million and the project opened
in 2002. The units sold quickly. Textile designer Ann Wallace was the first resident to put down a
deposit. She recalls that many of her neighbors were looking to buy in the area for years, but unless they
were willing to purchase an entire building or warehouse, the option to buy a condominium unit was not
available.
8
Decomo’s Steve Notaro said about the project, “We wanted to provide the area’s artists with
an opportunity to purchase authentic live/work lofts. And create a nice community.”
9
However, because
it was one of the earliest adaptive reuse projects, Notaro admitted the project was quite difficult: “Even
though the city supported our effort and they were very professional, it takes a long time to get things
done here.” Former Linear City principal Paul Solomon watched the development of the project closely.
“The fact that they sold so quickly showed there was a real demand for housing in this area.”
10
However, because it was one of the early adaptive reuse projects, the project experienced
several problems, which resulted in the owners suing for construction defects and lack of
soundproofing.
Linear
City would go on to develop several of the most notable adaptive reuse projects in the Arts District.
11

The early conversion of industrial buildings into “luxury units,” proved to be a task not
to be taken lightly.

A.5 Biscuit Company Lofts
1850 Industrial Street

The Biscuit Company Lofts were developed by Linear City, LLC in 2007, are represents a
traditional lofting of a historic building. The building is reminiscent of an adaptive reuse project found in
older, denser cities or parts of Los Angeles’ historic urban core. The seven story building was built in
1925 and served as the west coast headquarters for the National Biscuit Company (Nabisco) until it was
sold in the 1960s (Figure A.5.1). When owner Linear City purchased the 180,000-square-foot building in
2006, it was only 40% occupied and had a value of $2.4 million. The rehabilitation included restoring
many of the historic elements using the original plans, as well as adding a rooftop pool, underground

8
Allison Milionis, “Toying With an Idea,” Los Angeles Downtown News, May 10, 2004.
9
Allison Milionis, “Toying With an Idea.”
10
Allison Milionis, “Toying With an Idea.”
11
“Developers Agree to Pay Downtown Los Angeles loft owners $1.32 million for building repairs,” PRWeb.com,
May 25, 2004. The developers, including Decoma Structural Industries, Canon Capital and Toy Warehouse Realty
Investors, LLC, ended up paying the property owners $1.32 million in order to improve soundproofing, in a
settlement reach on May 19
th
, 2004. At the trial, the loft owners charged that numerous construction defects
existed in the building, not significantly the lack of soundproofing.
119

parking, and a 12,000-square-foot garden (Figure A.5.2). The project includes 104 live/work lofts ranging
from 62-square-feet to around 3,500-square-feet. The building today has an assessed value of
approximately $74 million.
12
The building is a Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument and is a Mills Act building, and has
been recognized by the Los Angeles conservancy for its sensitive rehabilitation that involved the
restoration of many of the historic features.

12
"Biscuit Company Lofts," Linear City. http://linear-city.com/portfolio/biscuit-company-lofts/ (accessed June 7,
2013).

Figure A.5.1: Nabisco building, 1927. Photo courtesy of
the Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg2.lapl.org/pics24/00046923.jpg (accessed
January 3, 2014).

Figure A.5.2: Rehabilitated Nabisco building in 2012.
Photo by author.
120

A.6 7+Bridge (formerly 2121 Lofts)
2135 Seventh Place

In contrast to the more traditional, New York loft style building like the Biscuit Company Lofts,
the nearby 7+Bridge project serves as a more Los Angeles-based approach to adaptive reuse of an
industrial building. This project is a three-building complex with 54 live/work lofts and 19 townhouses
(Figure A.6.1).
The former industrial site was built in 1927 and contained three separate buildings. One building
housed a rag-sorting business, and another building housed the Heinz ketchup company, where they
conducted ketchup taste tests. In the 1960s, artist Robert Rauschenberg owned the Heinz building. The
Rauschenberg-owned building was turned into rental units in the 1990s. The project was first
rehabilitated by Concerto Development before being bought by Linear City in 2008 and entered a
second phase of rehabilitation. According to Yuval Bar-Zemer, a partner at Linear City, “The idea is to
give it a similar feel like Industrial Street where it’s not just residential, but more of a vibrant urban
area.”
13
When Los Angeles architecture firm Killefer Flammang was hired to complete phase two, they
peeled back the warehouse roofs, and punched through the walls to create a unique and open

13
“2121 Lofts Back From the Dead,” Los Angeles Downtown News, April 22, 2011.
Figure A.6.1: Seventh+Bridge. Photo from Google Maps.
121

community living space.
14

The townhomes are accessed through a central open-air courtyard, which was
created by removing the center of the warehouse roof. The units range in size between 1,700 to 2,500
square feet and have skylights, wood flooring, eighteen to twenty foot high double-truss ceilings,
exposed wood structure, historic steel windows, and open air balconies. The former industrial loading
dock was changed into private patios. Although the design changed the structure by peeling back the
roof, it overall preserves the original architecture. The walls remain unchanged, the brick work remains,
along with the exposed industrial beams, and bow trussed roofs. This project is similar to the Biscuit
Company Lofts in that is preserves the historic feel of the building, but is a 2-story courtyard project that
emphasizes the indoor-outdoor living style of Los Angeles.

14
Killefer Flammang Architects, “2121 Artists’ Lofts and Townhomes,” http://kfa.farmsd.com/projects/adaptive-
reuse/2121-artists-lofts-townhomes/.

122

Appendix B
List of Acronyms

ADBID: Arts District Business Improvement District
AIR: Artist-In-Residence
ARO: Adaptive Reuse Ordinance:
BID: Business Improvement District
CCA: Central City Association
CCEA: Central City East Association
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act
CBD: Central Business District
CHBC: California Historic Building Code. This code was enacted in 2010, and provides regulations for
rehabilitation, preservation, restoration, and relocation. The code attempts for preserve historic
significance while providing reasonable safety. While new codes are more prescriptive in nature, the
CHBC is more performance-based. The code applies to qualified historic buildings or property.
CHC: Cultural Heritage Commission
CRA: Community Redevelopment Agency
DCBID: Downtown Central Business Improvement District
HPOZ: Historic Preservation Overlay Zone
HUD: Housing and Urban Development
LACI: Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator
LARABA: The Los Angeles River Artists and Business Association
LAC: Los Angeles Conservancy
Mills Act: In 1976, the Mills Act was introduced by Senator James Mills. The act is considered one of the
leading financial incentives in California preservation. The Act was adopted by the City of Los Angeles in
1996.
NIMBY: Not in My backyard
SCI-Arc: Southern California Institute of Architecture
123

SHBC: State Historical Building Code
RTD: Regional Transportation District

124

Los Angeles Preservation Policy Overview

In 1962, Los Angeles established the Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Ordinance. The National
Historic Preservation Act was established in 1966. In the act, Section 106 requires that all federally-
funded projects be reviewed for historic significance. In preservation, there are different levels of
importance. The most important is a National Historic Landmark, followed by the National Register of
Historic Places, and National Historic District. At the local level in Los Angeles, there are Historic-Cultural
Monuments, and Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZ). For example, the Hollyhock House and
Griffith Park are local landmarks, as well as the Biscuit Company Lofts in the Arts District. The California
Historic Building Code (CHBC) was introduced in 1976 as an appendix to the regular building code. The
CHBC is performance (not prescriptive) based. The CHBC applies to qualified historic buildings. However,
if additions are built that are separate from the historic building, then the addition must comply with the
regular code. Using the CHBC along with the regular code allows for reconstruction of building materials
that are not approved by the current code, such as adobe, and single-wall construction.
By designated a property as historic, it can delay the demolition of the structure for 360 days,
allowing time to develop preservation solutions. The designation also regulates alterations, meaning
that all building permit activity requires sign-off by the Cultural Heritage staff to ensure work conforms
to preservation standards. However, designation does not guarantee that a building won’t be altered,
moved or demolished. It does not require a building to be restored or maintained in excellent condition,
restrict the use of a property, or force the property to be open to the public. Also, designation does not
make restoration grant funds automatically available. However, if you demolish a building with historic
significance, you cannot build on the site for five years, a policy called the “Scorched Earth Ordinance.”
Once a property is declared a nuisance, even if it is historic, a demolition permit can be issued.
This was the case of Bunker Hill, which had a number of historic buildings that had fallen into disrepair.
Also, some owners persuade structural engineers to certify that a building is not longer safe, and the
state believes the preservation work is not allowable when the building is unsafe to enter. Owners will
do this in order to be approved for a demolition permit. Or, they will neglect a building until it is
considered unsafe or a nuisance. This is known as “demolition by intentional neglect.” This approach
was abandoned in 2003 by the City.
125

Designation also provides financial incentives to encourage owners to be good stewards. For
example, tax credits, conservation easements, and the Mills Act give monetary incentives for owners of
historic properties who maintain their buildings.
• Tax Credits: In order to take advantage of tax credits, the building must be on – or be eligible for
– the Historic Register. Private homes are not eligible (condos do not apply). There are both
federal and local credits to be applied for the rehabilitation of a historic building. At the federal
level, there are the 10% and 20% tax credits. To qualify for the 10% tax credit, the building must
be built before 1936, be income-producing, must be non-historic, and be used for non-
residential purposes. The total of the work must be over $5,000.The 10% tax credit is rarely used
in Los Angeles, where the majority of the buildings were built after 1936.To qualify for the 20%
tax credit, the building must be eligible for the National Register at the federal level, the
rehabilitation work must be certified by the National Park Service as consistent with the historic
character of the property. The building must be depreciable, and be income-producing, and
cannot be a private residence. The total of the work must be over $5,000, and the work must be
completed within five years after the credit is applied. The credit applies to both hard and soft
costs, meaning that construction material costs as well as consultation fees (architects,
consultants) are eligible for the credit. The credit does not apply to new additions, sidewalks,
building acquisition, furnishings, or new construction of lost historic building elements. After
completion of the project, the owner must keep the building for a minimum of five years. If the
building is sold before the five year timeline, then the credit must be repaid.
• Conservation Easement: The conservation easement is the preservation of a building, or building
façade, in exchange for a deduction in taxable income. The easement is a legal agreement
between the owner and a preservation organization, such as the Los Angeles Conservancy (LAC),
in which the owner agrees to maintain the property in accordance to the SOI Standards, in order
to get a one-time charitable tax deduction. The owner gives up certain rights on the property,
such as the ability to alter a historic façade, in order to get the deduction. Known as a “deed of
conservation easement,” the deed is recorded on the title. Because it is on the title, if the owner
sells the property, the deed will carry over to the next owner. The building must be on the
National Register or a contributing building in a historic district. Private residences do qualify.
However, if the building is private, it must be open a certain number of days a year to the public.
126

Bibliography

“2121 Lofts Back From the Dead.” Los Angeles Downtown News, April 22, 2011.

“Adaptive Reuse Program Will Continue to Enliven L.A.’s Urban Core in Absence of Longtime Director.”
The Planning Report. February 2007. http://www.planningreport.com/2007/02/09/adaptive-
reuse-program-will-continue-enliven-las-urban-core-absence-longtime-director (accessed
January 16, 2014).

“Affordable Housing Incentive Guidelines.” City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning. 2005.
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/Code_Studies/Housing/DRAFTUPDATEDAffordHousingGuide.pdf.

Anderton, Frances. "Swank Plans in Skid Row Los Angeles." New York Times, January 25, 2001.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/431659403?accountid=14749.

“The Arts District Demands an Audience.” Real Estate Bisnow - Los Angeles, June 27, 2013.

“Arts District Filming History.” LADADSpace. http://ladadspace.com/art-district-filming-history (accessed
July 8, 2013).

"Arts District History." Welcome to LARABA.
http://www.laraba.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&Itemid=530
(accessed July 8, 2013).

Banham, Reyner. Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1971.

Banks, Melissa Richardson. The A.D. Abbreviated. Podcast audio. Downtown Muse. Accessed July 30,
2013. http://downtownmuse.com/podcasts/.

Berry, Brian. “Islands of Renewal in Seas of Decay.” In The New Urban Reality, edited by Paul Peterson,
69–96. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1985.

"Biscuit Company Lofts." Linear City. http://linear-city.com/portfolio/biscuit-company-lofts/ (accessed
June 7, 2013).

Blasi, Gary. “Policing Our Way Out of Homelessness? The First Year of the Safer Cities Initiative on Skid
Row.” Los Angeles, CA: USC Center for Sustainable Cities. September 24, 2007.

Blasi, Gary and Forrest Stuart. “Has the Safer Cities Initiative in Skid Row Reduced Serious Crime?”
Research Report, School of Law and Department of Sociology, UCLA. 2008.

127

Bloomekatz, Ari. “Artists are Sharply Divided Over Project Near L.A. River; Supporters See a Boon to the
Arts District in the Proposed Complex of Housing, Shops and Gallery Space.” Los Angeles Times,
November 09, 2007.

Bobo, Lawrence D., Melvin L. Oliver, James H. Johnson Jr., and Abel Valenzuela Jr. Prismatic Metropolis:
Inequality in Los Angeles. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2009.

Boddy, Martin. "Designer Neighbourhoods: New-Build Residential Development In Nonmetropolitan UK
Cities—the Case Of Bristol." Environment and Planning A 39, no. 1 (2007): 86-105.

Boehm, Mike. “NEA Grant will help Artists Remain in Gentrifying Downtown L.A.” Los Angeles Times, July
19, 2013.

Booth, William. “Angelenos' New Refrain: 'I Love (Downtown) L.A. 'City's Once-Wasteland Is Hipster
Heaven.” Washington Post. September 30, 2007.

Boyer, Christine. "Cities for Sale: Merchandising History at South Street Seaport." In Variations on a
Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space, edited by Michael Sorkin, 181-
205. New York: Hill and Wang, 1992.

Brasuell, James. “Barker Block Moving on Arts District’s Only New For-Sale Units.” LA Curbed. April 22,
2013.
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/04/barker_block_moving_on_arts_districts_only_new_fors
ale_units.php.

Brehm, Qathryn. "History." Downtown Los Angeles Arts District.
http://www.ladad.com/EarlyHistory.htm (accessed July 1, 2013).

Bruneau, Michel. “Performance of Masonry Structure during the 1994 Northridge (Los Angeles)
Earthquake.” Canada Journal of Civil Engineering, no. 22 (1995): 378-402.

“Building Healthy Communities 101.” Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department.
http://lahd.lacity.org/lahdinternet/Portals/0/Policy/curriculum/takingaction/findhousing/index.
html

Burnham, Linda Frye. “The Young Turks: The Real Story.” Linda Frye Burnham (blog), July 27, 2013.
http://lindaburnham.com/2011/09/young-turks-the-real-story/

Campanella, Richard. "New Orleans Gentrification and its Discontents." The Louisiana Weekly, March,
2013.

CB Richard Ellis (CBRE). “Industrial Versus Mixed-Use Zoning Economic Impact and Job Creation.”
Prepared for the Central City Association. February 15, 2007.
http://ccala.org/downloads/LegAffrsPublications/Industrial_Zoning_Econ_Report.pdf (accessed
January 16, 2014).

The Center for Urban Research and Learning (CURl). "Neighborhood Change: Gentrification." Loyola
University, Chicago, 2002.
128

Cilento, Karen. “837 Washington Street Approved / Morris Adjmi Architects.” ArchDaily. August, 2011.
http://www.archdaily.com/158606/.

City of Los Angeles. “Adaptive Reuse Program.” Second Edition. February, 2006.
http://www.downtownla.com/pdfs/econ_residential/Adaptive-Reuse-Book-LA.pdf (accessed
September 21, 2013).

City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning. “Los Angeles’ Industrial Land: Sustaining a Dynamic City
Economy.” Prepared by the Department of City Planning and the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Los Angeles. December 2007.
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/Code_Studies/LanduseProj/Industrial_Files/Attachment%20B.pdf.

City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning. Los Angeles City Planning Department
Recommendation Report – Case No. CPC-2008-3417-GPA.
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/StaffRpt/InitialRpts/CPC-2008-3417.pdf (accessed October 6,
2013).

City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning. Zone Information and Map Access System (ZIMAS).
http://zimas.lacity.org/.

Cleeland, Nancy. “Low Pay, High Rent, Wit’s End.” Los Angeles Times, October 24, 2006.

Coates, Chris. “Lofty Aims on Sixth Street.” Los Angeles Downtown News, June 27, 2005.

Coates, Chris. “The New Industrial Revolution.” Los Angeles Downtown News, December 13, 2004.

Coates, Chris. “Rethinking the SRO Hotel.” Los Angeles Downtown News, March 14, 2005.

Cohen, Edie. "Up with Downtown." Interior Design 75, no. 2 (02, 2004): 120-121.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/234952910?accountid=14749.

Collin, Chris. "36 Hours in Downtown Los Angeles." The New York Times, February 17, 2011.

County of Los Angeles, Chief Executive Office. “Proposition 218 - Petition To Renew The Arts District
Property and Business Improvement District In The City Of Los Angeles.” January 18, 2011.

Croghan, Lauren. “Meatpacking District's Remaining Nine Businesses Thrive At Gansevoort Market Meat
Center.” New York Daily News. January 24, 2011.http://www.nydailynews.com/new-
york/meatpacking-district-remaining-businesses-thrive-gansevoort-market-meat-center-article-
1.149493#ixzz2hkQfdJMd.

Davis, Carlton. The Art Dockuments: Tales of the Art Dock: The Drive-By Gallery. Los Angeles: 2012.

Davis, Carlton. "Meet Carlton Davis." Bipolar Bare Book. http://www.bipolarbarebook.com/meet-
carlton-davis/ (accessed July 15, 2013).

129

Davis, William Heath and Douglas S. Watson. Seventy-Five years in California; A History of Events and Life
in California… San Francisco: J. Howell, 1929.

Davis, Mike. City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. London: Verso, 1990.

Dear, Michael. “Los Angeles and the Chicago School: Invitation to a Debate.” In The Urban Sociology
Reader, edited by Jan Lin and Christopher Mele, 127-137. London: Routedge, 2005.

Deener, Andrew. Venice: A Contested Bohemia in Los Angeles. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2012.

“Developers Agree to Pay Downtown Los Angeles loft owners $1.32 million for building repairs.”
PRWeb.com, May 25, 2004.

Deverell, William Francis. Whitewashed Adobe the Rise of Los Angeles and the Remaking of its Mexican
Past. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.

DeWolfe, Evelyn. “Urban Architects Join Artists in Loft District.” Los Angeles Times, July 24, 1988.

Downtown Center Business Improvement District. Release date October 31, 2013.
http://downtownla.com/pdfs/DowntownLAcom-RFP-2013-10-31.pdf.

“Downtown Los Angeles Housing Information.” DowntownLA.com.
http://www.downtownla.com/pdfs/econ_residential/1Q09HousingBook.pdf (accessed June 17,
2013.)

“Downtown LA Neighborhoods.” ExperienceLA.com.
http://www.experiencela.com/community/page/downtownlaneighborhoods (accessed June 17,
2013.)

Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council. “Historic Resources – Building List.”
http://dlanc.com/planning/projects/historic-resources-survey/historic-resources-building-list/
(accessed January 5, 2014).

Droste, Bernd von and Ulf BertilssonBertilsson. “Authenticity and World Heritage.” From the Nara
Conference on Authenticity. Nara, Japan, 1994.

Duany, Andres. "Three Cheers for Gentrification." The American Enterprise 12, no. 3 (2001): 36·39.

Eshman, Paul. “Pioneers.” The Jewish Journal, August 1, 2012.

Fisherman, Robert. Bourgeois Utopia: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. New York: Basic Books, 1987.

Flores, Abe. “Artbound: Promise, Pitfalls and the Boyle Heights Art District.” Arts For LA. September 24,
2012. http://www.artsforla.org/blogs/artbound-promise-pitfalls-and-boyle-heights-arts-district.

Fons, Hannah. “Grit and Glamour.” The Cooperator. July 2001.

130

Ford, Rebecca Meichi. “Bohemian Paradise Lost.” Master’s Thesis, University of Southern California,
2008.

Friendlander, Whitney. “Downtown Los Angeles’ Biscuit Company Lofts Attract A-Listers.” Variety.
August 2, 2013. http://variety.com/2013/biz/features/justin-lin-perfect-storm-biscuit-lo.fts-
trigger-street-kevin-spacey-1200569984/.

“Gates Orders Homeless to Leave,” Los Angeles Times, May 28, 1987.

Gaughan, Tim. “Where the Valley Met the Vine: The Mexican Period.” Napa Valley Register, June 19,
2009.

Getty Research Institute Digital Collections.
http://search.getty.edu/gateway/search?q=&cat=source&f=%22GRI+Digital+Collections%22&dir
=s&rows=10&srt=a&dsp=0&img=0&pg=1.

Glazer, Andrew. “Los Angeles Bans Demolition of Downtown Flophouses to Slow Gentrification,”
Associated Press, May 11, 2006.

Glionna, John M. “Downtown Arts District Fair Aims to Bring Loft Talent Out into the Open.” Los Angeles
Times, June 22, 1997.

Gluck, Marissa. "Reuse Renaissance: Downtown LA's Retro-Chic Makeovers Show How Retail and
Restaurants Can Transform a Neighborhood." The Architect's Newspaper, April 5, 2012.

Goetz, Edward C. “Land use and Homeless Policy in Los Angeles.” International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 16, (1992): 540-554.

Gould, Jens Erik. “The City of Angels Who Never Sleep: Can Downtown Los Angeles Be Manhattanized?”
Time, July 30, 2011.

Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. “A Decade of Progress on Landmark and Zoning
Protection in the Village, East Village, and NoHo.” The blog of the Greenwich Village Society for
Historic Preservation. October 2013. http://www.gvshp.org/_gvshp/victories/doc/ten-
years.pdf#page=94.

Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. “Press Conference to Stop Upzoning of Chelsea
Market.” The blog of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. September 28,
2012. http://gvshp.org/blog/2012/09/28/press-conference-to-stop-upzoning-of-chelsea-
market/.

Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. Photo collection.
http://www.gvshp.org/_gvshp/resources/index.htm#research.

Grogan, Paul S., and Tony Proscio. Comeback Cities: A Blueprint for Urban Neighborhood Revival.
Boulder: Westview Press, 2000.

131

Guinn, James Miller. A History of California and an Extended History of Los Angeles and Environs: Also
Containing Biographies of Well-known Citizens of the Past and Present, Volume 2. Los Angeles:
Historic Record Company, 1915.

Gumprecht, Blake. The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1999.

Guzman, Richard. “A Halfway Point for Bringing Back Broadway.” Los Angeles Downtown News, February
4, 2013.

Guzman, Richard. “After Eight Years, the Beacon Lofts Finally Shine.” Los Angeles Downtown News, April
22, 2013.

Guzman, Richard. “Arts District Grocery Store Urban Radish to Open This Week.” Los Angeles Downtown
News, July 1, 2013.

Guzman, Richard. “Documentary Focuses on ‘Young Turks’ of Downtown’s 1907s Art Scene.” Los Angeles
Downtown News. February 6, 2013.

Guzman, Richard. “One Santa Fe to Break Ground this Month.” Los Angeles Downtown News. January 9,
2012.

Guzman, Richard. “Upgrades for Arts District Projects.” Los Angeles Downtown News. March 19, 2012.

Hackworth, Jason. "Emergent Urban Forms, Or Emergent Post-Modernisms? A Comparison Of Large U.S.
Metropolitan Areas." Urban Geography 26, no. 6 (2005): 484-519.

Hall, Annette. “The Mayor’s Anti-Graffiti Task Force.” Cooperator. September, 2005.

Harcourt, Bernard E. “Policing L.A.’s Skid Row.” Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper, University
of Chicago, 2005.

Hawthorne, Christopher. “The Loft Re-Imagined.” Los Angeles Times, April 19, 2007.

Haefele, Marc B. “Two Toms.” LA Weekly, September 12, 2001.

Hall, Carla. “Vickman’s Calls It a Day After 74 Years of Serving Breakfast.” Los Angeles Times, June 15,
1993.

Heffler, Robin. "Business, Civic Leaders Trumpet a Revitalized Downtown." USC Price School of Public
Policy, 2013. http://priceschool.usc.edu/business-civic-leaders-trumpet-a-revitalized-
downtown/.

Hollon, W. Eugene. Review of “William Wolfskill, 1798-1866: Frontier Trapper to California Ranchero.”
Review by Iris H. Wilson. The American Historical Review 71, No. 3 (1966): 1066.

Hsu, Jessica. “Gentrification Pushes Artists out of LA’s Arts District.” Planetizan: The Urban Planning,
Design and Development Network. Janurary 23, 2013. http://www.planetizen.com/node/60355.
132

Hua, Vanessa. "Artists' District Poised for Lofty Rebound; Neighborhoods: Attracted by the Energy of
2,500 Loft Dwellers, Businesses Begin to Move into the Once-Fading Area East of Downtown. Art
shows Attract Large Turnouts." Los Angeles Times, February 23, 1998.

Hurst, Larry. Director of Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health. Interview by Mike Fanous.
February 18, 2003.

Industrial Development Policy Initiative for the City of Los Angeles. Key Industrial Land Use Findings and
Issues. Mayor’s Office of Economic Development. First Quarter, 2004.
http://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/presentations/industrial/LA-Industrial-Report.pdf.

Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. The Necessity For Ruins, And Other Topics. Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press, 1980.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death And Life Of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961.

“Jail for the Homeless.” Los Angeles Times, June 1, 1987.

“The January 17, 1994 Northridge, CA Earthquake.” L.A. Fire. March 1994.
http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/1994-
0117_NorthridgeEarthquake/quake/01_EQE_exsummary.htm

Jarvey, Natalie. “True Grit: Tech Firms Connect With Downtown Arts District.” Los Angeles Business
Journal 1, July 2013.

Jerald, Jonathan. “The LA Downtown Arts District: A Home for the Arts and Artists of Downtown Los
Angeles.” LADADSpace.com.

Johnson, Reed. "Downtown Like Never Before.” Los Angeles Times, October 16, 2003.

Johnson, Ted. “L.A. Mayor Declares State of ‘Emergency’ As Movie, TV Production Flees Hollywood.”
Variety. August 26, 2013.

Jones Lang LaSalle. “Arts District Becomes a Hotbed for Redevelopment.” Study conducted by the Los
Angeles Development Corporation, June 2012.

Kahn, Ada P. The Encyclopedia of Work-Related Illnesses, Injuries, and Health Issues. New York, N.Y.:
Facts on File, 2004.

Killefer Flammang Architects. “2121 Artists’ Lofts and Townhomes.”
http://kfa.farmsd.com/projects/adaptive-reuse/2121-artists-lofts-townhomes/.

Kim, Eddie. “Adaptive Reuse Isn't Dead, But It Is More Difficult, Study Finds.” Downtown Los Angeles
News, October 11, 2013.

133

Kindall, Cleve E. “Southern Vineyards: The Economic Significance of the Wine Industry in the
Development of Los Angeles, 1831-1870.” Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly 41,
no. 1 (1959): 29-31.

Kudler, Adrian Glick. “Oh God, is the Arts District Going to be the Next Meatpacking?” L.A. Curbed.
January 21, 2013.

LA Cleantech Incubator. “The City’s Cleantech Business Incubator.” 2012. http://laincubator.org/about/.

LA Forum. “How Small is Too Small and BY-Right/BY-Design.” May 2013 Exhibition and Panel.
http://laforum.org/content/exhibitions/how-small-is-too-small-and-by-rightby-design.

“L.A.'s Clean Tech Incubator: Anchoring a Greentech Cluster.” The Planning Report. September 15, 2011.
http://www.planningreport.com/2011/09/15/las-clean-tech-incubator-anchoring-greentech-
cluster.

La Ganga, Maria. "L.A. Artists Now can Live in Lofts." Los Angeles Times, September 14, 1981.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/152911378?accountid=14749.

LADADSpace.com. “A History.” http://ladadspace.com/about/boardofdirectors/history (accessed July
17, 2013).

Lang, Michael H. Gentrification Amid Urban Decline: Strategies for America's Older Cities. Cambridge,
Mass.: Ballinger Pub. CO., 1982.

Lawson, Craig. “Linear City Bets the Bank on For-Sale Industrial Lofts.” Los Angeles Downtown News,
February 16, 2004.

Lees, Loretta. “Urban Renaissance in an Urban Recession: The End of Gentrification?” Environment and
Planning A 41, no. 7 (2009): 1529–1533.

LeGates, Richard and Chester Hartman. "The Anatomy of Displacement in the US." In Gentrification of
the City, edited by Neil Smith and Peter Williams, 178-200. Boston, MA: Allen and Unwin, 1986

Ley, David. New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City. New York: Oxford University Press,
1996.

The Library of Congress. “Los Angeles Mapped.” http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/lamapped/ (accessed
October 12, 2013).

Liebeck, Judy Gauntt. “The Life of William Wolfskill Part II.” Citrus Roots. April 2011.
http://citrusroots.com/citrograph/March-April-2011.pdf.

Lipton, Lawrence. The Holy Barbarians. New York: Julian Messner, 1959.

Lobbia, J.A. “Warning: Gentrification in Progress.” The Village Voice, July 3, 2001.

134

Los Angeles Arts District Business Improvement District. “Downtown Los Angeles Arts District
Demographic Study: Characteristics, Behaviors and Perceptions.” Executive Summary. June
2012.

Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. “History of Skid Row.” October 22, 2008.
http://www.lachamber.com/clientuploads/LUCH_committee/102208_History_of_Skid_Row.pdf
.

Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. “The Members' Annual Containing Information about the Los
Angeles Chamber of Commerce.” 1921.

Los Angeles City Planning Department Recommendation Report. “Case No. CPC-2008-3417-GPA Plan
Amendment.” November 13, 2008. http://cityplanning.lacity.org/StaffRpt/InitialRpts/CPC-2008-
3417.pdf.

Los Angeles Community Action Network. “Historic Protections for LA’s Housings of Last Resort Will Help
Prevent Gentrification City-Wide.” July/August 2008.

"Los Angeles: History." Cities of the United States. 5th ed. Vol. 2: The West. Detroit: Gale, 2006. 129-
130.

Los Angeles City Planning Department. Department of City Planning Recommendation Report. June 9,
2009.

Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection.
http://photos.lapl.org/carlweb/jsp/photosearch_pageADV.jsp.

Los Angeles Streetcar, Inc.”Voters Approve $62.5 Million in Local Funding for Downtown Los Angeles
Streetcar.” December 3, 2012.

Lovisa Kjerrgren. “Layers of Land: The Palimpsest Concept in Relation to Landscape Architecture.”
Bachelor’s thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (Uppsala), 2011.

Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1960.

Maese, Kathryn. “Expanding Its Canvas.” Los Angeles Downtown News, February 25, 2002.

Maese, Kathryn. “Uneasy Revolution in the Industrial District.” Los Angeles Downtown News, August 29,
2005.

Mandell, Jason. “The Loft Pioneers.” Los Angeles Downtown News, September 30, 2002.

Marquardt, Nadine, Henning Fuller. “Spillover of the Private City: BIDs as a Pivot of Social Control in
Downtown Los Angeles.” European Urban and Regional Studies 19, no. 2 (2012): 153-166.

Marquardt, Nadine, Henning Fuller, Georg Glasza, and Robert Putz. “Shaping the Urban Renaissance:
New-build Luxury Developments in Berlin.” Urban Studies 50, no. 8 (2013): 1540-1556.

135

McDonough, Gary W. and Marina Peterson. Global Downtowns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2011.

McWilliams, Carey. Southern California: An Island on the Land. Santa Barbara: Peregrine Smith, 1973.

Meatpacking District Improvement Association. http://www.meatpacking-district.com/. Accessed
September 17, 2013.

Michael Maltzan Architecture. “One Santa Fe.” http://www.mmaltzan.com/projects/one-santa-fe/
(accessed June 3, 2013).

“Michael Tansey.” Arts District Los Angeles. http://artsdistrictla.org/committee_michael_t.html
(accessed December 17, 2013).

Milionis, Allison. “Toying With an Idea.” Los Angeles Downtown News, May 10, 2004.

Mooney, Jake. “The Corner of High Life and High Line.” The New York Times. October 1, 2010.

Morris, Nathan. “Why Generation Y is Causing the Great Migration of the 21
st
Century.” Placemakers.
April 9, 2012. http://www.placemakers.com/2012/04/09/generation-ys-great-migration/.

Morris, Robert. “Gentrification: Progress? Robert Morris of Uptown Messenger on a Tulane University
discussion about a Changing New Orleans.” Gamit.com. June 10, 2013.
http://www.bestofneworleans.com/gambit/gentrification-progress/Content?oid=2211244.

Morrison, Patt. “Joel Wachs – L.A. Roots But a New Yorker Now.” Los Angeles Times, July 9, 2013.

National Coalition for the Homeless. “Illegal to be Homeless: The Criminalization of Homelessness in the
United States.” Washington DC., 2004.

National Trust for Historic Preservation. “Building Reuse Key to Meet Housing and Office Demand in LA.”
Press Release, October 11, 2013. http://www.preservationnation.org/information-
center/sustainable-communities/green-lab/partnership-building-
reuse/100113_PBR_release_FINAL.pdf.

Nelson, Valerie J. "Obituaries; Joel Bloom, 59; Activist Helped Shape the Arts District in L.A." Los Angeles
Times, July 14, 2007. http://search.proquest.com/docview/422164614?accountid=14749
(accessed November 27, 2013).

Newman, Kathe and EIvin K. Wyly. "Gentrification and the Resistance in New York." National Housing
Institute, no. 142, 2005.

Newman, Kathe and Elvin K. Wyly. "The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to
Displacement in New York City." Urban Studies 43, no. 1 (2006): 23-57.

Newman, Morris. "Melroses of Future: Urban Pioneers Set Up Shop and Spruce Up the Street." Los
Angeles Business Journal 10, no. 19 (1988): 1-6.

136

Office of Education and the Environment. “California Education and the Environment Initiative: Unit
10.3.3: Growth of Population, Cities, and Demands.” California Environmental Protection
Agency. Sacramento: 2010.
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/education/eei/Curriculum/Grade10/1033/1033SE.pdf.

Office of Justice Programs. "Safer Cities Initiative."
http://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=182 (accessed June 20, 2013).

“Older Suburbs in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area: Decline, Revitalization, and Lessons for other
Communities.” Prepared by Strategic Economics for Local Government Commission, Congress
for the New Urbanism. July 2002.
http://www.lgc.org/freepub/docs/community_design/reports/older_suburbs_in_LA.pdf.

Ottens, Cale and Roger Vincent. “Long-Closed Punk-Rock Bar Still Has a Fan in New Building Owner.” Los
Angeles Times, June 20, 2103.

Overend, William. “Behind the Scenes at Bohemia-by-the-Beach.” Los Angeles Times, July 20, 1976.

Parachini, Allan. "Gentrification of Los Angeles: A Return to Urban Living?" Los Angeles
Times, September 14, 1980.

Pasquarelli, Adrianne. “Ugg! Tide Of Unstylish Stores Sullies Meatpacking's Status; Trendy Pioneers Who
Put Area On The Map Getting Squeezed Out By Its Mall-ification.” Crain’s New York Business.
April 30, 2012.

“Peter Zellner Discusses SCI-Arc’s Focus on Sustainability.” The Planning Report. December 19, 2011.
http://www.planningreport.com/2011/12/19/peter-zellner-discusses-sci-arc-s-focus-
sustainability

Peterson, Jon. “The Big Picture: After a Decade of Decline Brought on by the Recession, the Downtown
Artists Development Association Is Working to Revitalize the Once-Thriving Art Scene.” Los
Angeles Times, June 12, 1994.

Pincus, Matt. “Meat the Neighbors.” New York Magazine. March 3, 1997. 26-35.

Pink, Daniel H. A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule The Future. New York: Riverhead
Books, 2006.

"Placerita Canyon SP." California State Parks. http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=622 (accessed August
8, 2013)

Plagens, Peter. “Los Angeles: The Ecology of Evil.” Artforum 11 (1972): 67–76.

“Plaintiff Yuval Bar-Zemer Challenged LA City ‘Arts District’ BID, and Judge Ordered Dissolution.” The
Planning Report. July 11, 2013. http://www.planningreport.com/2013/07/11/plaintiff-yuval-bar-
zemer-challenged-la-city-arts-district-bid-and-judge-ordered

Pool, Bob. "Artists Maintain Lofty Demands." Los Angeles Times, November 9, 1998.
137

Pool, Bob. "Fade to Black; Culture: Melrose Avenue, no Longer Hip?" Los Angeles Times, April 25, 1997.

ICOMOS. “Proceedings of the Inter-American Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and
Management of the Cultural Heritage of the Americas.” San Antonio, Texas, March 1996. Los
Angeles and Washington, D.C.: Getty Conservation Institute and US/ICOMOS, 1999.
http://www.icomos.org/docs/san_antonio.html.
RCLCO Consumer Research. “Impact of Generation Trends: Generation Y.“ Presented at ULI Southwest
Florida, March 2013. http://www.rclco.com/pub/doc/presentation-2013-03-01-
Impact_of_Demographic_Trends_Generation_Y.pdf.
Reese, Ellen, Geoffrey Deverteuil, and Leanne Thach. ‘Weak-Center’ Gentrification and the
Contradictions of Containment: Deconcentrating Poverty in Downtown Los Angeles.”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34 (2010): 310–327.
Rivera, Carla. "Checking in to Life Off the Street; Nonprofit Hotels are a Big Step Off Skid Row for those
Who Qualify, but a Gentrifying Downtown Puts their Future in Doubt." Los Angeles Times,
November 28, 2005.

Rutenberg, Jim. “New Team Takes Aim at Graffiti in the City.” The New York Times. January 14, 2005.

Schaffer, Richard and Neil Smith. "The Gentrification of Harlem?" Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 76, no. 3 (1986): 347-365

“SCI-Arc Buys Its Downtown Los Angeles Campus.” Southern California Institute of Architecture.
http://www.sciarc.edu/news.php?id=1941 (accessed November 7, 2013).

Seemayer, Stephen. The Changing Downtown Landscape. Podcast audio. Young Turks, The Movie. June
14, 2013. Accessed August 23, 2013. http://youngturksthemovie.com/2013/06/14/seemayer-
on-the-changing-downtown-landscape/.
Shaw, Dan. "What a Difference 38 Years Make." The New York Times, October 14, 2007.

Shelter Partnership, Inc., An Assessment of Los Angeles County’s Emergency Shelter System 77, August
2005.

Shepherd, Sue. “Franz Bischoff – Detroit’s Own California Plein Air Artist.” Michigan Bungalow.
http://www.mibungalow.com/bischoff.asp.

Sheppard, Stephen. "Why is Gentrification a Problem?” Center for Creative Community Redevelopment
(C03), 2012.

Slater, Tom. "Gentrification: the Downside of Upscale; The Battle Over Skid Row is Part of a Long War
Between the Poor and Those Who would Displace Them." Los Angeles Times, July 30, 2006.

138

Slater, Tom. “The Eviction of Critical Perspectives from Gentrification Research.” International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 30, no. 4, (2006): 737–57.

Slesin, Suzanne. “Downtown Los Angeles: The New Settlers.” The New York Times, April 12, 1984.

Smith, Neil. "New City, New Frontier: The lower East Side as Wild, Wild West." In Variations on a Theme
Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space, edited by Michael Sorkin, 61-94, New
York: Hill and Wang, 1992.

Soja, Edward W., and Allen J. Scott. “Los Angeles: Capital of the Late Twentieth Century.” Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space 4, (1986): 249-54.

Southern California Public Radio, Blog Downtown. “Arts Guards: Jay Lopez and Edgar Varela Continue
Work in Arts-Centered Neighborhoods.” Blog entry by Ed Fuetes, August 12, 2010.

Southern California Public Radio, Blog Downtown. “City Awards Design Firm $30 Million Contract for
new 6
th
Street Bridge.” Blog entry by Hayley Fox, March 8, 2013.

SRO Housing Corporation. “About the SRO Housing Corporation.” 2011.
http://www.srohousing.org/about

Starr, Kevin and David L. Ulin. Los Angeles: Portrait of a City. Edited by Jim Heimann. Taschen America,
LLC, 2009

Stephens, Craig. "Downtown: Los Angeles' Newest Shining Star." Art Business News, May 2004:
62. Academic OneFile.

Sterngold, James. “New Life for Old Area of L.A.: Downtown Revival in Full Swing.” The San Francisco
Chronicle 27, 2003.

Stewart, J. “Hotel’s Past is Clouding its Future: Some Worry a Plan to turn Bristol from Low-Cost Housing
to Boutique Inn Comes at Expense of the Poor.” Los Angeles Times, June 30, 2004.

Straight, Susan. “Spirits of Guasti.” Boom 2, no. 4 (2012).

Streeter, Kurt. “Ira Yellin, 62; Civic Leader and Longtime Champion of the City's Historic Core.” Los
Angeles Times, September 11, 2002.

Thornburg, Barbara. “You Call This a Loft?” Los Angeles Times, March 12, 2006.

Reese, Ellen, Geoffrey Deverteuil, and Leanne Thach. ‘Weak-Center’ Gentrification and the
Contradictions of Containment: Deconcentrating Poverty in Downtown Los Angeles.”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34 (2010): 310–327.

Reynolds, Christopher. “First the Trains, Now the Arts; Museums and Other Cultural Groups are Putting
Old Rail Facilities to Useful Purposes, but the Projects are Fraught with Difficulties.” Los Angeles
Times, July 21, 2002.

139

Rid The Bid. http://www.ridthebid.com/ (accessed July 2013).

Rivera, Carla. “A Tale of Two Hotels – and the Future of a City.” Los Angeles Times, November 1, 2005.

Robertson, Tatsha. “New York City's Meat District Gets Preserved in Time.” Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News. January 20
,
2004.

Vaillancourt, Ryan. “Amid Apartment Boom, a Shortage of Condos.” Los Angeles Downtown News, April
3, 2013.

Vaillancourt, Ryan. “Anatomy of a Deal Gone Bad.” Los Angeles Downtown News, September 24, 2010.

Vaillancourt, Ryan. “A Brewery Battle in the Arts District.” Los Angeles Downtown News, May 6, 2013.

Vaillancourt, Ryan. “CRA Demise Paints Bleak Future for Affordable Housing.” Los Angeles Downtown
News, January 3, 2012.

Vaillancourt, Ryan. “Envisioning the Industrial Arts District.” Los Angeles Downtown News, May 27, 2010.

Vaillancourt, Ryan. “Major Apartment Complex Planned in Arts District.” Los Angeles Downtown News,
May 10, 2013.

Vaillancourt, Ryan. “With Adaptive Reuse Options Limited, Developers Adapt.” Los Angeles Downtown
News, January 28, 2013.

Vankin, Deborah. “Downtown L.A.’s ‘mural mayor’ Daniel Lahoda Draws Praise, Controversy.” Los
Angeles Times, July 5, 2013.

Vaught, David. "A Tale Of Three Land Grants On The Northern California Borderlands." Agricultural
History 78, no. 2 (2004): 140-154.

Venice Archives. California State University, Long Beach

The Venice Charter: International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and
Sites. Preamble. 1964.

Vincent, Roger. "Commercial Real Estate Quarterly Report; Gaining Traction; Trendy Shops, Eateries and
Offices Transform Downtown L.A.'s Arts District." Los Angeles Times, January 20, 2013.

Vincent, Roger. “A Friend to L.A.'s Best Old Buildings.” Los Angeles Times, August 2, 2009.

Vincent, Roger. "Gaining Traction." Los Angeles Times, January 20, 2013.

Wagley, Catherine. “How the Arts District Got Its Name.” LA Weekly, May 2, 2013.

Walker, Alissa. “Downtown’s Arts District Is One of L.A.’s Hottest Neighborhoods. Thanks [or blame)
Tyler Stonebreaker.” LA Weekly, May 2, 2013.

140

Walker, Alissa. “Micro apartments in Los Angeles: 'How Small Is Too Small?'.” Los Angeles Times, June
13, 2013.

Wan, William and Erin Ailworth. “Flak Over Downtown Security Guards.” Los Angeles Times, June 8,
2004.

Way, James. “Packed with Potential. Will the Meatpacking District’s Recently Approved Landmark Status
Help – or hinder – Its Architectural Edginess?” The Architects Newspaper. November 10, 2003.

Webb, Michael. “Looking and Building in all the Right Places.” The Architect’s Newspaper, June 7, 2006.

Webb, Michael. Venice, CA: Art + Architecture in a Maverick Community. New York: Abrams. 2007.

Westwater, Brady. “Hamid Behdad – Adaptive Reuse Czar and Mr. Downtown to Leave Public Service!”
L.A. Cowboys, December 4, 2006.

Wolch, Jennifer. University of Southern California Geography Professor. Interview by
Mike Fanous. February 11, 2003.

Wyly, Elvin K., and Daniel J. Hammel. Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Urban Policy and the
Resurgence of Gentrification. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers,
the State University of New Jersey, 1999.

Young, Michelle-Lee. Two Trees and Twelve Fruits That Will Change Your Life Forever. Victoria, BC:
Friesen Press. 2013.

Zellner, Peter. “Think Small.” The Architect’s Newspaper. February 18, 2013.
http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6503.
Zukin, Sharon. Naked City: The Death and Life Of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2010.

141

Photographs, Maps, and Diagrams

Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 "Downtown Los Angeles," ZIMAS. http://zimas.lacity.org/. With additonal information by
author.

Figure 1.2 "General Zoning Plan of Downtown Los Angeles," ZIMAS. http://zimas.lacity.org/. With Arts
District boundary by author.

Figure 1.3 "Map of Downtown Los Angeles neighborhoods" from “Downtown LA Neighborhoods,”
ExperienceLA.com, http://www.experiencela.com/community/page/downtownlaneighborhoods
(accessed June 17, 2013.)

Figure 1.4 "Arts District Map," from Googlemaps, with buildings located by author.

Figure 1.5 "Stephen Seemayer filming Young Turks," courtesy of Stephen Seemayer in Richard Guzman's
“Documentary Focuses on ‘Young Turks’ of Downtown’s 1907s Art Scene,” in Los Angeles Downtown
News. February 6, 2013.

Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 "View of orchard and vineyard, east Downtown Los Angeles, 1865," from Los Angeles Public
Library Photo Collection. http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics23/00031390.jpg (accessed August 13, 2013).

Figure 2.2 "Jean-Louis Vignes," from UCLA Charles E. Young Research Library Department of Special
Collections.

Figure 2.3 "Wolfskill Ranch," from University of Southern California Digital Library.
http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll65/id/2560/rec/1 (accessed May 4,
2013).
Figure 2.4"Wolfskill Ranch, between Alameda and San Pedro Streets," Los Angeles Public Library Photo
Collection.
http://photos.lapl.org/carlweb/jsp/FullRecord?databaseID=968&record=30&controlNumber=34895
(accessed July 14, 2013)

Figure 2.5 "Late nineteenth century citrus workers," from LADADSpace.com, "A History,"
http://ladadspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/he8cujkf-copy.jpg (accessed June 14, 2013).

Figure 2.6 "Rail lines at intersection of Alameda and Aliso Streets," from Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics30/00034947.jpg (accessed May 14, 2013).
142

Figure 2.7 "Oil derricks in Los Angeles, circa 1939," from Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg1.lapl.org/00085/00085768.jpg (accessed November 20, 2013).

Figure 2.8 "La Grande Station along Santa Fe Avenue, circa 1911," from Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg2.lapl.org/pics26/00047864.jpg(accessed May 14, 2013).

Figure 2.9 "Bird’s eye view of the Arts District at First Street and Santa Fe, 1909," from The Library of
Congress, “Los Angeles Mapped.” http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/lamapped/ (accessed October 12, 2013).

Figure 2.10 "Los Angeles River flooding, 1930s," from Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg1.lapl.org/00099/00099563.jpg (accessed November 29, 2013).

Figure 2.11 "Los Angeles River, encased in concrete, 1931," from Los Angeles Public
Library,http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics17/00008094.jpg (accessed November 29, 2013).

Figure 2.12 "Congested Los Angeles freeway, 1961," from Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg3.lapl.org/pics04/00021833.jpg (accessed November 29, 2013).

Figure 2.13 "Suburban sprawl, 1954," from Getty Research Institute Digital Collections,
http://search.getty.edu/museum/records/musobject?objectid=136929 (accessed July 17, 2013).

Figure 2.14 "Bunker Hill regarding, 1970," from Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg1.lapl.org/00086/00086780.jpg (accessed September 4, 2013).

Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 "Abandoned warehouse at Mateo and Palmetto Streets," photo by author.

Figure 3.2 "Carlton Davis on the Art Dock, 1980s," courtesy of Carlton Davis,
http://artdock.net/gratitude/ (accessed September 4, 2013).

Figure 3.3 "Citizen’s Warehouse, 1980s," courtesy of Carlton Davis, http://artdock.net/wp-
content/uploads/2010/12/Citizens-Warehouse-2.jpg (accessed September 4, 2013).

Figure 3.4 "Al's Bar in the American Hotel," from Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg3.lapl.org/pics20/00029664.jpg (accessed December 1, 2013).

Figure 3.5 "View of artist loft in Arts District, 1980s," courtesy of Carlton Davis, http://artdock.net/wp-
content/uploads/2010/12/Loft-space-1.jpg (accessed December 1, 2013).

143

Figure 3.6 "Former Challenge Creamery Building, 929 E. Second Street," photo by author.

Figure 3.7 Downtown L.A. Arts Fair exhibit by Gallery by the Water, held near Seventh Street and Santa
Fe Avenue on June 30, 1984," from Los Angeles Public Library, http://jpg3.lapl.org/pics19/00029444.jpg
(accessed December 1, 2013).

Figure 3.8 "A homeless man sleeps on the sidewalk in Skid Row, 1987," from Los Angeles Public Library,
http://photos.lapl.org/carlweb/jsp/FullRecord?databaseID=968&record=2&controlNumber=59251
(accessed December 1, 2013).

Figure 3.9 "SRO housing at the Leo Hotel, 501 S. San Julian Street, 1988," from Los Angeles Public
Library, http://jpg2.lapl.org/pics40/00054937.jpg (accessed September 4, 2013).

Figure 3.10 "Damage from riots, 1992," from Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics47/00043447.jpg (accessed September 4, 2013).

Figure 3.11 "Exterior view of the Cameo Theater, 528 S. Broadway, 1990," from Los Angeles Public
Library, http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics41/00040328.jpg (accessed December 1, 2013).

Figure 3.12 "Adaptive Reuse Ordinance project area, 2005," from the City of Los Angeles. “Adaptive
Reuse Program.” Second Edition. February, 2006.
http://www.downtownla.com/pdfs/econ_residential/Adaptive-Reuse-Book-LA.pdf (accessed September
21, 2013).

Figure 3.13 "SCI-Arc in the former Santa Fe depot building along Santa Fe Avenue," courtesy of
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SciArc_SantaFe.jpg (accessed September 4, 2013).

Figure 3.14 "Arts District community plan expansion to Violet Street, 2008," from the City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning, Los Angeles City Planning Department Recommendation Report – Case No.
CPC-2008-3417-GPA, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/StaffRpt/InitialRpts/CPC-2008-3417.pdf (accessed
October 6, 2013).

Figure 3.15 "Graffiti and graffiti art on the American Hotel building, 303 S. Hewitt Street," photo by
author.

Figure 3.16 "Chipmunk mural on the Urban Radish building, 661 Imperial Street," photo by author.

Figure 3.17 "Daniel Lahoda in front of one of the L.A. Freewalls murals, 2013," photo by Irfan Khan, Los
Angeles Times, in Deborah Vankin's “Downtown L.A.’s ‘mural mayor’ Daniel Lahoda Draws Praise,
144

Controversy,” Los Angeles Times, July 5, 2013.http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/lat-
murals-la0010250973-20130629,0,3241982.photo#axzz2lJQtenNB (accessed July 6, 2013).

Figure 3.18 "Work Space, Painting Studios, Retail for lease in Arts District," photo by author.

Chapter 4
Figure 4.1 "Nokia Theater at L.A. Live," courtesy of Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NokiaTheaterLA-Live02.jpg (accessed September 2, 2013).

Figure 4.2 "General Zoning Plan of Downtown Los Angeles, showing industrial use centered on the Arts
District," ZIMAS. http://zimas.lacity.org/.

Figure 4.3 "Continued industrial use in the Arts District," photo by author.

Figure 4.4 "Trucks navigating Mateo Street," photo by author.

Figure 4.5 "Citizen’s Warehouse “Pickle Works” building," from Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg1.lapl.org/00110/00110863.jpg (accessed December 2, 2013).

Figure 4.6 "Crazy Gideon's in the 1990s," from Wikipedia, http://wikimapia.org/1342289/Crazy-Gideon-s
(accessed December 2, 2013).

Figure 4.7 "Historic Sixth Street Bridge," from Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics19/00009402.jpg (accessed September 4, 2013).

Figure 4.8 "Adaptive Reuse of an old brick building incorporating modern features while keeping the
character, 2013," photo by author.

Figure 4.9 "Manhattan's Meatpacking District, 1970s," courtesy of Greenwich Village Society for Historic
Preservation, http://www.gvshp.org/_gvshp/preservation/index.htm (accessed September 4, 2013).

Figure 4.10 "Standard Hotel above High Line in Meatpacking District," from Flickr,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobistraveling/6886012785/sizes/z/in/photostream/ (accessed
September 4, 2013).

Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 "Arts District residents planting trees, 2007," from Flickr,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bitboy/1460717522/sizes/z/in/photolist-3e5yqS-3e5yvA-3e5yB7-
3e5yEw-3e5yGN-3e5yJG-3e5yKJ-3e5yRC-3e5ySL-3e5yUy-3e5yWL-3e5yZU-3e5z45-3e5z7A-3e5z93-
3e5zaY-3e5zho-3e5zqU-3e5zrL-3e5zuu-3e5zx3-3e5zAs-3e5zJN-3e5zXQ-3e5zZY-3e5A2U-3e5Ajs-3e5An3-
3e5Apw-4qQAGq-4z9pgZ-4zdDHL-4WhPa3-4ZLNUM-51Wbnt-521onU-55Z3ju-5ahULQ-5ahV8d-5dYpmr-
145

5dYq3k-5dYD9B-5dYE64-5e3FJy-5e3G8L-5e3HfW-5e3HEu-5e3JCY-5e3V6U-5e3VX3-5e3X35/ (accessed
December 1, 2013).

Figure 5.2 "Potential reuse project on Seventh Street and Santa Fe Avenue," photo by author.

Figure 5.3 "Available masonry building at Fourth Street and Merrick Street in the Arts District," photo by
author.

Figure 5.4 "One Santa Fe under construction from Third Street and Santa Fe Ave.," photo by author.

Figure 5.5 "One Santa Fe under construction with SCI-Arc in foreground," photo by author.

Figure 5.6 "Former Megatoys building being demolished for new mixed-use project, November 2013,"
photo by author.

Figure 5.7 "Rendering of future Sixth Street Bridge from Arts District to Boyle Heights," courtesy of
HNTB, http://rageoneart.com/6thstreetviaduct/120909_Sixth_Street_Boards.pdf (accessed November
2, 2013).

Figure 5.8 "Future location of LACI, across from Barker Block on Hewitt Street," diagram courtesy of John
Friedmann Alice Kimm Architects, from from LA Cleantech Incubator, http://laincubator.org/ (accessed
December 6, 2013).

Figure 5.9 "Rendering of interior of LACI," rendering courtesy of John Friedmann Alice Kimm Architects,
from from LA Cleantech Incubator, http://laincubator.org/ (accessed December 6, 2013).

Figure 5.10 "Map of Cleantech Corridor," map courtesy of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA), from LA Cleantech Incubator, http://laincubator.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/09/dtwn_CleanTech-base_ULI_ASept2010.pdf (accessed December 6, 2013).

Figure 5.11 "Pool culture as represented by David Hockney, 1967," from Flickr,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28648431@N00/100830944/in/photolist-9UMwy-9Vga9-9Vgaa-c6HQq-
eFJnu-g7Aci-4bYYSP-5zJUw3-5GmBjS-6wnUha-6wKKSV-6wPT3J-6wPVnw-6D9fWr-6RyKwf-6Vvn4c-
71b3NG-7fTeiF-7grAra-7j2zWE-bbMMGk-bbMNbV-bPq4xi-bbMLyt-br2GMp-bso9if-gY6tsT-gY6w18-
dxnoPJ-82F46C-gY6U84-gY6ZQB-gY6Xmi-gY6f6J-gY74zF-gY5ZmL-gY5Pf2-gY5VpN-gY5Tfh-gY5HRY-gY6oz6-
gY5cF6-gY5GSx-gY6Fwn-gY6bxo-gY6DJ4-gY6BjK-gY5ujA-gY6jeT-gY5qu1-gY5nLq (accessed November 2,
2013).

Figure 5.12 "Arts District art in the Art Dock, early 1980s," courtesy of Carlton Davis,
http://artdock.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/In-the-name-of-God-2_906.jpg (accessed September
2, 2013).

Figure 5.13 "Layers of history: rail lines, old brick buildings, and graffiti art," photo by author.

146

Appendix A
Figure A.3.1 "SCI-Arc (Santa Fe Freight Deopt) looking east. One Santa Fe under construction in
background," photo by author.

Figure A.3.2 "New plate glass on west elevation," photo by author.

Figure A.4.1 "Toy Warehouse Lofts," from Google Maps.

Figure A.5.1 "Nabisco building, 1927," from Los Angeles Public Library,
http://jpg2.lapl.org/pics24/00046923.jpg (accessed January 3, 2014).

Figure A.5.2 "Rehabilitated building in 2012," photo by author.

Figure A.6.1 "Seventh+Bridge," from Google Maps.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract “Isolation and Authenticity in Los Angeles’ Arts District” explores the various factors that isolated the Arts District neighborhood from the rest of Downtown and saved it from being demolished during urban renewal and transformed though large‐scale redevelopment. As the neighborhood was considered irrelevant for development, many of the warehouse buildings built in the early twentieth century sat abandoned or underused. In the 1960s, a steady stream of artists began to move into the neighborhood and the Arts District began to evolve from a former industrial center into a creative enclave. Over decades, small‐scale, community‐driven development allowed the Arts District to develop slowly through the participation of active residents who were concerned with preserving the neighborhood’s industrial and artistic character. As late as 2005, the Arts District was excluded from the 1999 Adaptive Reuse Ordinance in order to preserve the neighborhood for industrial use. However, the Arts District was finally recognized as being appropriate for residential development, and the neighborhood has undergone a dramatic transformation since the mid‐2000s. ❧ This thesis explores the various social, cultural, and economic issues that come with the revitalization of the Arts District, including the overall restructuring of Downtown Los Angeles, the positive and negative impacts associated with revitalization, Skid Row’s impact on the Arts District, residential use pushing out industrial use, and issues relating to historic preservation and future development. This thesis looks at the future development of the neighborhood and offers recommendations on how to best manage change as the Arts District continues to evolve.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Greening historic districts with solar roofs: an exploration of Western Heights in Los Angeles

PDF

Seeing beyond the fog: preserving San Francisco's cultural heritage in the Clement Street Corridor

PDF

Managing change on Newbury Street: a case study analysis

PDF

Would community design overlay (CDO) be a tool for revitalizing Los Angeles Chinatown?

PDF

Using the UNESCO Historic Urban Landscape framework: a case study of the Pico-Union neighborhood

PDF

Success stories: an exploration of three nonprofits working in preservation, affordable housing, and community revitalization

PDF

Maintaining historic integrity and solving a rehabilitation dilemma: the history of hollow clay tile and an argument for its preservation

PDF

Legacy business program implementation in American urban immigrant neighborhoods: a case study of Little Tokyo and Chinatown, Los Angeles

PDF

Celebrating conformity: preserving Henry Doelger's midcentury post-war suburb

PDF

"It's important to remember what started it": conserving sites and stories of racial violence in Los Angeles, 1943-1992

PDF

Preserving California City: an exploration into the city plan preservation of a mid-century, master-planned community

PDF

Contemporary vision: photography's influence on perception of places and the past

PDF

Identifying and conserving Pacoima: a heritage conservation study of a minority enclave in the San Fernando Valley

PDF

Preserving street names in Los Angeles, California

PDF

SoCal ski hills: a typological analysis of a cultural landscape

PDF

Heritage conservation in post-redevelopment Los Angeles: evaluating the impact of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) on the historic built environment

PDF

Gaining a foothold: conserving Los Angeles' queer Eden(dale)

PDF

Culture, history, and gentrification: conserving Latino-oriented legacy businesses in San Francisco's rapidly changing Mission District

PDF

Adaptive reuse and boutique hotels: a case study of the Superior Oil Company Building’s conversion to the Standard Downtown LA Hotel

PDF

Saving Old Pasadena: where locals took on City Hall and won

Asset Metadata

Creator Miller, Lindsey Kozelko (author)

Core Title Isolation and authenticity in Los Angeles' Arts District neighborhood

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Heritage Conservation

Degree Program Heritage Conservation

Publication Date 03/12/2014

Defense Date 03/11/2014

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

Tag adaptive reuse,Architecture,Arts District,authenticity,buildings,Community,Development,Downtown,downtown Los Angeles,gentrification,Heritage Conservation,historic,Historic Preservation,Industrial,Los Angeles,OAI-PMH Harvest,Planning,renewal,revitalization,Skid row,urbanism

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sandmeier, Trudi (committee chair), Arnold, John (committee member), Lesak, John (committee member)

Creator Email lindsey5610@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-369303

Unique identifier UC11296478

Identifier etd-MillerLind-2294.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-369303 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MillerLind-2294.pdf

Dmrecord 369303

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Miller, Lindsey Kozelko

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA