The proposed changes to the Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Ordinance, covered in the Business Journal article by Howard Fine (“Businesses Fear ‘Landmark’ Decision,” Oct. 19), has generated a lot of discussion – some of it helpful, some of it based on misinformation. Perhaps we can take a moment to consider why we’re talking about it in the first place.
Preservation is an important part of the growth of a city. Historic structures are gems of society, representing various parts of our past. We need to keep these landmarks viable so that we don’t lose the fabric that makes the city so wonderful. The heart of L.A. culture is “new is better,” but we need to remember where we came from. We need to tell our stories in a tangible way, so that our kids can see what is possible when you dream big and contribute to the life of a city. Historic preservation helps us do that.
At the same time, we need to balance historic preservation with the need to accommodate growth and continue to make this a world-class city. Preservation should be a priority, but we also need to streamline the process and make it easier for development. The proposed ordinance revisions look to balance both of these goals, and I think this is a great step in updating a dated ordinance to realize our common objectives.
Historic preservation and building within the context of neighborhoods are what Forest City’s all about. One of our largest development projects to date, Metro 417, transformed downtown L.A.’s Subway Terminal Building – a 500,000-square-foot building from 1925 – into 277 market-rate loft-style apartments. I did not find dealing with the city’s Cultural Heritage Commission to be detrimental to the process at all. It wasn’t a big deal, and it caused no delays. We also benefited from the city’s Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, which streamlined the process of approvals. And with its historic designation, the property was eligible for a significant reduction in property taxes through the Mills Act – the same preservation incentive used by many other developers.
We went even further than local designation and had the building listed in the National Register of Historic Places, making it eligible for historic rehabilitation tax credits. As a result, we recouped 20 percent of the $60 million spent on the building’s restoration and preservation. If it weren’t for the reimbursement, Forest City couldn’t have done this kind of project. And for what it’s worth, at around the same time (2004), we did a new construction project, Met Lofts. The hard costs were roughly the same for both the new construction and the historic rehab.
Update needed
An update to an ordinance created nearly 50 years ago clearly seems to be in order. As a developer, I strongly support procedural changes to the ordinance that would provide earlier notice of landmark nominations, streamline the review process and ensure clarity. We need a clear path of travel, and we need certainty. We need to know what our asset is, whether we have historic features to work with, early on in the process. The proposed ordinance revisions will do exactly that. And they will have absolutely no effect on how the city treats historic interiors. The review process will remain exactly the same as it has been since 1962 – which is, by the way, one of 15 major changes to the proposed ordinance that have been made at the request of the business community.
The ordinance changes will also have absolutely no connection with the citywide survey of historic resources (SurveyLA). No one will have their building designated as historic without them knowing about it, or without their input. In fact, owners will now be notified earlier than they are now so that they can participate more fully in the process.
I think many of us share the desire to put neglected but significant buildings back into service. We want these buildings to be productive, not to languish without people using them. The revisions to the preservation ordinance will help developers know what they’re dealing with and how to deal with it most efficiently. And they will definitely not hinder Forest City’s development of historic buildings in Los Angeles.
Kevin Ratner is president of Forest City Residential West Inc., the West Coast residential unit of the real estate company Forest City Enterprises, based in Cleveland. He is a current member and former board member of the Central City Association and a current board member of the Los Angeles Conservancy.
