NBC News Story on Beverly Hills

[The D.A.]

Did anyone else see the story on the NBC Nightly News about how Beverly Hills is losing its historical homes and buildings? It's probably available on their web site. The story was about how developers are buying historical properties for their land, then demolishing them and building Saddam-style palaces. It claimed that most of the people buying these new monstrosities are "new money" Iranians, and the reporter interviewed an Iranian developer who basically said that buildings in Beverly Hills aren't old enough to really be historical, not when compared to buildings in Iran.

This is the first that I've heard about this (not surprising, really, considering that I live in Kansas). Is this a big problem in Beverly Hills, or did the news just blow it out of proportion?

 

[Lincsong]

Tear downs have been going on for years and years. My take on it is that since it is private property, it's no one's business what the owner wants to build there. After all, where that house once stood a forest was there first.[huh]

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

Odd logic there. How does a 50 year old house get to be a 200 or a 400 year old house? By not being torn down! [huh]

 

[Lincsong]

Why is the concept of private property "odd logic"? If a property owner wishes for a 50 year old house to become a 200 year old house he can merely not tear it down. He can purchase the property and set it up in some type of trust for perpetuity. But, it is up to to the individual property owner to determine that scenario.

 

[Brad Bowers]

Ugh. I hate property developers. Most of them have no sense of history at all, and instead the put up the most butt ugly, cheaply made buildings. I'm all for historic preservation, and maintaining the character of a neighborhood. It's Beverly Hills' loss, I guess. They could have done something about it years ago, and chose not to.

Brad

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

I suppose I should have pointed out exactly what I thought was "odd logic."

Anyhow, it's this bit from the first post: "...who basically said that buildings in Beverly Hills aren't old enough to really be historical, not when compared to buildings in Iran."

 

[The D.A.]

Tony in Tarzana,

I took it to mean "they aren't (really) old, so what's the big deal about me tearing them down and building these tacky and ostentatious palaces?"

The story also mentioned that the old houses aren't big enough for the new money types, then showed a palatial entryway in one of the new houses.

 

[Sefton]

Perhaps Beverly Hills ends up with the exactly the type of buildings that will reflect it's true nature....

 

[Salv]

In the UK houses and buildings of historic importance are listed as such by English Heritage and are not allowed to be significantly altered or destroyed. This unfortunately doesn't stop property speculators buying significant buildings and then destroying them, but it does stop the developer from re-developing the site.

There was a case just a few years ago of a listed Modernist house built in 1936 and in need of some renovation when it was illegally bulldozed in 2003. The owner had bought the house in 1987 for about £400,000 and attempted to sell it in 2002. It was valued at £1.5 million but the owner wanted offers in the region of £2 million - when it didn't sell he applied for permission to destroy the house and to replace it with a new house. Given that the house overlooked the 17th green of the world famous Wentworth golf course, it's very likely that the new house would have been yet another one of the horrific mock-Tudor piles of brick that are so popular in that area.

Anyway ... permission was given, but a campaign to save the house was mounted and a series of court cases started and the owner was forbidden from knocking down the house until the court cases were resolved. Frustrated at not being able to get his own way the owner simply took the law into his own hands and called in the bulldozers one morning in late 2003. There was a public inquiry to decide whether retroactive permission to demolish the house would be granted and the Secretary of State decided that it would not. He also decided that since the site was on Green Belt land, and the building of a new house on the now empty site would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, planning permission would never be granted for a new house on the site. In addition the owner was fined £15,000 with £10,000 costs and the site was recently valued at just £15,000.

The owner went from owning a house worth £1.5 million to owning a site worth £15,000 - oh how I laughed...

There are plenty of documents on the web if anyone is interested - google for Greenside demolition - but these are particularly interesting:

Article in the Guardian newspaper about the house prior to demolition

The case put forward by English Heritage in the public inquiry

Secretary of States decision

And this was the house - subtle, elegant and graceful

And this is the sort of clumping great monstrosity that gets built in the area nowadays and would have probably replaced Greenside

 

[Lincsong]

I respect all of your opinions. However, I do not believe that anyone should have to obtain "permission" to do whatever they want with their property. This is the same with eminent domain in the U.S. Now, I realize that Britain never had the degree of respect of personal property as the United States, so I can understand some of your reasoning. But, it all comes down to the basic fact that private property is just that. If the guy down the street adds onto his house, it doesn't affect my property one bit. If someone or group feels a house should be saved, there is nothing to stop them from buying the house before the current owner did. Lots of people like "historic preservation" but few want to pony up the ducets for it.

 

[Bebop]

This is happening all over the U.S. The more people there are from other countries that make the U.S. their country of choice, the more they will build what they consider a comfortable, beautiful home or workplace. Arcadia Ca. has alot of Asian families that have demolished perfectly good, beautiful Green and Green homes only to build oversized, gawdy, mansion type homes that sit next to ranch style homes from the 60's. It looks like Disneyland next door to the Pondrosa as you drive through Arcadia.lol I agree that you can't tell someone what to do with their property but communities seem to be able to tell people how tall a fence they can have or how many cars or pets they can have, so why not have an ordinance telling homeowners they can't destroy the architectual theme of their neighborhoods?[huh]

 

[shamus]

Ah... but it does affect the other owners property values.

Lets say you live in a neighborhood that has all early 1900 houses on the block. Mr. Smith comes in and tears down his house. You say All right Mr. Smith, that's great. Then Mr. Smith builds a fantastic trailer park on his property. You suddenly have 25 new neighbors. Each with their own mobile trailer.

Or better yet, why not a nice pig farm in it's place, if you don't care about zoning....

Is it still okay in your book?

 

[Bebop]

Yes, it does affect other property owners by way of possibly reducing property values in a neighborhood that used to have high property value before Mr. Smith tore down his Victorian and raised a mini Taj Mahal. I know I would not want to look at the Taj Mahal out of my kitchen window everyday.

 

[Salv]

I respect all of your opinions. However, I do not believe that anyone should have to obtain "permission" to do whatever they want with their property.

And I believe, and the British government also believes, that some things - historically important buildings for example - should be protected and that individuals should not have the right to destroy those buildings.

Now, I realize that Britain never had the degree of respect of personal property as the United States, so I can understand some of your reasoning.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point here - can you give some examples please?

But, it all comes down to the basic fact that private property is just that.

And mindless destruction of that property in pursuit of profit is one of the real problems associated with capitalism.

If someone or group feels a house should be saved, there is nothing to stop them from buying the house before the current owner did. Lots of people like "historic preservation" but few want to pony up the ducets for it.

And this does happen, far more often than not. Most of the great 1930s British Modernist houses have been bought by people who care about them, and want to preserve them. One of my favourite houses, The Homewood in Esher, has been bought by The National Trust. Greenside was a rare example of a philistine getting his hands on a fine house.

 

[John in Covina]

Property rights versus the Neighbors!

There was a time in which your home was not so closed to your neighbors that they can hear you fart in your own bathroom. Now however, not only can there hear it they complain about the smell.

We complain that no one seems to know their neighbors and complain when the neighbors interfere.

Very soon in California, your neighbor will be able to turn you in for smoking a cigar in your own back yard.

Here is the thing as a property owner there is an ideal that says "It is yours to do with as you please."

At the same time do you want your next door neighbor to paint his home with 6 foot diameter purple and yellow polka dots? Or have gang members over nightly and play loud music to accompany fistfights on the front lawn with the law enforment personel that been sent evert 30 minutes when they are not dealing crystal meth to the local highschool students? Hell, just having someone own a crowing rooster within 100 feet of your home is crummy. Dogs barking all night. THe neighbors 30 cats using your garden for latrine duty, fighting and yowling all night while in heat.

THere is all sorts of stuff that can piss off the neighborhood, usually it is when what should be private becomes all too public and affects the neighbors.

Don't want old buildings torn down, change the laws. OR put together an agency that can buy them and seek out non objectionable owners maybe. BUT realize when you restrict others you give the right to be restricted too, and someday you'll find you can't put a TV antenna on your roof because of the neighbors. Or you can't put in the type of pool and hot tub you wanted because of the neighbors. Lists of restrictions only grow and are rarely reversed.

Also there are a whole lot of people that believe that if something is Unfair to everybody, then it is Fair.

So be careful what you wish for!

 

[Salv]

Don't want old buildings torn down, change the laws. OR put together an agency that can buy them and seek out non objectionable owners maybe. BUT realize when you restrict others you give the right to be restricted too, and someday you'll find you can't put a TV antenna on your roof because of the neighbors. Or you can't put in the type of pool and hot tub you wanted because of the neighbors. Lists of restrictions only grow and are rarely reversed.

The laws already exist in the UK to prevent people tearing down important buildings, as the owner of Greenside discovered to his cost when he broke them.

I don't think you can really compare the destruction of a historically important house to the siting of a TV antenna, or the placement of a pool or hot tub.

 

[jamespowers]

Kind of reminds me of a guy in Malibu who bought a beachfront property. He soon found out that the neighbors didn't want anything built on the site because it would "block their view." He couldn't get permission for anything.
So he bought 23 redwood trees and planted them in a straight line from one edge of the property to the other. Years later, they have no view to complain about now.
You can't expect that when you restrict private property rights that it will happen in a vacuum and they will just go away or sell the property without some type of reprisal. What if the house "accidentally" burns down due to "faulty wiring?" What if the fellow who owns it decides that if he can't build he will rent it to gang members who nightly play loud music to accompany fistfights on the front lawn with the law enforcement personnel that have been sent every 30 minutes, deal crystal meth to the local high school students, own a crowing rooster, dogs that bark all night and 30 cats using your garden for latrine duty---fighting and yowling all night while in heat? How about if they paint the house in alternating stripes of purple and magenta? Getting a property owner riled up over the ability to build on a site can actually ruin your property value, quality of life, safety and neighborhood even worse than if you just let them build there. I have seen these things, except all of the things in the second example at once , happen in land use disputes. In all of the cases, the landowners around them who complained at the onset would have been better off if they kept their noses out of their neighbor's business. Remember Murphy's Law applies to just about every new law placed on the books and the old ones as well. Just remember that if it can happen to them it can happen to you.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Salv]

Just remember that if it can happen to them it can happen to you.

Regards to all,

J

I don't intend to tear my house down - not that it's listed anyway - so it's not going to happen to me

I suppose it all comes down to a belief that some things are more important than certain individual 'rights' - as George Costanza would say: "WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY!"

 

[scotrace]

Kind of reminds me of a guy in Malibu who bought a beachfront property. He soon found out that the neighbors didn't want anything built on the site because it would "block their view." He couldn't get permission for anything.
So he bought 23 redwood trees and planted them in a straight line from one edge of the property to the other. Years later, they have no view to complain about now.

I know... anchor a boat just offshore and play Dean Martin records day and night at full volume with enormous speakers... lol

 

[Miss Neecerie]

Some Clarification here...

The US does have the historical building designation as well as a landmark designation type status.

However making either of these lists takes someone interested in preserving the history of the home and it must be proven that it is indeed historical or an example of archetecture that needs preserving.

There are also whole swathes of housing areas in Los Angeles that fall into what are called HPOZ (Historical Preservation Overlay Zones), which means that the outer appearance of the house cannot be changed, and all changes must go through a community based committee which includes archetects and and historians. I live in a house located in an HPOZ and have gone to some of the approval meetings and I can testify that they do not allow things that are inconsistent with the character of the house.

So the laws to prevent tearing down of important buildings do exist in the US, but people have to make the system aware that a building should be considered important, before its knocked down.

Secondly, although Greene and Greene might have built a few houses in Arcadia, the vast majority of their lovely buildings are located in Pasadena and Altadena. Having been a lifelong resident of Arcadia, I can pretty much say that yes while things have been demolished and a vastly different house style put up, the majority of the houses torn down were generic california ranch style homes, not Greene and Greene masterpieces.