Memorandum
To Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP
Design and Historic Preservation Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Mail Stop 28, Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Project: 1665-1671 Appian Way, Historic Assessment
ARG Project No.: 12110.15
Date: Nov. 2, 2021
Via: E-mail
Pursuant to the City of Santa Monica’s request, Architectural Resources Group, Inc. (ARG) has conducted additional research and analysis related to the property at 1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica. This memorandum includes a summary of our research findings.
Issue Background
1665-1671 Appian Way contains a one-story, four-unit multi-family residential building that was constructed in 1914. Designed in a vernacular idiom, the building was erected by building contractor F.N. Jones for original owner John S. Stotler. The property has remained in continuous use as multi-family housing. In the most recent (2018) update of the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), the property was flagged as potentially eligible for individual listing as a local Landmark and was assigned the corresponding California Historical Resources Status Code of 5S3 (“appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation”).
In March 2021, an application nominating the property as a Landmark was submitted to the City.
The nomination asserts that the property is significant under Criterion 1, for exemplifying elements of the City’s history, and Criterion 4 as “a rare example of an architectural historical type valuable for study: the double bungalow.”1 In September 2021, ARG, on behalf of the City, prepared a Historic Assessment for the property and evaluated its eligibility against local designation criteria. ARG concluded that the property appears to meet one of the City’s Landmark criteria (Criterion 1), for exemplifying elements of Santa Monica’s economic history as an early and rare remaining example of purpose-built multi-family housing in Santa Monica. ARG also concluded that the property appears to meet two of the City’s Structure of Merit criteria (A, B.1). 1 Landmark Nomination for 1665-1671 Appian Way, prepared by Shawn Hugus, Mar. 18, 2021, 2. 2 While the nomination asserts that the property is also eligible under Landmark Criterion 4, ARG concluded that there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that the property meets this criterion.
The nomination was heard before the Landmarks Commission at its meeting on September 13, 2021. At the meeting, additional information about the property and its original owner, John Stotler, was submitted by a member of the public. The Commission voted to continue the item to allow for additional time for Staff to analyze the new information presented. Specifically, the Commission requested additional research and analysis related to the following topics:
• Whether the subject property should also be designated under Criterion 1 because of its association with race and ethnicity as the residence of John Stotler, who held (and acted on) racist views and discriminatory attitudes toward non-whites; • Whether the “double bungalow” property type described in the nomination is a recognized multi-family property type significant to the history of Santa Monica; and • Additional information about the rarity of the subject property, including the number of extant comparable properties in the vicinity.
ARG has conducted additional research and analysis related to the above-listed topics, each of which is addressed in the following sections.
Research Topic No. 1: John Stotler, Original Owner
The Historic Assessment Report that ARG prepared for the subject property (September 2021) includes basic biographical information about original owner John S. Stotler. As described in the report, information about the life of Stotler is scant. It is known that he was born in 1862 in Pennsylvania; came to California in 1885; was among a handful of people who settled in the small mining town of Ballarat, California in 1896; and later moved to Southern California where he worked as a small-scale real estate developer and investor. Stotler commissioned the construction of the subject property in 1914, which he used as both his personal residence and as an incomeproducing property. Stotler resided in the building’s northernmost unit up until his death in 1931.
Based on this information, ARG concluded that there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that Stotler made contributions in a manner that would render him a historically significant individual.
Additional information about Stotler was presented to the Landmarks Commission during the public hearing. The information that was presented pertained to the racist views and discriminatory attitudes held by Stotler. It states that at the same time that Stotler purchased the 3 subject property and commissioned construction of the subject building, he acquired property at the west end of Pico Boulevard and offered it to the City of Santa Monica as the site of a municipal auditorium, a proposition that failed to come to fruition. It further contends that when efforts to construct the auditorium failed, the Pico Boulevard property was sold to a group who sought to build a bathhouse for the Black population, an effort that failed because a group of white residents – which included Stotler – forced the group out. Due to this association, it was suggested that the property also be considered for designation under Criterion 1 for its ties to racial history.
Supplemental research conducted by ARG supports the assertion that Stotler did have racist attitudes, and that he indeed played a heavy hand in preventing African Americans from building a bathhouse at the west end of Pico Boulevard, which was located several blocks from the subject property. The location of the proposed bathhouse occupied land that Stotler once owned and was adjacent to what was pejoratively called “The Inkwell,” a stretch of beachfront that was located between Pico Boulevard and Bicknell Street and was a hub of leisure for African Americans during the segregated Jim Crow era.2 Stotler was among a group of Santa Monica residents who, in 1922, established the Santa Monica Bay Protective League, an organization whose stated mission was to eliminate “all objectionable features or anything that now is or will prove a menace to the Bay District” – a thinly veiled reference to non-whites.3 He served on its Board of Directors and was elected as its Secretary-Treasurer. That the organization was established in the spirit of racism was reflected in its official slogan – “A Membership of One Thousand Caucasians.”4 The Protective League lobbied against construction of the bathhouse on Pico Boulevard, and also lobbied to close Caldwell’s Dance Hall at 1816 3rd Street, another venue that served the local Black community.5 At question is whether the association between racial history and the subject property is strong enough to merit designation for this reason. National Register Bulletin 15A: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation is instructive in evaluating which properties are significant for their association with historic events. It underscores the assertion that there should be a clear and meaningful nexus between a historic event and a property by stating that “mere association with historic events or trends is not enough, in and of itself, to qualify under Criterion A (the equivalent of local Criterion 1): the property’s specific association must be considered important as well.”6 Implicit in this statement is an understanding that if the association between an event 2 Alison Rose Jefferson, “African American Leisure Space in Santa Monica: The Beach Sometimes Known as ‘The Inkwell,’” Southern California Quarterly 91.2 (Summer 2009), 155-189. 3 “Protective League Made Permanent Organization,” Santa Monica Evening Outlook, Jun. 8, 1922. 4 Ibid. 5 “League Asks Council to Close Hall,” Santa Monica Evening Outlook, Jul. 14, 1922. 6 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.:
National Park Service, 1990, rev. 1997), 12.
4 and a property is tenuous and not particularly well-defined, then the property is typically not eligible under this criterion.
When this guidance is applied to the subject property, there does not appear to be a particularly strong nexus between the property and the racist attitudes held by Stotler. While Stotler constructed and resided in the subject building, and the building was located near the proposed bathhouse that the Protective League lobbied against and ultimately defeated, the subject property does not appear to have played a significant role in this facet of local history aside from being the place where Stotler lived at the time. The additional information provided states that petitions for the Protective League were available for signing at his house (the subject property) – which was likely true, given Stotler’s prominent role in the organization – but this, in and of itself, does not constitute a significant event that would warrant designation under Criterion 1.
Santa Monica, like all jurisdictions, has to reckon with unfortunate and uncomfortable aspects of its racial past, and while Stotler certainly played a role in perpetuating racist attitudes and discriminatory behavior, there is insufficient evidence specifically linking this history to the subject property. Resources like the Bay Street Beach Historic District (also pejoratively known as the “Inkwell”) – which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2019 – has a much more direct and discernible association with these facets of history. Thus, ARG does not believe there is sufficient basis for adding racial history to the argument in favor of Landmark Criterion 1.
Research Topic No. 2: Property Type – The “Double Bungalow” The nomination asserts that the subject property is eligible under Landmark Criterion 4 “as a rare example of an architectural historical type valuable for study: the double bungalow.” ARG’s Historic Assessment Report evaluated the merits of this argument, but found there to be insufficient evidence demonstrating that the property embodies distinguishing characteristics of a historical type per Criterion 4. During the public hearing on September 13, 2021, the Landmarks Commission requested additional information about the “double bungalow” property type to determine if the property merits consideration under Criterion 4, as presented by the applicant.
Common types of multi-family housing that are represented in Santa Monica are defined and described in the Citywide Historic Context Statement that was prepared as part of the 2018 HRI Update. That document distinguishes between eight significant types of multi-family housing:7 7 “City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update, Historic Context Statement,” prepared by Historic Resources Group and Architectural Resources Group, Mar. 2018, 114-121. 5 • Apartment Houses (contain two to four units, oriented to maximize lot coverage) • Duplexes/Fourplexes (contain two to four units, typically designed to emulate singlefamily houses and blend into single-family residential neighborhoods) • Bungalow Courts (composed of multiple detached or semi-detached buildings oriented around a central common area)
• One-Story Courts (a later iteration of the bungalow court, composed of multiple attached units in a linear configuration facing a minimal side courtyard) • Courtyard Apartments (two-story buildings, typically oriented around a central landscaped courtyard or common outdoor area)
• Garden Apartments (composed of two or more buildings oriented around one or more courtyards or set within a larger landscape)
• Dingbats (multiple-story residential buildings that occupy the full depth of the lot and have open-sided carports that are recessed into the street frontage) • Residential Towers (buildings that are vertically oriented and are six or more stories tall) The term “double bungalow” is not identified as a multi-family housing type in the Historic Context Statement, indicating that it was not particularly common or significant in Santa Monica.
ARG consulted various other source materials to determine whether the “double bungalow” is generally accepted as a multi-family housing type in either historic or current parlance. Most sources related to the history and development of multi-family housing identify various types of courtyard housing – bungalow courts, courtyard apartments, and garden apartments – but do not make reference to the double bungalow, suggesting that this term is not widely used in the lexicon of architectural history.
A reference to the term “double bungalow” can be found in the work of Todd Gish, whose dissertation (University of Southern California, 2007) explores the development of multi-family housing in early twentieth century Southern California:
The “double bungalow” was a single-story structure divided down the middle, forming two units side-by-side. These buildings were often perfectly symmetrical in plan and front 6 elevation. The “double house” was a two-story version of this, essentially a pair of adjoining row houses, with living rooms and kitchens below and bedrooms above…8 Given this context, the terms “double bungalow” and “double house” appear to be synonyms for duplexes and fourplexes, respectively, and do not appear to be commonly used.
The subject property contains four units – not two – and therefore does not meet the definition of a duplex (or “double bungalow”). It possesses some characteristics of a fourplex (or “double house”) in that it has four units and is symmetrical in plan and elevation. However, the typical fourplex was deliberately designed to emulate the overall form, massing, and appearance of single-family houses among which they were often sited. The subject property does not appear to make any such overtures. Instead of being distributed between multiple stories, the massing of the subject property is spread across its site. Its form and massing clearly read as a multi-family building and make no apparent attempt at emulating the appearance of a single-family dwelling.
Rather, the subject property appears to loosely exhibit characteristics of several multi-family housing types – but does not exhibit the characteristics of any one type that would merit consideration under Landmark Criterion 4. As noted, it has four units, but does not present as a fourplex; it also contains a pedestrian passage between its volumes, but lacks the shared open space that is characteristic of bungalow courts and courtyard housing. It lacks the height and the density characteristic of apartment houses. For these reasons, there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that the property is significant on account of its physical design as per Criterion 4.
Research Topic No. 3: Rarity of Age and Type
ARG’s Historic Assessment Report concludes that the subject property appears to be eligible under Landmark Criterion 1 as an early and rare remaining example of purpose-built multi-family housing in Santa Monica. During the public hearing on September 13, 2021, the Landmarks Commission requested additional information about the relative rarity of the subject property.
As noted in ARG’s Historic Assessment Report, rarity of age and type was determined by evaluating survey data from the 2018 HRI. Not including the subject property, eleven examples of pre-1920 multi-family properties were identified in the HRI as eligible for listing citywide, which are comparable to the subject property with respect to age (pre-1920) and use (purpose-built multi-family dwellings). Information about each of these comparable properties is included below:
8 Todd Douglas Gish, “Building Los Angeles: Urban Housing in the Suburban Metropolis, 1900-1936” (Ph.D., diss., University of Southern California, 2007), 3.
7 Address: 1423 10th Street
Year Built: 1912
Property Type: Duplex
Architectural Style: Residential Vernacular
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Address: 3025 2nd Street (also 233 Marine St)
Year Built: 1912
Property Type: Apartment House
Architectural Style: Mediterranean Revival
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Address: 2906 3rd Street
Year Built: 1912
Property Type: Apartment House
Architectural Style: Mission Revival
Status Code (2018): 5S3
8 Address: 3007-3009 3rd Street
Year Built: 1908
Property Type: Bungalow Court
Architectural Style: Craftsman
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Address: 2434 4th Street
Year Built: 1915
Property Type: Fourplex
Architectural Style: Craftsman
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Address: 2524 4th Street
Year Built: 1917
Property Type: Triplex
Architectural Style: Mediterranean Revival
Status Code (2018): 5S3
9 Address: 215 Bay Street
Year Built: 1908
Property Type: Triplex
Architectural Style: Craftsman
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Address: 319-321 Bicknell Avenue
Year Built: 1902
Property Type: Fourplex
Architectural Style: Residential Vernacular
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Address: 143 Hollister Avenue
Year Built: 1912
Property Type: Apartment House (Maryland Apts.)
Architectural Style: Italian Renaissance Revival
Status Code (2018): 5S3
10 Address: 124 Pacific Street
Year Built: 1912
Property Type: Duplex
Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Address: 418 Strand Street (also 2302 5th Street)
Year Built: 1912
Property Type: Apartment House
Architectural Style: Craftsman
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Including the subject property, twelve examples of purpose-built multi-family residential properties were identified as potentially eligible for listing in the 2018 HRI. This accounts for 1.4% of the total number of eligible resources (875) identified in the 2018 HRI. (Many other examples of multi-family residential properties were identified in HRI, but were built in or after 1920, when multi-family development became a more ubiquitous part of Santa Monica’s built environment).
These comparable examples of eligible multi-family residential resources exhibit some variety with respect to type, size, scale, and style. However, like the subject property they are all relatively early (defined as pre-1920) examples of purpose-built multi-family housing in Santa Monica.
Designated examples of pre-1920 multi-family residential resources include the Bay Street Craftsman Cluster (comprising four buildings at 137-147 Bay Street, built circa 1900), and the Purser Apartments (1659 Ocean Front Walk, built 1913).
To further ascertain the question of rarity, ARG evaluated Sanborn fire insurance maps of Santa Monica from 1918, focusing specifically on the area in the vicinity of the subject property – 11 generally defined as the area bounded by Colorado Avenue (north), Ocean Park Boulevard (south – then known as Dwight Avenue), Fourth Street (east), and Ocean Front Walk (west). Review of these maps indicate that in this area, there were roughly six dozen examples of properties containing different multi-family property types including apartment houses, duplexes, fourplexes, and bungalow courts in 1918, one of which was the subject property. Many more were presumably located in other parts of the City, which were not evaluated at length for this analysis.
The subject property is certainly not the only example of an early, purpose-built multi-family resource in Santa Monica; as noted above, there are eleven examples of comparable resources in the City, and the Purser Apartments – built in 1913 as an apartment house – is located across the street from the subject property, and exhibits some of the same associative characteristics as those conveyed by the subject property. However, when compared against the number of similar properties that once existed within Santa Monica, and against the total pool of eligible resources citywide, the subject property appears to be a relatively rare example of its age and type.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Per the above research and analysis, ARG arrives at the following conclusions:
• While original owner John Stotler played a heavy hand in perpetuating racism, there is insufficient evidence linking events in racial history to the subject property. It is ARG’s opinion that the subject property is not eligible under Criterion 1 for this reason. • The “double bungalow” does not appear to be a term that is widely used in academic studies of multi-family housing. Rather, it appears to be a seldom-used synonym for the duplex. The subject property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a duplex or any other type of multi-family dwelling. Rather, it loosely embodies some characteristics of various multi-family types. It is ARG’s opinion that the subject property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a specific type – double bungalow or other - that would render it eligible under Criterion 4.
• The subject property is one of twelve known examples of locally eligible, pre-1920 purpose-built multi-family residential resources in Santa Monica. There are also two designated multi-family properties from 1920 in the City. Research suggests that this was once a relatively ubiquitous property type that has become less common over time.