One way of maintaining a neighborhood’s character is the creation of historic preservation overlay zones, which restrict exterior changes. In other cases, individual buildings could be designated as landmarks. But each method might pose an imposition on property owners. So the Business Journal asks:

How important is historic preservation?

Wayne A. Smith



Corporate Director of Land Development Services Psomas


From a public policy perspective, historic zones are a good idea. It’s important to preserve those things in our city that have a historic value. If you look at the impact on a project-by-project basis, it can affect the individual. An ordinance of this scope won’t significantly impact growth. It’s not a question of developers getting out of hand. They know how to do what they have to. Most developers object to ordinances that are fuzzy or discretionary. It’s the city’s responsibility to make sure the developers know the rules of the game.

Kaylee Kiecker



Director of Entertainment Sales Shutters on the Beach & Hotel Casa del Mar


Historical preservation zones are definitely needed, especially in a city like Los Angeles where we’re so rich in history and unique architectural design. Preservation adds value to the market, and protects the characteristic charm of our neighborhoods. Our historic areas attract attention from all walks of life, from historians to tourists to production crews. We obviously need to make room for growth and advancement. But too many of our great old buildings are being torn down before their time. Preserving these areas is an excellent way to pay homage to our past, while giving Los Angeles an authentic sense of community.

David J. Klein



Senior Vice President, Left Behind Games Inc.


It’s extremely important that some zones are designated as historical. These historical landmarks are an essential part of American culture and history. If we allowed all buildings and structures that date back to early America to be torn down, all we’d have left are pictures in a book. It’s important to protect these sites and it’s just as important that the buildings are restored so that they don’t look run down. If historical preservation begins to hinder future growth, then the decision of whether or not to tear the building down should be decided by a vote of the town.

John Sabourin



Senior Managing Director Studley


I think the restrictions on historical preservation zones are unnecessary because, like all government restrictions, they tend to ignore market trends. Preserving super low-income buildings that are clearly an eyesore will not help the community and, at some point, they will have to be redeveloped. I’m not advocating tearing down historical buildings, but I would like to see them converted. I’m against restrictions on the use of historic buildings. For example, it just doesn’t make sense to preserve a hotel that makes $17 a night and places an unnecessary burden on its owner unchanged. It could be converted into an office or apartment building that helps the development of the community.

Fadi El-Rabaa



Vice President, of Commercial Banking Group First Banks Inc.


Though I’m not a native of Los Angeles, I see that it has a lot of historical value and should maintain that value. History is important, but we have to do what’s best for the city. If the city sees that we need more space to make it better, then the neighborhood should comply. Of course, the city has to prove that tearing down a historic building will be better for the community.