Comments
CD11 - Los Angeles is no stranger to battles over its architectural heritage, but the preservation efforts surrounding two separate Historic-Cultural Monuments (HCMs) in Council District 11 are highlighting a crucial crisis in municipal enforcement. The focus has now centered on Marilyn Monroe's former home (HCM No. 1306) and the mid-century Barry Building (HCM No. 887), both falling under the purview of Councilmember Traci Park.
The two properties share a critical, troubling commonality: the owners of both HCMs have been accused of employing a strategy of "demolition by neglect."
Case One: The Fight for Marilyn’s Legacy (HCM No. 1306)
The Brentwood home at 12305 Fifth Helena Drive, the only property Marilyn Monroe ever owned, recently became a lightning rod for preservationists. After current owners Brinah Milstein and Roy Bank purchased the house in July 2023 and swiftly obtained a demolition permit, a public outcry ensued. The Los Angeles City Council and a Superior Court judge intervened, successfully designating the property as Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) No. 1306, effectively blocking its demolition.
Councilmember Park was a vocal supporter of this designation, championing the safekeeping of the Spanish Hacienda-style house as a crucial piece of Hollywood and women's history. The victory was hailed as a triumph for preservationists.
However, the fight has evolved from outright demolition to a strategic legal challenge under the umbrella of "demolition by neglect." Critics allege the owners are intentionally allowing critical deterioration, citing issues like "numerous tiles missing from the roof for a few years" and the pool water turning a "dark shade of green." This strategic decay, critics argue, is designed to compromise the house’s structural integrity, potentially forcing the city to invalidate the HCM designation and approve demolition.
Case Two: The Soft-Story Scandal at the Barry Building (HCM No. 887)
While the Monroe house faces calculated neglect, the Barry Building faces an existential threat rooted in cost and contested compliance. The owner and applicant for the demolition of HCM No. 887, 11973 San Vicente, LLC, is seeking to raze the structure rather than comply with the city's mandatory Soft-Story Retrofit Ordinance—a critical public safety measure. The proposed demolition of the Barry Building is a first for the City of Los Angeles. A demolition of a Historic-Cultural monument without a replacement project. The owner will leave a dirt lot in its place.
The applicant is attempting to justify the demolition by submitting a claim of unforeseen financial hardship, arguing that the cost of seismic compliance is financially unfeasible. This was based solely from data provided by the owner.
In stark contrast to her vocal preservationist stance on the Monroe residence, Councilmember Park is reportedly supporting the applicant's request for demolition.
This controversial support—which effectively prioritizes a private claim of unfeasibility over mandatory public safety upgrades and historic status—has sparked allegations of a "backroom deal." Sources claim that, in exchange for supporting the demolition, Councilmember Park negotiated a compromise to "save" specific architectural features, such as staircases and benches, for potential reuse or display.
Preservationists vehemently oppose allowing demolition based on a claim of financial hardship, arguing that it establishes a dangerous precedent: historic status is conditional on the studies paid for by the owner showing inflated costs exceeding the appraised value of the building. The selective preservation of architectural elements is widely viewed by critics not as a compromise, but as a symbolic gesture that sacrifices the integrity of a fully designated HCM structure.
The Poignant Paradox
The juxtaposition of these two monuments is poignant. In both cases, the buildings face a slow death or swift destruction under the cloud of demolition by neglect—a clear signal that the HCM designation alone is not enough to guarantee a building's future.
In one instance, political and public will secured a cultural landmark, but must now contend with alleged malicious neglect. In the other, a significant piece of mid-century architecture faces the wrecking ball after a developer’s financial argument was seemingly prioritized, and the Councilmember who championed preservation in Brentwood is reportedly backing the developer's side.
These two ongoing disputes in the same district highlight the complex politics of historic preservation. The true crisis lies in the fact that two separate HCMs face destruction via the same mechanism of neglect, but receive radically different political responses. The outcome of these battles will not only determine the structural integrity of these two landmarks but will fundamentally re-evaluate the city's legal capacity and political will to enforce historic preservation against the combined pressures of private property interests and strategic neglect.
(Ziggy Kruse Blue is a freelance contributor to CityWatchLA and also a Former Board Member of the HSDNC.) Ziggy and Bob can be reached at [email protected].
