A Brief Spatial Biography of Pico-Union By Dore Burry CALIFORNIA

Transcription

A Brief Spatial Biography of Pico-Union
By
Dore Burry
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES
Course: GEOG 432 – Metropolitan Los Angeles
Instructor: Dr. Modarres
Quarter: Spring 2010
Brief Spatial Biography of Pico-Union
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ...........................................................................................................................1
TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................4
LOCATION? LOCATION! BORDERS? .............................................................................5
Community plan ...........................................................................................................5
Byzantine-Latino Quarter ............................................................................................6
Other data fuzziness .....................................................................................................6
SETTLEMENT AND EARLY DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY ............................................7
CURRENT DEMOGRAPHICS ..............................................................................................9
Ethnicity, gender, and age composition.......................................................................10
Housing, education, and language ..............................................................................11
Income ..........................................................................................................................12
PRESERVATION OVERVIEW .............................................................................................12
Historic-Cultural Monument Designations .................................................................13
Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) ..............................................................14
Community Redevelopment Agency efforts..................................................................14
Community Involvement...............................................................................................15
Open Space, Green Space, and Public Art ..................................................................16
MAPPING AND PHOTOGRAPHING THE HCMS ..............................................................16
DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................................................17
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................Attached
TABLES ........................................................................................................................Attached
FIGURES .......................................................................................................................Attached
MAPS
Map 1 –Byzantine-Latino Quarter Map
Map 2 –Pico-Union 1 and 2 Redevelopment Project Area Map (CRA)
Map 3 – Pico-Union Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) Map
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Mapping project of Designated Historic-Cultural Monuments within
Pico-Union
Attachment 2 – Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Historic-Cultural Monument
(HCM) Report, Planning Community: Westlake
Attachment 3 – List of HCM properties in Pico-Union (extracted from Attachment 2)
3
Executive Summary
Overview
A spatial biography (essentially a placed-based descriptive journey of its past through its
present, incorporating the histories of its built form, economy, demography, politics, and other
aspects) while complex to perform, can provide rich and interesting insights of the present and
future of a community. The different components of a spatial biography are not mutually
exclusive, but rather interwoven and interconnected, often with “the economy dependent on
society and the environment while human existence and society depend on, and within the
environment” (Giddings, Hopwood, & O’Brien, 2002, p. 187). By attempting to assemble
spatial biographies at the community level, we can gain a better understanding of the individual
puzzle pieces that comprise the great city of neighborhoods that is Los Angeles. This brief
spatial biography will examine Pico-Union, one of the oldest, most diverse, densely populated,
and economically disadvantaged inner-city communities within the City of Los Angeles.
Information Sources
Many journal articles were reviewed, in an attempt to find a process of assembling an organized
spatial biography and for historical information. Several UCLA studies and papers were
enormously valuable in providing a social historical perspective of Pico-Union, and the
neighboring Byzantine-Latino Corridor. Publications by Los Angeles Conservancy provided
much of the included detail of the historical character of Pico-Union’s built environment,
including descriptions of historically significant Pico-Union structures. Census datasets were
obtained from American Fact Finder for six Pico-Union census tracts. The City of Los Angeles
Planning Department and the Office of Historical Resources provided parcel level information
that was included in the ArcMap created by the researcher. Field work (mostly photographing)
was performed to gain an increased sense of the historical character of Pico-Union’s built
environment.
4
It is certainly no exaggeration to say that all of the current 88 incorporated cities (and
unincorporated areas) that comprise Los Angeles County have undergone enormous change over
the last 150 years. Many Los Angeles communities simply did not exist 150 years ago. The
conversion of the sparsely settled Los Angeles desert landscape to its current form was largely
due to two large development booms, both driven by profit-motivated wealthy development
interests, waves of oil reserve exploitation, transportation infrastructure improvements, real
estate speculation, and manifest destiny. After the two booms (generally in the 1880s and
1920s), older, original settlement areas of Los Angeles did their best to survive the outwards
suburban leap-frogging of new community creation, the waxing and waning of federal
government priority shifts, often schizophrenic immigration policies, and poorly coordinated
local and regional development plans.
More recently (within the last 40 years), many urban areas within Los Angeles County,
have experienced significant urban decay and/or have remained stagnant. Curiously however,
some cities and communities have been able to redefine themselves significantly over relatively
short periods of time; since the 1990s. Glendale, Pasadena, West Hollywood, for example, as
well as the huge expansions of Santa Clarita, Palmdale, and Corona (as well as nearly every city
in the San Gabriel Valley) have redefined themselves and reshaped the urban context of Los
Angeles. Within the City of Los Angeles, the communities of Silver Lake, Los Feliz, Sunset
Junction, Echo Park, Eagle Rock, Miracle Mile, Culver City, Venice Beach, portions of
Hollywood, and especially downtown Los Angeles hardly look and feel like they did a decade or
two ago.
5
Whether “due” for growth spurts, are the result of concerted efforts by constituents, or
politically assisted through targeted programs (such as Community Redevelopment Agency
assistance), spatial biographies of single communities can provide valuable insight into
community changes (or lack thereof). In a larger context, performing spatial biographies are a
crucial exercise in connecting and linking together the history of the “sum of the parts” to better
explain Los Angeles’ existence as a whole.
This paper, albeit through brief summary, attempted to link different aspects of the
history of Pico-Union with its present conditions. The intention was to provide an abbreviated
spatial biography from which understanding issues related Pico-Union’s future may be learned.
Location? Location! Borders?
One of the significant challenges involved in assembling a spatial biography of an area
within Los Angeles is to understand the specific boundaries of the community being explored.
Due to Los Angeles’s sprawling development patterns, it is often difficult to discern where one
community begins and ends. Furthermore, obtaining data and reviewing prior studies of a
specific community, such as Pico-Union, is complicated by differences of perceived borders,
which results in incongruities of place-based history and data.
Community Plan
Much of the City of Los Angeles data for Pico-Union, including key planning
components, are included in the Westlake Community Plan. The community of Westlake is
Pico-Union’s neighbor, a sister community in many senses, north of Olympic Boulevard.
6
However similar, Pico-Union and Westlake are quite different (historically and presently), have
very different challenges to their future, and should have mutually exclusive community plans.
Byzantine-Latino Corridor
Hutchinson (1999) and other studies examine Pico-Union with, or rather within, the
context of the Byzantine-Latino Quarter (BLQ), which begins in the south-western portion of
Pico-Union, and continues westward along Pico Boulevard to Normandie Avenue (and also
includes several blocks north and south of Pico Boulevard (Map 1). The BLQ (a LANI
neighborhood since 1997, formerly known as Pico-Heights), as it crosses Vermont Avenue going
westward, is still very similar demographically to Pico-Union, but the two are very different in
terms of built form. Even the Pico-Union Neighborhood Council, and the relatively new Los
Angeles Times neighborhood mapping project include areas west of Hoover Street (to
Normandie Avenue) as within Pico-Union. Those areas however become what many consider to
be Koreatown, which, perhaps moreso than Pico-Union, has no distinct spatial boundaries.
Other Border Fuzziness
Unfortunately, portions of Pico-Union are also sometimes grouped within the Figueroa
corridor or South Park. Until the recent real estate collapse, Pico-Union seemed helplessly
poised to be merged, absorbed, or even consumed, by the staples center, L.A. Live, Nokia
Center, Convention Center, and other encroaching downtown developments. Hardly needing to
be stated, Pico-Union looks nothing like, and shares virtually nothing in common (besides
location) with their encroaching neighbors across the 110 freeway.
7
For most purposes of this paper, the boundaries of Pico-Union are identical to the
Community Redevelopment Agency’s (CRA) Pico-Union 1 and 2 project areas, which are bound
by Olympic Boulevard on the north, the 10 freeway on the south, the 110 freeway on the east,
and Hoover Street on the west (Map 2).
Settlement and Early Demographic Summary
In a time without freeways and major avenues, Pico-Union “lies within the original
boundary of El Pueblo de Los Angeles, founded in 1781,” and, “by the 1880s, the new railroads
were bringing thousands of new residents each year, from across the nation and around the
world, initiating a pattern of migration and settlement that has shaped Pico-Union throughout its
history” (Los Angeles Conservancy, 2010). Early settlers of Pico-Union were a diverse group of
Europeans, including middle and upper-income “Greeks, Norwegians, Swedes, Welsh, and
Russian Jews” (Loukaitou-Sideris, 2000, p. 17).
Pico-Union was initially developed as an early suburb (1880 to 1900) to the business
activities of downtown Los Angeles, which was essentially 1-mile away to the north and
northeast. As the Los Angeles economy grew and the development boom of the 1880s hit full
stride, the center of Los Angeles grew, and Pico-Union was well on its way of being transformed
into the inner-city residential character that exists today. The new suburbs moved outwards,
including westward along the BLQ, to accommodate a bulging population through inefficient,
space wasting, suburban-like development models. From 1860 through 1920, the Los Angeles
population grew from approximately 11,000 to 1 million (Modarres, 1998, p. 136).
As Los Angeles continued to grow outwards and the suburbs became more
infrastructurally and economically capable, dependency on the downtown area decreased,
8
leading to decay. Within Pico-Union, this period (approximately 1930s-1950s) included the
flight of most of their remaining affluent residents, which were replaced by the working class,
typically immigrants. The 1940s brought large industrial interests to Los Angeles (essentially
south of downtown) and many more recent immigrants that sought work found Pico-Union
convenient due to location, social familiarity, and cheaper cost of living.
Urban renewal and redevelopment of downtown Los Angeles during the 1950s and 1960s
“eliminated much of the low-cost housing serving ethnic communities in the city’s core,” which,
“pushed Asian and Latino communities into neighborhoods immediately surrounding the central
city, including the Pico-Union area” (UCLA, 1998). During this time, “Housing became run
down, as landlords kept subdividing the units and renting them out to accommodate ever-larger
numbers of immigrant families” (Hutchinson & Sideris, 2001, p. 297). This period was
especially difficult as Pico-Union’s infrastructure quickly deteriorated, complicated by its rich
ethnic diversity, a recurring theme through Pico-Union’s history. Hutchinson (1999) explained
that Pico-Union is an example of a diverse inner city, experiencing continual shifts in its very
high population density, which has lead to “Propinquity Without Community,” as “overstressed
infrastructure exacerbates the problems of living in a majority stranger population” (Hutchinson,
1999, p. 1). However, Hutchinson also noted that while many cities have had voids in their
decaying urban cores, Pico-Union didn’t follow that pattern. Pico-Union’s single and multifamily dwellings were often over-crowded (as is still the case presently) with immigrant families
striving to survive, bringing with them “a store of energy, work experience, and the willingness
to bear hardship to create a better life” (Hutchinson, 1999, p. 7).
In 1970, the name Pico-Union was officially adopted by the CRA (named for its central
intersection) and the CRA Pico-Union 1 project area was created. Shortly after, large influxes of
9
Central Americans, especially Salvadorian and Guatemalan immigrants, found residence (and
refuge from civil war) in Pico-Union; a trend that has continued until today, and has expanded to
include many ethnic groups, including Cuban, Korean, a diversity of Mexican backgrounds, and
a variety of immigrants from many Central American countries.
Current (2000) Demographics
Pico-Union’s demographic characteristics, in comparison with the City of Los Angeles as
a whole, and the United States, are markedly different in virtually all basic categories. Summary
information pertaining to Pico-Union’s ethnic composition (Table 1) and income (Table 2), are
provided in-text, Tables 3 and 4 are more comprehensive and are provided in the Tables section
of this paper.
Lastly, as mentioned previously, there are large discrepancies across sources regarding
the statistics of Pico-Union, due to different boundary definitions. The total population (in 2000)
of the six Pico Union census tracts was reported as 17,498, but many sources include areas west
of Hoover Street area as Pico-Union, which increases the population to over 40,000. An
interesting article by well-known writer and scholar, Joel Kotkin, in 1997 even stated that the
Pico-Union’s population was “roughly 120,000” (Kotkin, 1997, p. 1). Kotkin must have been
including all of Westlake, the BLQ, and portions of Koreatown. Admittedly, a small portion of
Westlake and a sliver portion eastwards of the 110 (to Figueroa) are included in the six census
tracts considered for this paper (due to census tract boundaries, Figure 2 in tables section).
10
Ethnicity, Gender, and Age Composition
In 2000, ethnically speaking, Pico-Union was significantly less White and Black then the
City of Los Angeles and the United States, and it had almost double the percentage of Hispanic
or Latino as reported citywide (and over 7 times as reported nationwide) (Table 1). The
reporting for the category of “Some Other Race” within Pico-Union was the majority response
(56.5%) which indicated the enormous diversity of the area (largely from Central American
countries). The Pico-Union reporting for Some Other Race was more than twice the citywide
percentage and over 10 times the nationwide reporting.
Table 1
Ethnicity Comparisons by Category
Category
Pico-Union
Los Angeles
United States
One race
94.0%
94.8%
97.6%
White
29.8%
46.9%
75.1%
Black or African American
3.6%
11.2%
12.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native
1.4%
0.8%
0.9%
Asian
2.8%
10.0%
3.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
Some other race
56.5%
25.7%
5.5%
Two or more races
6.0%
5.2%
2.4%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
90.4%
46.5%
12.5%
Note. Data extracted from 2000 Census (http://factfinder.census.gov).
Not surprising of working class immigrant communities, the percentage of males in PicoUnion was higher than females by 1.6% when compared citywide, and 2.3% nationwide (Table
3). The imbalance towards males is likely caused by gender issues relating to availability and
types of work (often labor) for immigrants. The median age reported in Pico-Union was 27.6
years, 4 years younger than median age citywide, and 7.7 years younger than reported
nationwide.
11
Housing, Education, and Language
In 2000, Pico-Union was overwhelmingly a renter community (reported as 91.7% renteroccupied, Figure 1). Many reasons contribute to the high rate of renters within Pico-Union, but
most simply, the housing stock lends itself, almost perfectly, to renters (high percentage of multifamily housing).
Perhaps not surprising for a community comprised of recent immigrants (but very telltale of the current quality of life and future outlook for many residents of Pico-Union) the
percentage of High School graduates (27.8%) was less than half that of citywide reporting
(66.6%) and almost one third of national reporting (80.4%) (Figure 1). Reporting of those with
Bachelor’s degree or higher was also significantly lower than citywide and nationwide reporting.
The majority (64.1%) of Pico-Union reporting was Foreign born (more than 5 times the
nationwide reporting) and 89% reported speaking a language other than English at home.
Census 2000 Demographic Comparisons
100%
Pico-Union
City of L.A.
U.S.
90%
80%
Percentage
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Renter-occupied
housing units
High school
graduate or higher
Bachelor's degree
or higher
Foreign born
Speak a language
other than English at
home
Families below
poverty level
Census Category
Figure 1. Selected Pico-Union Community Characteristics.
Individuals below
poverty level
12
Income
The Pico-Union median household income ($16,419) reported in 2000, was less than half
of citywide reporting, and less than one-third of the nationwide median household income (Table
2). Perhaps most striking was the Pico-Union reporting of per-capita income ($9,136),
percentages of families below the poverty level (42.3%), and individuals below the poverty level
(43.8%). All three of these categories are significantly lower than reported citywide and
nationwide. This is a complicating disappointment, since the cost of living in Los Angeles is
much higher than most of the country (therefore actual poverty rates for Pico-Union residents,
after adjustments, are much higher).
Table 2
Income Comparisons
General Characteristics
Pico-Union
Los Angeles
United States
Median household income in 1999 (dollars)
$16,419
$36,687
$41,994
Median family income in 1999 (dollars)
$18,032
$39,942
$50,046
$9,136
$20,671
$21,587
Per capita income in 1999 (dollars)
Preservation Overview
For a wide variety of reasons, Pico-Union contains an extraordinary assortment of
architecturally significant structures that remain from, or near, settlement days. This is due to a
variety of factors, including concerted efforts of long-time constituents and through
governmental policies. While there is still much more preservation work to be done, PicoUnion, very fortunately, is very far ahead of the curve as large numbers of historic structures
(typically residential structures) remain.
13
Historic-Cultural Monument Designation
Parcels and properties can be declared Historic-Cultural Monuments (HCMs) by three
levels of government; City, State, and Federal. Each level of government can declare HCM
status independently, while sometimes properties enjoy multiple declarations.
Regarding the City of Los Angeles designation process, the city, in 1962, enacted a
Cultural Heritage Ordinance that protects “resources that have a special aesthetic, architectural,
or engineering interest or value of a historic nature” (City of Los Angeles, 2010a). The Los
Angeles Department of City Planning and the Office of Historical Resources maintain an
inventory of HCM designated properties, as declared by all three levels of government. The
properties are organized by Planning Areas and Community Plans. The Pico-Union HCMs are
included in the Westlake Community Plan (Attachment 2) and 27 properties within Pico-Union
enjoy at least one declaration. Of the 27 properties (Attachment 3), the majority are residential,
built as single-family (but often converted to multi-family), multi-family, or mixed-use
(residential with commercial). Worth noting is that likely upwards of 75 additional properties
that have similar designers, built in the same period, and are very worthy of HCM status are not
listed, due to a variety of factors (process, limitations of HCM status, etc.).
In addition to single property designation, the Federal government has designated and
listed two Pico-Union districts in the National Register of Historical Places; the Alvarado
Terrace Historic District and the Bonnie Brae Historic District.
14
Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ)
The City of Los Angeles, in 1979, adopted the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone
(HPOZ) ordinance to help preserve and protect “neighborhoods with distinct architectural and
cultural resources” (City of Los Angeles, 2010b). As of 2010, 25 communities have been
protected by the ordinance, Pico-Union being the nineteenth approved HPOZ in 2006 (Map 3).
While the reasons for HPOZ protection varies greatly by community, the HPOZ goals for
Pico-Union were essentially to preserve its residential character “of architectural styles including
late 19th century Victorian-era cottages, early 20th century Craftsman and Mission Revival
bungalows and larger homes in Period Revival or Classical styles…designed by known
architects and builders of the period such as Frank Tyler, Hunt and Burns, Stiles O. Clements,
and Elmer Grey” (City of Los Angeles, 2010c). An expansive description of styles and periods
of architecturally significant structures can be found in the Pico-Union Preservation Plan.
Community Redevelopment Agency Efforts
In 1970, the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles had the foresight to
“preserve and expand affordable housing, encourage economic development,” and “improve the
community’s appearance by rehabilitating housing and businesses,” within a newly created PicoUnion 1 Project Area (Map 3). In 1976, the adjacent Pico-Union 2 Project Area was created;
together, the two project areas completely overlay all of Pico-Union. The CRA has helped create
hundreds of low- to moderate-income housing opportunities and was instrumental in the HPOZ
designation process.
The recent Pico Boulevard improvements of sidewalk repair and replacement, street tree
replacement, bus shelter installations, street lighting improvements, trash receptacle installations,
15
and textured decorative crosswalk patterns (photos included in Attachment 1) were part of the
CRA’s Pico Boulevard Streetscape Program. The program, which began at the 110 freeway and
stretched to westward to Hoover Street, helped improve the living conditions, pedestrianization,
and made a main artery of Pico-Union more socially conducive.
Community Involvement
Various waves of community involvement have helped Pico-Union’s continually
transitioning population. The Pico-Union Housing Corporation (established in 1971) and the
Pico-Union Neighborhood Council (established in 1965) have helped steward Pico-Union in a
myriad of ways, including helping to improve and create low- to moderate income residential
options (affordable housing). Created in the 1970s, the Institute of Popular Education of
Southern California (IDEPSCA) helped Central American immigrants assimilate (and
incorporate) and, more recently, the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN) assists
with human and civil rights issues through economic justice based programs. Approximately
two dozen non-profit groups exist, providing these types of services.
Churches have played a big role in the stability of Pico-Union. The Iglesia Angelica
Lutheran (founded in 1888 by Swedish immigrants), in the heart of Pico-Union has “offered
religious services in English, Spanish, Korean, and Kanjobal, an indigenous language of Mexico
and Guatemala” (Watanabe, 2009). During the early 1980s the church became “Part of an antiwar campaign protesting U.S. foreign policy in Central America, the Sanctuary Movement
started in the Southwest and grew into a network of hundreds of religious congregations that
provided shelter to refugees facing deportation” (Los Angeles Conservancy, 2010). The Central
Spanish Seventh-Day Adventist Church, originally built as the First Church of Christ Scientist in
1912 (designed by Elmer Grey) is also noted for its many humanitarian assistance efforts across
16
ethnicities. Although no complete record of churches, or their historical and social contributions
within Pico-Union could be found, many churches exist in the range of 80-130 years old.
Open Space, Green Space, and Public Art
Pico-Union is approximately .6 square miles and has little open and green space. In total,
only five small parks or park-like opportunities are closely available (photos included in
Attachment 1) to the highly population density residents. The options are limited, both in size
and access, but are intensely used. The spaces are
•
•
•
•
•
the Salvation Army’s Red Shield soccer field;
the Cesar Chavez Community Garden;
Pico-Union Park;
the Alvarado Terrace Park; and,
Toberman Park.
Public art, through murals and other means, has often been an opportunity for expression
within Pico-Union. Approximately a dozen murals grace its aging infrastructure, often with
connoting messages of recommitment to community. Along these lines, the CRA Pico
Boulevard Streetscape program attempted to accentuate Pico-Unions public spaces by using a
decorative crosswalk pattern at several busy intersections and by imprinting outlines of historic
structures into newly poured sidewalks (photos included in Attachment 1).
Mapping and Photographing Pico-Union’s HCMs
Using information from the City of Los Angeles, Office of Historical Resources, the
Planning Department, and the Westlake Community Plan, I extracted location data for all the
HCMs within Pico-Union (27 properties). I researched each property, by confirming address and
property details (including year built) using NavigateLA and parcel reports (Attachment 3).
17
Within ArcMap, I used ESRI’s online worldwide street map, created an address locator,
and geocoded the locations (by importing the address and zip code data from an excel file). I
organized the HCMs from west to east, and north to south, and assigned IDs so the locations
could be cross-referenced. I created a map layout, added a second data frame to better show the
large grouping of HCMs on Alvarado Terrace and created the attached Designated HistoricCultural Monuments in Pico-Union map (Attachment 1). Additionally, over the course of four
days, I visited and photographed each property (also included in Attachment 1).
Discussion
Pico-Union largely complies with the old adage that the more things change
(demographics and surroundings) the more they stay the same (infrastructure and overall ethnic
diversity). Although its ethic composition has changed significantly over time, from its mixture
of early European settlers to today’s potpourri of international representation, ethnic diversity
seems to be been innate bound to the Pico-Union soil.
Unfortunately, the diversity in terms of income, and all the other factors that are related
to income and opportunity (including formal U.S. education), have been missing for over 50
years. With a median household income of approximately $17,000 and a per capital income of
less than $10,000, it becomes clear that Pico-Union’s incubator of labor to the City of Los
Angeles does not extent much past that. In that context, the extraordinary compromise and
suffering that has been endured by the continually replenishing supply of immigrated peoples
that make their way to and through Pico-Union is staggering. The over-crowded conditions, the
lack of open space, the countless obstacles towards integration, are just some of the major
challenges of current and future generations of those within Pico-Union. Concurrently, those
18
challenges will be complicated further by the pressures of gentrification as downtown expands
outwards.
In other contexts, the opportunities to immigrants, such as the rich social immigrant
network and the underground economy of Pico-Union, are not available in many other places in
Los Angeles. Across much of Los Angeles, the luxury of freeways have formed barelypermeable community barriers; creating negative externalities such as social, ethnic, and
economic stratifications, quality of life differences, and divisions of place. In the case of PicoUnion however, tucked deeply within a corner of the 10 and 110 freeway intersection, has been a
huge benefit, for its own survival and for Los Angeles as a whole. The freeways, directly
(through creating physical barriers) and indirectly (through making the real estate less desirable),
have fostered Pico-Union’s diversity, protected its rich assortment of historical structures
(through lack of private interest of redevelopment), and has provided sanctuary from the cultural
sterilization of gentrification. For these reasons, and many more, Pico-Union has been a
salvation, an incubator, and a never ending supply of culture, labor, and talent. Ironically, these
benefits provided by Pico-Union have been absorbed by a city that has a history of ignoring
communities like Pico-Union.
When describing Pico-Union, current Councilmember Ed Reyes stated, "The issue here is
how do we collaborate and share the space we have," and continued "That, to me, is the beauty
of this area: the coexistence of communities" (Watanabe, 2009). Reyes’ statements might be
best framed as to pertaining within Pico-Union (as there is a cohesive interplay of ethnicities).
Collaborating, sharing space, and “coexistence of communities” between Pico-Union and its
neighbors must be done in a manner that does not absorb nor displacing Pico-Unions innate,
unique, and valuable characteristics.
References
City of Los Angeles, Office of Historical Resources (2010a). What makes a resource historically
significant. Retrieved from http://preservation.lacity.org/significant
City of Los Angeles, Office of Historical Resources (2010b). Historic Preservation Overlay
Zones (HPOZs). Retrieved from http://preservation.lacity.org/hpoz
City of Los Angeles, Office of Historical Resources (2010c). Historic Preservation Overlay
Zones (HPOZs): Pico-Union. Retrieved from
http://preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/la/pico-union
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O’Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy, and society: Fitting
them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 10, 187-196.
Hutchinson, J. M. (1999). Propinquity without community : A study of social capital, survival
networks, and community building in the Pico Union area of Los Angeles (Doctoral
Dissertation). UCLA Libraries and Collections, Record ID: 4316015, UMI Number:
9939074.
Hutchinson, J., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2001). Choosing confrontation or consensus in the
inner city: Lessons from a Community–University partnership. Planning Theory & Practice,
2(3), 293-310. doi:10.1080/14649350120096839
Kotkin, J. (1997, September 28). Can Pico-Union become like N.Y.’s lower east side? The Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1997/sep/28/opinion/op-37054
Los Angeles Conservancy, (2010). Los Angeles history – self guided walking tour. Retrieved
from http://www.laconservancy.org/initiatives/PicoUnion_Tour_new.pdf
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2000). In Byzantine-Latino Quarter: Creating community in Los Angeles’
inner city. DISP 140, 36(1), 16-22.
Modarres, A. (1998). Putting Los Angeles in its place. Cities, 15(3), 135-147.
UCLA, Department of Urban Planning (1998). The Byzantine-Latino Quarter: An urban
planning comprehensive project. Retrieved from http://www.sppsr.ucla.edu/blq/history.htm
Watanabe, T. (2009, March 22). Pico-Union tour traces historical immigration patterns. The Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/22/local/me-pico22
Figures
Census 2000 Demographic Comparisons
100%
Pico-Union
City of L.A.
U.S.
90%
80%
Percentage
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Renter-occupied
housing units
High school
graduate or higher
Bachelor's degree
or higher
Foreign born
Speak a language
other than English at
home
Families below
poverty level
Census Category
Figure 1. Selected Pico-Union community characteristics.
Individuals below
poverty level
Figures
Figure 2. Pico-Union census tracts (yellow shaded).
Note. Map adapted from 2000 Census Tract Map (http://factfinder.census.gov).
Tables
Table 1
Ethnicity Comparisons by Category
Category
Pico-Union
Los Angeles
United States
One race
94.0%
94.8%
97.6%
White
29.8%
46.9%
75.1%
3.6%
11.2%
12.3%
1.4%
0.8%
0.9%
Asian
2.8%
10.0%
3.6%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
Some other race
56.5%
25.7%
5.5%
Two or more races
6.0%
5.2%
2.4%
90.4%
46.5%
12.5%
Tables
Table 2
Income Comparisons
Pico-Union
Los Angeles
United States
$16,419
$36,687
$41,994
$18,032
$39,942
$50,046
$9,136
$20,671
$21,587
Tables
Table 3
Complete Comparisons by Category
Pico Union
Total population
17498
Male
51.4%
Female
48.6%
Median age (years)
27.6
Under 5 years
10.1%
18 years and over
68.1%
65 years and over
6.9%
One race
94.0%
White
29.8%
3.6%
1.4%
Asian
2.8%
0.1%
Some other race
56.5%
Two or more races
6.0%
90.4%
Household population
96.2%
Group quarters population
3.8%
Average household size
3.35
Average family size
3.94
Total housing units
5467
Occupied housing units
92.7%
Owner-occupied housing units
8.4%
Renter-occupied housing units
91.7%
Vacant housing units
7.3%
Population 25 years and over
9654
High school graduate or higher
27.8%
Bachelor's degree or higher
5.1%
Disability status
27.4%
Foreign born
64.1%
Speak a language other than English at home
89.0%
In labor force (16 years and over)
54.3%
Mean travel time to work in minutes
34.6
16,419
18,033
9,137
Families below poverty level
42.3%
Individuals below poverty level
43.8%
Single-family owner-occupied homes
187
Median value (dollars)
155,583
With a mortgage (dollars)
1,461
Not mortgaged (dollars)
235
Los Angeles
3,694,820
49.8%
50.2%
31.6
7.7%
73.4%
9.7%
94.8%
46.9%
11.2%
0.8%
10.0%
0.2%
25.7%
5.2%
46.5%
97.8%
2.2%
2.83
3.56
1,337,706
95.3%
38.6%
61.4%
4.7%
2,308,887
66.6%
25.5%
21.7%
40.9%
57.8%
60.2%
29.6
36,687
39,942
20,671
18.3%
22.1%
412,804
221,600
1598
339
United States
49.1%
50.9%
35.3
6.8%
74.3%
12.4%
97.6%
75.1%
12.3%
0.9%
3.6%
0.1%
5.5%
2.4%
12.5%
97.2%
2.8%
2.59
3.14
91.0%
66.2%
33.8%
9.0%
80.4%
24.4%
19.3%
11.1%
17.9%
63.9%
25.5
41,994
50,046
21,587
9.2%
12.4%
119,600
1,088
295
Table 4
Complete Comparisons by Category (and Census Tract)
Los Angeles County Census Tract
Number
Total population
2,585
Male
1,342
Female
1,243
Median age (years)
29.6
Under 5 years
255
18 years and over
1,824
65 years and over
280
One race
2,436
White
825
175
17
Asian
40
5
Some other race
1,374
Two or more races
149
2,199
Household population
2,265
Group quarters population
320
Average household size
3.24
Average family size
3.75
Total housing units
769
Occupied housing units
699
Owner-occupied housing units
19
Renter-occupied housing units
680
Vacant housing units
70
Population 25 years and over
1,569
High school graduate or higher
435
Bachelor's degree or higher
26
Disability status
460
Foreign born
1,624
Speak a language other than English at home
1,908
In labor force (16 years and over)
978
Mean travel time to work in minutes
39.0
16,335
14,954
13,152
Families below poverty level
221
Individuals below poverty level
1,006
Single-family owner-occupied homes
11
Median value (dollars)
162,500
With a mortgage (dollars)
1,375
Not mortgaged (dollars)
175
Note . Data extracted from 2000 Census (http://factfinder.census.gov).
2098.1
Percent
51.9
48.1
9.9
70.6
10.8
94.2
31.9
6.8
0.7
1.5
0.2
53.2
5.8
85.1
87.6
12.4
U.S.
49.1%
50.9%
35.3
6.8%
74.3%
12.4%
97.6%
75.1%
12.3%
0.9%
3.6%
0.1%
5.5%
2.4%
12.5%
97.2%
2.8%
2.59
3.14
90.9
2.7
97.3
9.1
91.0%
66.2%
33.8%
9.0%
27.7
1.7
22.8
62.8
82.0
51.6
80.4%
24.4%
19.3%
11.1%
17.9%
63.9%
25.5
41,994
50,046
21,587
9.2%
12.4%
44.8
44.3
119,600
1,088
295
Number
2,708
1,392
1,316
27.0
273
1,807
147
2,502
778
38
48
61
0
1,577
206
2,543
2,708
0
3.45
3.99
880
785
63
722
95
1,461
376
96
614
1,715
2,197
1,129
36.5
13,792
13,750
6,857
307
1,385
44
159,100
694
275
2098.2
Percent
51.4
48.6
10.1
66.7
5.4
92.4
28.7
1.4
1.8
2.3
0.0
58.2
7.6
93.9
100.0
0.0
U.S.
49.1%
50.9%
35.3
6.8%
74.3%
12.4%
97.6%
75.1%
12.3%
0.9%
3.6%
0.1%
5.5%
2.4%
12.5%
97.2%
2.8%
2.59
3.14
89.2
8.0
92.0
10.8
91.0%
66.2%
33.8%
9.0%
25.7
6.6
25.3
63.3
90.6
60.1
80.4%
24.4%
19.3%
11.1%
17.9%
63.9%
25.5
41,994
50,046
21,587
9.2%
12.4%
54.0
51.2
119,600
1,088
295
2110.1
Number Percent
3,607
1,839
51.0
1,768
49.0
27.7
330
9.1
2,457
68.1
364
10.1
3,410
94.5
1,179
32.7
83
2.3
56
1.6
286
7.9
2
0.1
1,804
50.0
197
5.5
3,150
87.3
3,607
100.0
0
0.0
3.20
4.07
1,176
1,126
95.7
186
16.5
940
83.5
50
4.3
1,973
581
29.4
135
6.8
972
29.5
2,469
68.5
3,031
91.9
1,316
50.8
34.4
16,938
22,054
6,999
253
34.5
1,388
38.7
13
79,300
2,250
99
U.S.
49.1%
50.9%
35.3
6.8%
74.3%
12.4%
97.6%
75.1%
12.3%
0.9%
3.6%
0.1%
5.5%
2.4%
12.5%
97.2%
2.8%
2.59
3.14
91.0%
66.2%
33.8%
9.0%
80.4%
24.4%
19.3%
11.1%
17.9%
63.9%
25.5
41,994
50,046
21,587
9.2%
12.4%
119,600
1,088
295
2242
Number Percent
3,067
1,621
52.9
1,446
47.1
27.8
275
9.0
2,133
69.5
138
4.5
2,904
94.7
886
28.9
172
5.6
48
1.6
27
0.9
0
0.0
1,771
57.7
163
5.3
2,773
90.4
2,843
92.7
224
7.3
3.28
4.03
935
868
92.8
78
9.0
790
91.0
67
7.2
1,721
535
31.1
100
5.8
695
27.1
1,848
60.3
2,465
88.4
1,187
53.8
29.0
17,820
20,754
10,709
209
35.7
1,090
38.5
56
164,100
1,042
510
U.S.
49.1%
50.9%
35.3
6.8%
74.3%
12.4%
97.6%
75.1%
12.3%
0.9%
3.6%
0.1%
5.5%
2.4%
12.5%
97.2%
2.8%
2.59
3.14
91.0%
66.2%
33.8%
9.0%
80.4%
24.4%
19.3%
11.1%
17.9%
63.9%
25.5
41,994
50,046
21,587
9.2%
12.4%
119,600
1,088
295
2243.1
Number Percent
2,238
1,157
51.7
1,081
48.3
26.6
272
12.2
1,489
66.5
97
4.3
2,101
93.9
671
30.0
58
2.6
32
1.4
46
2.1
0
0.0
1,294
57.8
137
6.1
2,057
91.9
2,172
97.1
66
2.9
3.63
3.93
634
599
94.5
45
7.5
554
92.5
35
5.5
1,192
276
23.2
68
5.7
656
32.8
1,474
64.6
1,830
91.6
832
53.7
34.1
17,594
17,241
8,944
196
41.6
972
43.6
26
152,800
2,111
350
U.S.
49.1%
50.9%
35.3
6.8%
74.3%
12.4%
97.6%
75.1%
12.3%
0.9%
3.6%
0.1%
5.5%
2.4%
12.5%
97.2%
2.8%
2.59
3.14
91.0%
66.2%
33.8%
9.0%
80.4%
24.4%
19.3%
11.1%
17.9%
63.9%
25.5
41,994
50,046
21,587
9.2%
12.4%
119,600
1,088
295
2243.2
Number Percent
3,293
1,629
49.5
1,664
50.5
26.7
339
10.3
2,212
67.2
213
6.5
3,111
94.5
865
26.3
95
2.9
38
1.2
66
2.0
8
0.2
2,039
61.9
182
5.5
3,083
93.6
3,293
100.0
0
0.0
3.30
3.84
1,073
998
93.0
64
6.4
934
93.6
75
7.0
1,738
512
29.5
73
4.2
786
27.1
2,120
65.3
2,601
89.6
1,285
56.0
34.7
16,036
19,444
8,158
305
43.1
1,508
46.4
37
215,700
1,292
0
U.S.
49.1%
50.9%
35.3
6.8%
74.3%
12.4%
97.6%
75.1%
12.3%
0.9%
3.6%
0.1%
5.5%
2.4%
12.5%
97.2%
2.8%
2.59
3.14
91.0%
66.2%
33.8%
9.0%
80.4%
24.4%
19.3%
11.1%
17.9%
63.9%
25.5
41,994
50,046
21,587
9.2%
12.4%
119,600
1,088
295
All 6
Tracts
17498
51.4%
48.6%
27.6
10.1%
68.1%
6.9%
94.0%
29.8%
3.6%
1.4%
2.8%
0.1%
56.5%
6.0%
90.4%
96.2%
3.8%
3.35
3.94
5467
92.7%
8.4%
91.7%
7.3%
9654
27.8%
5.1%
27.4%
64.1%
89.0%
54.3%
34.6
16,419
18,033
9,137
42.3%
43.8%
187
155,583
1,461
235
Los
Angeles
3,694,820
49.8%
50.2%
31.6
7.7%
73.4%
9.7%
94.8%
46.9%
11.2%
0.8%
10.0%
0.2%
25.7%
5.2%
46.5%
97.8%
2.2%
2.83
3.56
1,337,706
95.3%
38.6%
61.4%
4.7%
2,308,887
66.6%
25.5%
21.7%
40.9%
57.8%
60.2%
29.6
36,687
39,942
20,671
18.3%
22.1%
412,804
221,600
1598
339
United
States
49.1%
50.9%
35.3
6.8%
74.3%
12.4%
97.6%
75.1%
12.3%
0.9%
3.6%
0.1%
5.5%
2.4%
12.5%
97.2%
2.8%
2.59
3.14
91.0%
66.2%
33.8%
9.0%
80.4%
24.4%
19.3%
11.1%
17.9%
63.9%
25.5
41,994
50,046
21,587
9.2%
12.4%
119,600
1,088
295
Map 1
Source: http://www.sppsr.ucla.edu/blq/landuse.html
200911
Ordinance 176,156
Adoption Date: 08-03-2004
Effective Date: 09-25-2004
Pico - Union
Historic Preservation Overlay Zone
CPC-2002-6297-HPOZ
Council File Index 00-1566-S2
AV
E
E
YM
PIC
AV
ST
th
BO
th
N
TT
A
BL
KE
LA
E
th
AL
UN
IO
N
WESTLAKE
VA
R
ST
PL
ST
AV
O
AD
12
BO
NN
IE
WE
BR
AE
ST
PICO
IA
VA
LE
BL
VD
E
110
ST
NC
E
CO
NS
TA
NIC
ST
MA
LV
AV
E
ER
N
ST
AV
NC
ST
E
AV
E
VE
DA
TL
AN
UR
CO
VE
ST
PL
ST
TE R
ALVARADO
CH
FWY
BL
VD
ON
SANTA M
ICA FWY.
I
Structure Designation
Contributing Feature
0
125 250
500
750
1,000 Feet
Non-Contributing Feature
0
45
90
180
270
360 Meters
Not Available
HPOZ Boundary
City of Los Angeles - Department of City Planning - S. Gail Goldberg, Director
ST
IGH
T
10
WR
K
OA
RM
ST
BE
ST
BL
VD
TO
GT
ON
AN
ST
UN
th
HARBOR
K
I ON
OA
ST
BU
HIN
ST
BA
NY
AL
th
RL
17
RY
ND
LE
VA
N
ING
TO
NN
18
WA
S
BO
IA
NC
TO
AE
BR
ST
IE
th
BO
HOOVER
ARAPAHOE
18
BE
RM
ST
AN
ST
ER
17
th
VD
ST
BU
GR
A
RL
AV
E
ING
LA
TO
N
KE
BE
WE
ST
AC
LA
ON
KE
12
ST
NN
ST
IE
BR
AE
AV
E
E
AV
GR
AN
ST
DV
ST
IEW
11
ST
OL
ST
ST
Includes Historic Context Statement
Monument Search Results Page
1 of 3
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/HCM/dsp_hcm_result.cfm?commun...
Attachment 2
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
City of Los Angeles
HISTORIC-CULTURAL MONUMENT (HCM) REPORT
Planning Community: Westlake
Level of declaration determined by number series as follow:
0 - 999 Series = City declared monuments
1000 - 1999 Series = State declared monuments
2000 - 2999 Series = Federal declared monuments
Note: Multiple listings are based on unique names and addresses as supplied by the Departments of Cultural Affairs and Building & Safety.
Last Updated: December 29, 2009
Monument Date Adopted/
No.
Approved
Monument Name
Address
11
01-04-1963
West Temple Apartments (The Rochester)
1012 W. Temple Street - Demolished:
02-14-1979
39
06-15-1966
Residence
1425 Miramar Street
45
02-08-1967
Residence
818-822 S. Bonnie Brae Street
83
07-07-1971
Boyle - Barmore Residence
1311-1321 Alvarado Terrace
84
07-07-1971
Cohn Residence
1325 Alvarado Terrace
85
07-07-1971
Gilbert Residence
86
07-07-1971
Powers Residence
87
07-07-1971
Raphael Residence
88
07-07-1971
Kinney - Everhardy House
89
07-07-1971
Central Spanish Seventh Day Adventist Church
1366 Alvarado St & 1447-1459 Alvarado Ter
89
07-07-1971
Central Spanish Seventh Day Adventist Church
1447-1459 Alvarado Ter & 1366 Alvarado St
99
04-05-1972
Residence
100
05-01-1972
General Douglas MacArthur Park (Formerly Westlake Park)
2100-2320 W. 6th Street
100
05-01-1972
601-631 S. Alvarado Street
100
05-01-1972
610-680 Park View Street
113
03-07-1973
Young's Market
701-709 Union Avenue
113
03-07-1973
Young's Market Building
1602-1614 W. 7th Street
129
06-19-1974
Residence
757-767 Garland Avenue
158
07-07-1976
Mary Andrews Clark Residence of the YWCA
306 Loma Drive
167
11-17-1976
Residence
826 S. Coronado Street
Photo
4/29/2010 10:20 AM
2 of 3
173
04-20-1977
Welsh Presbyterian Church
1153 S. Valencia Street
173
04-20-1977
Welsh Presbyterian Church
1501 W. 12th Street
208
01-17-1979
Residence and Carriage House
841-845 S. Lake Street
210
02-21-1979
Terrace Park and Powers Place
Powers Place and 14th Street
238
04-09-1981
Granada Shopper & Studios Building
666-678 S. LaFayette Park Place
244
04-30-1981
Residence
1402 Malvern Avenue
244
04-30-1981
Residence
1866 W. 14th Street
267
06-24-1983
Park Plaza Hotel
2400-2416 W. 6th Street
267
06-24-1983
Park Plaza Hotel
603-607 Park View Street
268
06-24-1983
La Fonda Restaurant Building
2501-2511 Wilshire Boulevard
326
09-09-1987
McKinley Mansion (Former Site of)
310-312 S. LaFayette Park Place - Demolished:
06-01-1994
327
09-22-1987
Thomas Potter Residence
328
09-22-1987
August Winstel Residence
1147 S. Alvarado Street
333
12-18-1987
Grieri - Musser House
403 S. Bonnie Brae Street
352
04-08-1988
Los Angeles Nurses Club
1405 Miramar Street
352
04-08-1988
245 S. Lucas Avenue
431
05-05-1989
Residence
1851 W. 11th Street
432
05-05-1989
Doria Apartments
1600-1604 W. Pico Boulevard
433
05-05-1989
Alphonse J. Forget Residence
454
10-24-1989
Chouinard Institute of the Arts
2301 W. 8th Street
454
10-24-1989
Chouinard Institute of the Arts
737-747 Grand View Street
491
07-13-1990
Charles B. Booth Residence and Carriage House
538
07-02-1991
David J. Witmer Family Houses and Compound
1422 W. 2nd Street & 208-210 1/2 Witmer St
538
07-02-1991
Davld J. Witmer Family Houses and Compound
208-210 1/2 Witmer Street & 1422 W. 2nd St
546
09-24-1991
Westlake Theater
555
03-18-1992
Mother Trust Superet Center
2506-2522 W. 3rd Street
651
05-05-1998
Filipino Christian Church
301 N. Union Avenue
653
09-18-1998
Bryson Apartments
2701 W. Wilshire Boulevard
719
10-01-2002
E.A.K. Hackett House
1317 S. Westlake Avenue
790
02-23-2005
Belmont Tunnel / Toluca Substation and Yard
1304 W 2nd St
934
09-25-2008
Park Wilshire Building
2424 Wilshire Boulevard
958
06-03-2009
Bob Baker Marionette Theater
1345 West First Street
2176
Crocker Bank
1926-1930 Wilshire Boulevard
2180
2305
Alvarado Terrace Historic District
1311-1321 Alvarado Terrace
2305
2305
1317-1421 Alvarado Ter (Both Sides of St.)
2305
2305
2305
2305
4/29/2010 10:20 AM
3 of 3
2305
2305
1866 W. 14th Street
2305
Powers Place
2305
1402 Malvern Avenue
Powers Place and 14th Street
2312
South Bonnie Brae Tract Historic District
1023-1053 Bonnie Brae St/1819-51 W 11th St
2312
2312
2312
1819-1851 W. 11th Street (Both Sides of St)
2305
05-17-1984
2312
01-04-1988
1851 W. 11th Street
2317
09-04-1979
Bernard and Susana Machado House and Barn
845 S. Lake Street
2337
11-20-1986
Granada Shopper & Studios Building
672 S. LaFayette Park Place
2356
06-03-1976
Frederick Mitchell Mooer's House
2445
Royal Lake
2202-2220 W. 11th Street
2452
Marks Residence
1357-1359 Constance St/1709-1711 4th Street
2452
Marks Residence
1709-1711 4th St/1357-1359 Constance Street
2478
Willet Apartments
1426-1428 3/4 S. Bonnie Brae Street
2501
04-07-1983
Bryson Apartment Hotel
2511
05-11-1995
245 S. Lucas Avenue
2519
Royal Lake
2200-2220 W. 11th Street
2520
Burch Residence
1805 W. 12th Place
2521
B. Bodwell Residence
926-928 W. 17th Street
2533
Cook Residence
2534
Wilshire - Westlake Professional Building
2001-2015 Wilshire Bl/639 S. Westlake Avenue
2534
Wilshire - Westlake Professional Building
639 S. Westlake Avenue/2001-2015 Wilshire Bl
HISTORIC-CULTURAL MONUMENT (HCM) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMUNITY
4/29/2010 10:20 AM
Attachment 3
MapID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Ad
2202 W. 11th Street
1851 W. 11th Street
1819 W. 11th Street
1402 Malvern Avenue
1805 W. 12th Place
1357 Constance St
1600 W. Pico Boulevard
1153 S. Valencia Street
926 W. 17th Street
Year Built
Ci
1925 Los Angeles
1908 Los Angeles
Los Angeles
1950 Los Angeles
1898 Los Angeles
1901 Los Angeles
1900 Los Angeles
1895 Los Angeles
1890 Los Angeles
1890 Los Angeles
Los Angeles
1905 Los Angeles
1905 Los Angeles
1908 Los Angeles
1902 Los Angeles
1905 Los Angeles
1903 Los Angeles
1905 Los Angeles
1912 Los Angeles
1903 Los Angeles
1907 Los Angeles
1925 Los Angeles
1890 Los Angeles
1933 Los Angeles
1903 Los Angeles
1909 Los Angeles
1880 Los Angeles
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
ZI
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90006
90015
90015
90015
90015
PU
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Notes
2445
327
328
89
2533
719
2312
99
2312
2312
2312
2305
2305
2305
2305
2305
2305
88
89
244
2305
2478
2520
2452
432
173
2521
Adopted
Notes
Royal Lake
9/22/1987 Thomas Potter Residence
9/22/1987 August Winstel Residence
7/7/1971 Central Spanish Seventh Day Adventist Church
Cook Residence
10/1/2002 E.A.K. Hackett House
1/4/1988 1023-1053 Bonnie Brae St/1819-51 W 11th St
4/5/1972 Residence
1/4/1988
1/4/1988 South Bonnie Brae Tract Historic District
1/4/1988 South Bonnie Brae Tract Historic District
5/17/1984 Alvarado Terrace Historic District
7/7/1971 Kinney - Everhardy House
7/7/1971 Central Spanish Seventh Day Adventist Church
4/30/1981 Residence
5/17/1984
Willet Apartments
Burch Residence
Marks Residence
5/5/1989 Doria Apartments
4/20/1977 Welsh Presbyterian Church
B. Bodwell Residence

A Brief Spatial Biography of Pico-Union By Dore Burry CALIFORNIA

Transcription

Similar documents

Friday, May 6, 2016 At Luminarias Restaurant

Kightlinger, Jeff 092214

An expression of gratitude for all our moments.

arts district

Los Angeles Times - David Kordansky Gallery

official voting guide - The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor

2013 Media Kit

2014 Media Kit

Berlin – L.A. Trilogie #III LOS ANGELES Marcel Buehler, Hans

1 CEQA: A TOOL FOR ADVOCATES