Built in 1952 by “American Hero” Edward H. Fickett, FAIA, the Sunset Lanai Apartments (1422 N. Sweetzer Avenue) is one of the handful of exemplary work by the mid-century modern master and once known as an urban oasis. The West Hollywood Historic Preservation Commission and City Council have both voted in support of designating the Sunset Lanai as a cultural resource.
Unfortunately, the owners of the property, Edwin Silver and family take no pride of ownership with this property and are declaring financial burdens associated with historic designation calling for an appeal of the nomination.
When it comes to preservation and restoration, the costs are not that much more than general contract work. The key is finding the right contractors to do the work professionally and with integrity to the original design. In fact, if the owner’s chose to accept the designation and file for the Mills Act through application, they would have a great opportunity to relieve themselves of certain taxes associated with the restoration to lower repair costs.
Mind you, most of the costs associated in their complaints and cost analysis delivered to Council are for the repairs of general upkeep that any building owner must maintain, such as a new roof, upgrading general building systems, general upkeep and maintenance and termite control. Again, basic items all buildings have to maintain or replace from time-to-time to help maintain structural integrity.
Now, it seems the Silver family is placing these common financial burdens of owning a business onto the city’s shoulders. Through the years, they have proven they do not like to spend money on the building.
The Sunset Lanai has been in the Silver family since the beginning. Edwin Silver and family purchased the 20-unit apartment complex from his brother’s estate, i.e. pennies to the dollar. His brother, a surgeon at Cedars Sinai was the original owner purchasing the complex from developer, George Alexander.
One of the major costs to the owners is building systems, which include electrical upgrading to include individual meters. Since the building was built in the mid-century, things have changed, but the Silvers never kept up with time. Instead, they are crying the financial burden to run a business is just too much. Like in any business, “too hot in the kitchen, then time to get out.” If you do not like being in the business of being a landlord, then time to sell and move on.
Fortunately, Mr. Fickett built a fine example of mid-century modern architecture and design through his engineering and thoughtfulness that can still be seen today through the hidden jungle you are greeted by.
The shortsightedness on behalf of the Silvers is to not see the true reward in up-keeping a cultural resource. Another financial point in favor of designation is that the value of the property increases with historic status. I have never heard anyone say, “It’s a landmark, must be worthless?”
Like in any business there is a potential for failure. If Mr. Silver wants to turn a designation of a historic building into a way to have the city pay for general upkeep costs because he is cash-poor, I want to win the lottery, too!
Unfortunately, even if the City Council denies the owner’s appeal, there could be further ramifications made by these owners through litigation, but welcome to West Hollywood, folks. Mark Lehman (Soho House, WeHo Chamber of Commerce), attorney for the Edwin Silver family states in the written appeal to the City: “Designation of this questionable Property as a local cultural resource would no doubt impose severe economic hardship over the long-term and force the Property Owners to consider Ellis [Act] or other avenues to alleviate the hardship.”
I would not recommend the Ellis Act approach if already claiming to be cash-poor. What income would they have for seven years after declaration and relocating tenants? The Silvers would also have to relocate the five units occupied by extended family members who currently live in the building. Somehow the conditions of this building are suitable for the owners’ extended family, but not worthy enough for the owner to properly maintain? The financial costs associated with the Ellis Act are only suitable for the big players, which the Silvers are not.
The appeal being made by the Silvers is just bogus and a way for them to get the City to pay for general business costs. I say deny them the appeal and start citing code violations. The City can then place a lien if the violations are not paid. This would give the City a little more power of persuasion to convince the Silver’s to clean up their act and be responsible business-owners.
The City Council votes on the appeal (Public Hearing item 3.A) Monday evening, starting at 6:30pm in the Council Chamber.
I am not taking sides, but pointing out the basic facts. We live in a Market Economy where the price of virtually everything is set by the basic Supply/Demand model. To be more clear, we (the U.S.) have a free market system designed to encourage everyone to seek and get the highest amount of profit from whatever they choose to do. An apartment is 'investment property' and 'pride of ownership' is not a function of decision making under our system. If the city wanted a policy to encourage preservation of such properties they would have to set up some kind of system making it more financially beneficial for the owners of these properties to preserve them. The City just saying "we are committed to preservation" is meaningless without a form of profiting more for preserving investment properties in the city. The City did not and has chosen to not attempt to entice peservatoin. In fact, the current state of the remaining historic building all being threatened was known as an inevitable situation after deciding to create a blanket rent controlled city without the financing structure necessary to make it feasible. This loss of our history is the price we are now paying for the system known to lead to what we now face and known 25 years ago but not mentioned when promising rent control and historic preservation. Time to pay the piper.
There are 25 yeara of lost opportunity to ameliorate the problems leading up to the inevitable deterioration requiring mire in repairs than the investment propety can return. in fact the city has consistently antagonized the owners of investment property, made promises to residents they had no abilith to deliver, and fostered ever increasing tensions between landlords and tenants. it's no wonder the owners of historic buikding are so fed up that whatever human desire for what people call pride in ownership they might have had is long gone and recouping as much of what they invested in is all that matters, especially in this economy.