| Photo: The Kronish House in Beverly Hills. Credit: J. Paul Getty Trust / Associated Press |
Beverly Hills, CA: A recent City Council meeting offers hope, and an extension, for conservation efforts in Beverly Hills concerning the Kronish House. Renowned modernist architect Richard Neutra built Kronish House in 1954 for Herbert Kronish, a then real-estate developer who planned to live there with his wife. Soda PARTNERS, LLC., a privately owned real-estate firm based in Los Angeles, purchased the house in a foreclosure sale last January, with hopes to resell it quickly for a nice profit. When no buyers materialized, Soda Partners amplified their efforts to maximize return profits in this purchase, and initiated demolition measures at the property site. Preservationists disliked the foreclosure purchase from the beginning, initiating at least two lawsuits against the real-estate company. Despite the public and legal attacks, the real-estate group is intent on replacing this piece of architectural history with an empty lot. Last week their plans hit to an indefinite halt when the City Council placed a stay on demolition and any related conduct until October 10, adding a historic preservation ordinance to the Planning Commission’s agenda in the meantime. The precarious fate of the 1950s residence – now the last remaining of three original properties by Neutra in Beverly Hills, and one of the city’s dwindling pieces of architectural heritage - shines a spotlight on the fact that Beverly Hills has no historical preservation ordinances in place to curb demolition efforts for companies like Soda Partners. In the past, under the city’s cavalier attitude regarding preservation, Beverly Hills has seen the compromise or loss of several of its most treasured architectural structures.
The battle over Kronish House also raises another issue that as been an increasing subject of debate in architectural and urban planning circles: namely that historic preservation is a back-handed means of gentrifying neighborhoods and displacing existing residents. Often, it is the long-forgotten landmarks that become targets for historic preservation. Located in neighborhoods that have changed over the decades, developers aim to make use of the land for other purposes, and thus initiate demolition efforts. The motive behind those efforts varies from commercial to residential and much in between. While it is often important as well as useful to restore or just conserve (or both) a neglected landmark, there also exists an opposing argument that has recently gained equal validity. There are instances where conservation efforts prevent necessary improvements from taking place in their hosting communities. The clash sparks an important QUESTION: Where do we draw the line between efforts that preserve our architectural history and those that prevent us from ever making a new one?
0 comments:
Post a Comment