use

Learning from Los Angeles

October 2013 ThePartnership for Building Re

About the Partnership

NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PARTNERSHIP FOR BUILDING REUSE PRESERVATION The National Trust for Historic Preservation The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a and ULI created the Partnership for Build- privately funded nonprofit organization, works ing Reuse in 2012 to enhance opportuni- to save America’s historic places. Launched ties for building reuse in major U.S. cities. by the National Trust in 2009, the Preserva- Recognizing the environmental, economic tion Green Lab strengthens the fabric of com- and community benefits of reusing vacant munities by capitalizing on the inherent value and blighted property, the Partnership for of their irreplaceable built assets to improve Building Reuse brings together community social, environmental and economic perfor- groups, real estate developers, and civic mance. leaders around the common goal of making it easier to reuse and retrofit these valuable URBAN LAND INSTITUTE assets. The Partnership for Building Reuse The Urban Land Institute (ULI) provides launched with a pilot project in Los Angeles leadership in the responsible use of land and in 2012 and is expanding to four additional in creating and sustaining thriving communi- cities in 2013-14. A national convening and ties worldwide. ULI is an independent global publication summarizing the lessons learned nonprofit supported by members represent- through the Partnership for Building Reuse ing the entire spectrum of real estate de- is planned for 2015. velopment and land use disciplines. ULI Los Angeles is a district council of ULI, and car- ries forth the ULI mission as the preeminent regional real estate organization providing inclusive and trusted leadership influencing public policy and practice.

Cover photo: the Old Bank © 2013 The National Trust for Historic Preservation District in downtown Los 1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW Angeles has been transformed Washington, DC 20036 into a 24-hour urban neighborhood through the All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the adaptive use of once vacant historic buildings. whole or any part of the contents without written Jim Lindberg, NTHP photo permission of the copyright holder is prohibited.

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 3 Project Staff Eileen Fogarty President, The Fogarty Group Urban Land Institute Tom Gilmore S. Gail Goldberg Chief Executive Officer, Gilmore & Associates Executive Director, ULI Los Angeles John Given Christine Aure Susa Principal, City Build Advisors Director, ULI Los Angeles Lew Horne Matthew Severson Executive Managing Director, CBRE Associate, ULI Los Angeles Lynn Jacobs Adrienne Schmitz President, Ventura Affordable Homes Senior Director, Publications, ULI Brian Jones National Trust for Historic Preservation President, BMJ Advisors Mark Huppert Senior Director, Preservation Green Lab Macy Leung Principal, Sai Investment and Development Jim Lindberg Planning Director, Preservation Green Lab Rick Newman President, Lowe Enterprises Jeana Wiser Project Coordinator, Preservation Green Lab Christopher Redfearn Director, Rusk Center for Real Estate, University Advisory Committee of Southern California Chris Robertson Jonathan Curtis Urban Planner, Los Angeles County Department Advisory Committee Chair, ULI Los Angeles of Regional Planning California Golden Fund and City Council, La Ca- ñada Flintridge Ryan Spruston Associate Architect, Gensler Los Angeles Ryan Altoon Executive Vice President, Anderson Pacific Funders Peter Belisle Chairman, Project and Development Services, The Jessie Ball duPont Fund Jones Lang LaSalle The Kresge Foundation Linda Dishman Executive Director, Los Angeles Conservancy Southern California Association of Governments Adrian Scott Fine Director of Advocacy, Los Angeles Conservancy

David Flaks Chief Operating Officer, Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation

4 The Partnership for Building Reuse Contents

Executive Summary...... 6 Introduction...... 9 A Pilot Process in Los Angeles...... 11 Development Trends...... 12 Barriers to Reuse ...... 18 Market...... 18 Financial...... 19 Technical ...... 20 Regulatory...... 23 Market Opportunities for Reuse...... 28 Solutions to Overcome the Barriers...... 31 Action Plan...... 33 Conclusion: Learning from Los Angeles...... 35 Case Study: The Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse Ordinance...... 36 Stakeholders ...... 41 About the Advisory Committee Members...... 43 Acknowledgments...... 49

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 5 Executive Summary

THROUGH INNOVATIVE PUBLIC POLICY Now Los Angeles is poised to write a new and creative private development, Los chapter in this story, one that builds on Angeles is demonstrating how older and ex- the remarkable success of the ARO. More isting buildings can be repurposed to serve than 10 million square feet remains vacant the new, creative economy and to help in buildings in the urban core, including meet goals to reduce carbon emissions. The downtown and the Wilshire Center/Kore- city’s downtown core contains one of the atown redevelopment project area. With nation’s finest collections of early 20th- work beginning on the first rewrite of the century architecture. Most of these build- city’s zoning ordinance since 1946, Los ings sat vacant for decades until a carefully Angeles has an opportunity to modernize targeted Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (ARO) land use regulations to make it easier to removed regulatory barriers, provided recycle these and other existing buildings incentives, and helped make it possible to to provide much needed housing, live/work repurpose more than 60 historic buildings space, creative offices, retail outlets, educa- as new apartments, lofts, and hotels. tional facilities and cultural and entertain- ment venues.

Los Angeles is serving as the initial pilot city for the Partnership for Building Reuse, a national effort of the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Preservation Green Lab and the Urban Land Institute. The goals of this initiative are to decrease rates of demolition, encourage building reuse, and foster sustainable community development in large cities across the country. Unfortu- nately, a variety of factors encourage the abandonment, underutilization or even demolition of buildings, resulting in need- less environmental impacts and lost de- velopment opportunities. The Partnership Although more than 60 for Building Reuse is designed to identify buildings in downtown Los Angeles have been common barriers to reuse and to develop rehabilitated since 1999, opportunities remain in recommendations for solutions to over- many vacant and under- come them. used structures. NTHP photo, Jim Lindberg

6 The Partnership for Building Reuse Led locally by the ULI Los Angeles (ULI LA) weaker in some areas, demand for “creative district council, the Partnership for Build- office” space is growing, particularly in older ing Reuse has engaged more than 50 local buildings with distinctive architectural char- real estate investors, developers, architects, acter. With these opportunities as well as contractors, historic preservation advo- the barriers in mind, an action plan to realize cates, planners, neighborhood representa- the potential of building reuse in Los Ange- tives, building code officials, and others. les was developed by ULI LA, to be carried Through analysis of development trends, out in partnership with other organizations one-on-one interviews, and facilitated dis- and community leaders. The plan includes cussions, local stakeholders have identified three main strategies: numerous barriers to building reuse in Los Angeles. These include: Action Plan for Los Angeles MARKET BARRIERS 1. Integrate building reuse as a goal in the up- • Unrealistic seller pricing of many existing build- date of the Los Angeles zoning code to align ings land use regulations with the city’s vision for • Fewer pre-World War II buildings suitable for re-urbanization. Focus on the rewrite of the reuse remaining Unified Downtown Development Code as a FINANCIAL BARRIERS policy model that can be adopted in other mixed-use areas in the city. • Lender concerns about project complexity and delays 2. Streamline the building permitting and ap- • Some areas of the city still considered too risky proval process by aligning three city depart- by lenders ments (Planning, Building and Safety and Fire) to the goal of making building reuse TECHNICAL BARRIERS easier. • Functional challenges with reusing post-World 3. Create support for policy reforms and War II structures incentives that encourage building reuse by • Providing parking on site is often difficult documenting the environmental, economic, REGULATORY BARRIERS and social benefits of building reuse and by sharing success stories. • ARO does not facilitate commercial reuse • Change of use is triggered too easily This plan offers a path to engage other • Permit review is uncertain and time-consuming stakeholders and community leaders in a

At the same time, the stakeholders pointed constructive dialogue about how to make to market trends that are creating new the market-driven reuse of older and his- opportunities to convert older buildings toric buildings in Los Angeles easier and to new uses in Los Angeles. Downtown more likely. With success of the ARO to and other mixed-use districts along transit build upon, Los Angeles has an opportunity corridors are increasingly viewed as attrac- to become a national leader in sustainable tive places to live, work and shop. Demand development through building reuse. for housing in these areas, including mar- ket rate and affordable units, continues to be very strong. While the office market is

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 7

Introduction

THE NATIONAL TRUST AND ULI launched the National Trust provides research and the Partnership for Building Reuse in 2012 to policy innovation to strengthen the connec- enhance opportunities for building reuse in tions between historic preservatio and sus- major U.S. cities. tainable development.

Many cities are looking for innovative ways PROJECT OVERVIEWS AND GOALS to ramp up economic recovery and stimu- The Partnership for Building Reuse focuses late job growth, while also meeting aggres- on the places where older, vacant, and sive goals to decrease carbon emissions underused buildings are concentrated in the and reduce waste. Numerous studies, as greatest numbers: our major cities. In some well as decades of experience, indicate that cities, vacant structures number in the tens building reuse offers an effective means of of thousands, and demolition is a frequent achieving economic, environmental, and response to concerns about blight. In cities social sustainability goals. Unfortunately, with stronger market potential, demolitions a variety of factors encourage the aban- are occurring as population increases and donment, underuse, or even demolition of as real estate prices rise in desirable older older buildings, resulting in needless envi- neighborhoods, along emerging transit ronmental impacts and lost redevelopment corridors, and in revitalizing downtown opportunities. districts. The Partnership for Building Reuse The Partnership for Building Reuse seeks seeks to identify strategies to make the to identify key barriers to reuse and devel- reuse of older and existing buildings a more op solutions to overcome them. The project viable, market-driven alternative to both of brings together two national organizations, these scenarios. as well as local partners, to convene dia- The overall goals of the Partnership for logues with community stakeholders about Building Reuse are to decrease rates of building reuse challenges and opportunities. demolition, to encourage building reuse The Partnership for Building Reuse leverag- and to foster sustainable development. The es the unique strengths and expertise of the project consists of three phases: National Trust and ULI. With a network of 52 • 2013: Development of a replicable meth- District Councils across the United States, odology to address building reuse chal- ULI is the nation’s leading real estate devel- lenges and opportunities in an initial pilot opment organization. ULI staff and mem- city, Los Angeles bers bring practical, inclusive leadership on critical real estate challenges and public pol- • 2014: Refinement and testing of the meth- icies. Through its Preservation Green Lab, odology in up to four additional cities with

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 9 a diverse range of building stock, market impacts of building reuse and renovation to conditions and opportunities for reuse demolition and new construction over the course of a building’s 75-year life span. The • 2015: Publication of a “Principles for Build- study compares scenarios for six building ing Reuse” handbook that can be adopted types across a range of climate regions. and used by ULI district councils and The results of this analysis show that it community leaders around the country, takes from ten to 80 years for a new build- as well as a national convening to share ing that is 30 percent more efficient than and discuss ideas for implementing these an average-performing existing building to principles overcome, through efficient operations, the negative climate change impacts related to the construction process.

“The Greenest Building” report substanti- ates the idea that recycling, repurposing, and retrofitting existing buildings to make them more energy efficient is an effective sustainable development strategy. At the same time, many real estate professionals, including ULI members and councils, are looking at the reuse of vacant and under- used buildings as a growing market oppor- tunity.

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF REUSE Architect Carl Elefante coined the phrase, “The greenest building is the one that al- ready exists,” to convey the environmental benefits of retaining and recycling existing buildings. In 2011, the Preservation Green Lab released a report that confirmed the wisdom behind Elefante’s words. “The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environ- mental Value of Building Reuse” provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of the environmental impact reductions associated with building reuse. Using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, the study compares the relative environmental

10 The Partnership for Building Reuse A Pilot Process in Los Angeles

LOS ANGELES WAS SELECTED as the • Baseline data collection and mapping of location to develop and test a methodol- development trends, providing a snapshot ogy that other cities can use to encourage of current conditions and enabling future the reuse of existing buildings. With a rich- measurement of changes in rates over ly built environment and a recent history of time successful adaptive use projects, along with • Interviews with leading local practitioners ambitious plans for higher density transit- to identify and understand barriers to oriented development, Los Angeles pres- reuse as well as key opportunities ents an ideal laboratory in which to address the challenges and opportunities for build- • Facilitated meetings of local stakeholders ing reuse. to discuss and prioritize key barriers, to develop possible solutions, and to recom- ULI LA has a strong interest in this issue, mend strategies for implementation as well as experience bringing communi- ty leaders together to address key real es- • Development of an action plan to imple- tate challenges through numerous technical ment solutions and recommendations assistance panels. Other established local over the following 18 months partners, including the Los Angeles Conser- • A summary of lessons learned from Los vancy and the Central City Association of Angeles about bringing together public Los Angeles, have a long track record of ac- officials, the development community, complishment in building reuse and urban and other stakeholders that can be ap- revitalization. The Partnership for Building plied in other localities Reuse also complements ULI LA’s Corri- dor Project, which examines ways to en- The results of this pilot phase in Los Ange- courage sustainable development and to les will inform a second round of Partner- improve links along key transit corridors in ship for Building Reuse projects in up to the city. The 2008 passage of Measure R, four additional cities around the country which funds the expansion of transit facili- in 2013-14. A national summit and publica- ties throughout Los Angeles county, pres- tion of “Principles for Building Reuse” are ents many opportunities for reusing vacant planned for 2015. or underutilized space in existing buildings along transit corridors.

The Partnership for Building Reuse launched in Los Angeles in November, 2012. The methodology used in this pilot phase included the following elements:

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 11 Development Trends

LONG CHARACTERIZED AS A LOW- construction permits, zoning classification, DENSITY CITY dominated by the automo- selected overlay districts and vacancy rates bile, the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim by use type. This citywide snapshot of cur- metropolitan area is actually the nation’s rent development patterns provides a base- most densely populated urbanized area. The line of information for tracking changes over population of the city of Los Angeles con- time and allows a comparison of conditions tinues to grow, including in older areas such in Los Angeles to other large U.S. cities. As as downtown, which now is home to 50,000 seen in the map showing demolition and new residents, as well as nearly 500,000 daily construction permits, Los Angeles exhibits workers. the characteristics of a strong market city, with new construction outpacing demolition Staff members from the Preservation Green and no large areas of either demolition or Lab used data from the city of Los Angeles high vacancy. and the real estate services group CBRE to compile maps illustrating development trends in mixed-use areas of the city. Single family residential districts were not included in the analysis. Data used to create the maps includes: year structure built, demolition and

Looking toward downtown Los Angeles. NTHP Photo, Jim Lindberg

12 The Partnership for Building Reuse The Preservation Green Lab’s mapping of the city by the year that primary structures were built on each parcel shows the evolution of the city at-a-glance. Downtown and adjacent neighbor- hoods to the south and west, in particular, retain mostly structures from pre-World War II. Areas further west and to the northwest in the San Fernando Valley are dominated by buildings of more recent vintage.

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 13 To capture recent trends, demolition and new construction permit data from 2002 to 2012 were added to the citywide map. The data shows how demolitions and new construction are generally co-located, of- ten following major tran- sit corridors, such as the Metro Rail Service’s Red Line. The largest con- centration of demolition and new construction is in downtown. No large areas of demolition can be seen without nearby new construction. Over- all, new construction permits exceed demoli- tion permits by more than fifty-percent. These trends indicate that re- urbanization and infill, rather than abandon- ment, are driving most decisions to demolish existing structures in Los Angeles. This trend is in contrast to patterns seen in other large cities, such as Chicago and Philadel- phia, where demolitions occur without building replacement in some areas.

14 The Partnership for Building Reuse Los Angeles has a strong local preserva- tion program, with 29 Historic Preservation Overlay zones protecting thousands of structures, mostly in residential areas. The ARO has been expanded from the initial downtown district to four other mixed-use areas near downtown and in emerging transit oriented locations.

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 15 LA COMMERCIAL + APARTMENTS: DEMOLITION % VS. BUILDING STOCK % Analysis of the age of ex- isting structures shows that the largest concen- tration of multi-family and commercial build- ings were built in the two decades after World War II. Perhaps surpris- ingly, demolition rates are highest for structures dating from the 1970s through the 1990s. The fact that older buildings have been retained and in some cases repur- posed at a higher rate than more recent struc- tures may be explained by their often more substantial construction, and by the effectiveness of the city’s public, non- profit and private historic preservation efforts.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES | OFFICE VACANCY: Q4 2012 In addition to the citywide permit data, information from CBRE was used to identify vacancy rates by submarket areas for multi-family housing, commercial, office and industrial uses. This information shows particularly strong market demands for housing and industrial space, as well as substantial vacancy for commercial and office uses in some areas. Vacancies were are particularly high in the office market downtown and along the Wilshire Boulevard corridor.

16 The Partnership for Building Reuse Additional maps of the downtown core and the Wilshire Center/ Koreatown ARO overlay district immediately west of downtown give a more detailed look at office vacancy rates in those two high density, transit-accessible areas. Using data from the last quarter of 2012, the maps show more than 7,668,676 square feet of vacant space in buildings that is being marketed for office use in the downtown core. Another 1,664,471 of vacant of- fice space is available in the Wilshire Center/ Koreatown redevelop- ment area along the Red Line transit corridor. This inventory of vacant and underused space presents a substantial, untapped opportunity for the adaptive use of existing buildings to meet the growing demands for housing, hotels, creative office space, live-work units, educational facilities and a range of entertainment and commercial uses.

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 17 Barriers to Building Reuse

THROUGH INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS as high for residential conversions, as well as for well as small-and large-group discussions, live/work units. The market for creative office approximately 50 local stakeholders in- space is an emerging growth area. On the volved in real estate development from both supply side, the inventory of pre-World War the private and public sectors were asked to II buildings suitable for reuse is running low. share their views about the barriers to build- Partly as a result, many buildings from the ing reuse in Los Angeles. These conversa- 1940s through the 1970s are now being con- tions were organized around four types of sidered for reuse. Perhaps the biggest market barriers: challenge is the unrealistic price expectations of current owners and sellers, particularly • Market barriers relating to the supply and in areas such as downtown that have seen demand for various building types and numerous successful building conversions. uses Many buildings that are suitable for reuse lan- • Financial barriers involving project costs, guish in the marketplace because of asking sources of equity, lending practices, and prices that render redevelopment infeasible. financial incentives ACQUISITION COSTS • that arise related to Technical barriers In the view of many stakeholders, the building location, site, design, construc- biggest current challenge to entering the tion and materials market for building reuse is acquiring the

• Regulatory barriers such as zoning and building. Prices for older buildings have development standards, building codes, climbed with the overall market recovery seismic codes, and other review process- and are particularly high in areas such as es, requirements, permits and fees downtown where reuse has proven suc- cessful. In many cases, these older proper- Below is a summary of the responses from ties are free of debt and include enough the stakeholders. leased ground floor retail to provide some income to their longtime owners. Several Market Barriers interviewees noted that this problem is also a sign of success and can be seen as a step SUMMARY in the evolving revitalization of many areas Stakeholders generally agreed that the mar- of the city. ket for the reuse of existing buildings in Los Angeles is improving in many areas of the The overriding importance of macro- city, although a weak market remains a bar- economic conditions on the market for rier in some locations. Demand is particularly building reuse was emphasized by one interviewee who noted the following statis-

18 The Partnership for Building Reuse tic: although some 14,000 residential units were created downtown in 60 re-purposed buildings between 1999 and 2013, virtually none of these conversions occurred during the four-year national recession between 2008 and 2012.

Financial Barriers

SUMMARY Over time, financial barriers to building reuse have lessened, as lenders and investors have become more comfortable with the com- plexities of building reuse. Developers with extensive experience in redevelopment find less lender resistance, whereas those lack- ing a track record may encounter difficul- Commercial Exchange building (1924), ties. Lenders are often concerned with risks downtown Los Angeles. Jim Lindberg, NTHP relating to hazardous materials, structural photo soundness, permitting delays, and compli- these projects. Specific cost barriers cited cated layers of public and private funding. included the longer time needed for project Redevelopment projects in less-than-opti- planning and design, hazardous materials, mal locations often do not fit lender formu- longer time needed for project permitting las. Statewide regulations related to climate and other approvals, legal and accounting change may have an increasing effect (posi- costs for tax credits, and unexpected delays tive or negative) on project financial feasi- in construction schedules. bility in coming years. A state rehabilitation tax credit would help spur additional reuse FUNDING SOURCES projects. Early developers of rehabilitation projects in PROJECT COSTS areas such as downtown struggled to secure financing. One city staffer recalls a down- Stakeholders and interviewees offered town project where the developer “brought differing opinions regarding the costs of more than 50 investors to the site until he rehabilitating existing structures versus new finally found one willing to take a chance.” construction. Some said that rehabilitation In response to financing difficulties, some was almost always more expensive, while developers sought funding from overseas, others pointed to savings achieved through whereas others self-financed their projects rehabilitation over new construction. There with cash. Lender discomfort with the per- was more agreement that rehabilitation ceived higher risk of rehabilitation projects brings greater uncertainty than new con- was mentioned in several interviews and struction, resulting in concerns among discussions with stakeholders. The complex lenders about the risks associated with

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 19 layering of public and private funding that is stakeholder meeting, one of the small discus- needed for many rehabilitation projects can sion groups brought up the need for a state be unfamiliar to some lenders. Others may rehabilitation tax credit to help overcome the assign high risks to loans in emerging mar- costs and higher risks associated with these kets and locations that are unfamiliar or lack- projects (31 states have such tax incentive ing comparables. “Instead of a loan-to-value programs). And finally, several groups men- ratio of 60 to 70 percent, it may be 40 to 50 tioned the need for more research to de- percent, and the developer will have to put in termine how best to position building reuse more money,” noted one real estate consul- in California’s new Cap and Trade Program tant. Retail reuse projects are particularly -- the greenhouse gas compliance obligation challenging. Lender resistance to mixed-use -- and how to develop metrics to quantify projects and low values assigned to ground the carbon emissions benefits of reuse. floor retail spaces were often cited.

OTHER NEEDS Technical Barriers

Several suggestions emerged regarding SUMMARY the need for better tools and incentives to Every building and site presents unique help secure financing for reuse projects. challenges and opportunities, so general- For example, more data on the success of izing about technical barriers is difficult. rehabilitation projects might help lessen Pre-World War II masonry wall buildings are the perception of risk among lenders. Such typically most suitable for residential reuse, data are needed for mixed-use projects of but the inventory of available candidates all kinds, including new construction. At the from this era is shrinking. Post-war struc- tures with curtain-wall construction present a new set of challenges, including low ceil- ings, large floor plates, poor quality materi- als, and substandard energy performance. Nonetheless, many of these buildings are attracting new investment and are being up- dated for creative office use or adapted for housing and hotels. Warehouses and other open-plan, one-story structures are read- ily adapted for a range of uses. Parking is a common technical challenge across building vintages and types.

SITE AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT Stakeholders noted that older buildings

One of many older have a number of assets, including existing buildings on south entitlements, which one interviewee char- Broadway with underused upper floors. acterized as “in-place density that would Jim Lindberg, NTHP not otherwise be permitted.” The location photo

20 The Partnership for Building Reuse South Broadway in downtown Los Angeles is lined historic office buildings and theaters. Many are vacant above the first floor. Jim Lindberg, NTHP photo

of existing buildings was generally cited cussions with stakeholders. This topic is not as an asset, in that these structures were surprising, as many older buildings date to a often in neighborhoods with established period of construction before the automobile architectural character, pedestrian-level became commonplace. One interviewee not- building interest and access to transit lines ed that many creative office tenants expect- and other public infrastructure. However, in ed parking to be available. Views differed planning substantial renovations, the lack as to whether this expectation was a barrier of adequate infrastructure -- power, water that needed a building-by-building solution pressure, gas lines, street widths, sidewalks or if it could be solved with shared parking -- can be an obstacle. Building lot sizes can strategies or transit alternatives. Some noted also make reuse difficult, particularly long how other cities (San Francisco, Portland) and narrow lots that do not allow adequate have eliminated parking requirements and natural light for residential reuse. Consolida- other municipalities are moving away from tion of small parcels for larger projects can requiring parking as transit options are be challenging. added. Several pointed to the work of Uni- versity of California, Los Angeles, Professor PARKING Donald Shoup regarding parking policy and The question of parking emerged as a poten- pricing strategies. Shoup’s research focuses tial barrier in both the interviews and dis- on the costs of including parking require-

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 21 ments in land use development standards LAYOUT AND DESIGN and encourages market-based solutions as Building construction factors that influence an alternative. how a building can be reused include floor- BUILDING SIZE plate size, floor-to-ceiling heights, window size, stairwell access, and wall construction The effect of building size on reuse potential materials. Floor plates that are too large, varies by context. In many areas, smaller and insufficient daylight, and poor ventilation simpler buildings are more likely candidates pose particular problems for residential for adaptive use. “One story commercial reuse. It was noted that not all buildings can and industrial buildings are easy to adapt,” work for residential conversions and that said one interviewee. “As height increases, mixed uses may be necessary to use the so does complexity,” he added. Conversely, space effectively. A retail developer noted small buildings in areas with high densities that when adapting non-retail spaces for are challenging to justify for major invest- retail use, low ceiling heights are a frequent ment when by-right development is much problem. Participants cited a few building larger. According to one developer, these types as particularly challenging to reuse. small buildings “will be more vulnerable to These include theaters, such as the famed demolition except where they serve retail row of landmark movie houses along South and lifestyle occupancies that improve the Broadway, and department stores, which district.” often have large floor plates and dense column grids that make it difficult to adapt to modern merchandising or other uses. Older industrial structures may not work for modern warehousing and wholesaling uses because ceiling clearances are too low for contemporary pallet stacks.

NEXT GENERATION REHAB: MID-CENTURY BUILDINGS One of the biggest themes to emerge in the interviews and at the stakeholder meeting was the trend toward rehabilitation of build- ings constructed between the 1940s and the 1970s. One interviewee characterized

Vacant for 20 years, this trend as a shift from “first generation” the William Pereira- to “second generation” rehabilitation in Los designed Metropolitan Water District Angeles. The first generation of buildings headquarters (1963) to be rehabilitated consisted primarily of is one of several post- World War II buildings pre-World War II structures with masonry in or near downtown walls, high-quality materials, interesting being converted to new uses. architectural details, and layouts that provide Jim Lindberg, NTHP generous amounts of daylight and natural photo

22 The Partnership for Building Reuse ventilation. Many of these buildings are des- designation. Stakeholders noted numerous ignated historic landmarks and were con- challenges in reusing buildings from this era, verted to housing with help from the (ARO) including low floor-to-ceiling heights and and federal rehabilitation tax credits. But as layouts that don’t provide adequate natural many stakeholders pointed out, the number light or ventilation for housing. In many cas- of buildings of this type that remain undevel- es, the mechanical, plumbing, and curtain- oped is shrinking fast. Although a substan- wall systems in structures from this period tial collection of pre-World War II buildings require complete replacement, causing some remain vacant downtown, many have high stakeholders to question the environmental price tags and layouts that are difficult to benefits of reusing them at all. adapt for housing.

Partly as a result of the success of first Regulatory Barriers generation rehabilitation projects, atten- SUMMARY tion is now turning to structures of more All respondents cited regulatory issues as recent vintage. These newer buildings use obstacles to the rehabilitation of existing simpler forms, lighter-weight materials and buildings. The Los Angeles ARO is viewed curtain-wall construction. Most are seen as as a model of success, in part because it old, but not necessarily historic or worthy of is focused on removing barriers without

Plans are underway to convert the long vacant Trinity Auditorium and hotel (1914) into a hotel. Jim Lindberg, NTHP photo

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 23 adding new layers of review. Many think outside of the designated ARO districts, that the ARO needs to be updated, how- where environmental clearance is required. ever. The city’s zoning code and parking Stakeholders proposed a CEQA exemption standards discourage reuse and are out of for projects involving the reuse of all exist- synch with the new vision for a denser and ing buildings, whether eligible for historic more transit-oriented city. The entitlement designation or not. and permitting processes are time consum- ZONING ing and unpredictable, resulting in increased costs and risks for developers, lenders, and The interviews and discussions generated potential tenants. A more experienced and numerous comments regarding the need to knowledgeable city review staff and advance update the city’s zoning code (a compre- assembly of project teams could facilitate hensive rewrite of the Los Angeles zoning more successful reuse projects. Metrics are code is now underway). One developer needed to determine the carbon emissions characterized the code as “obsolete zoning benefits of building reuse as part of the that was put in place for a lifestyle that is state’s new Cap-and-Trade Program. no longer relevant.” Another noted that the city’s outdated zoning regime does not align ENTITLEMENT PROCESS with contemporary interest in fostering infill Many stakeholders cited the difficulty and and densification. Portions of the current length of time required to secure develop- code date to 1946, when visions for the city ment entitlements as a barrier to building focused on low density, auto orientation reuse. Several noted that zoning in Los An- and strict separation of uses. Specific reuse geles has historically been “transactional,” obstacles in the current code that were with each project requiring a significant mentioned by stakeholders include out- investment of time from developers, neigh- dated residential unit size requirements that borhood stakeholders and city staff mem- don’t allow “micro-units,” burdensome park- bers. “Zoning in Los Angeles depends on ing requirements, open-space requirements, how much time and money you have,” said and overly restrictive use definitions. one stakeholder. The political issues around Suggested solutions included a greater use development are significant across the city of overlays tailored to specific conditions, and require time-consuming negotiation. adoption of form-based zoning, greater Several stakeholders suggested that the flexibility regarding mixing uses, density bo- city could help reduce delays and costs by nuses for reusing existing buildings and the assigning a single point of contact to each expanded use of transfer of development case, thereby helping align key players (zon- rights. A former city staff member noted ing, code officials, etc.) in advance and per- that changes to the zoning code would be haps even outsourcing some of the process. particularly effective in fostering investment Securing approvals or exemptions for CEQA in vacant buildings that were not undergo- (California Environmental Quality Act) was ing a change to residential use. The ARO frequently mentioned as a challenge for re- did not apply unless there was a change to use projects involving historically designat- residential or hotel use, he emphasized. ed structures and for the reuse of buildings

24 The Partnership for Building Reuse PARKING REQUIREMENTS guage, and understanding of performance Parking standards were frequently men- based solutions developed over time. “As tioned as a barrier to redevelopment. staff has changed and other issues have Significantly, many thought that the removal arisen, there is greater tendency to resist of parking requirements under the ARO exceptions, even if technically supported,” a was one of the keys to the success of that downtown developer commented. ordinance. Parking issues and appropri- The division of tasks among multiple ate solutions vary by the neighborhood staff and departments (plan checking, and the development context. The current inspection) can also be a problem. Many requirements put the burden on developers, participants said that having dedicated, many said, but the best solutions were likely knowledgeable, and high-level staff who to result from shared responsibility and know the process and the players could investment. In dense areas, where the costs greatly improve the review process. The of providing parking are extremely high, establishment of the process for restaurant shared parking structures may be neces- and hospitality case management was cited sary. In other areas, especially where transit as an example of how proficient staff could is an option, dropping requirements and let- help streamline approval processes. Under ting the market provide parking in response this program, a case manager is assigned to demand may be the best approach. to coordinate all approvals and permits However, several stakeholders pointed out needed to open a new restaurant or bar that this strategy could lead to overflow in the city. Stakeholders suggested that in into neighborhoods, which could prompt addition to facilitating technical solutions, opposition to new development generally. Another developer noted that lower park- ing requirements may not be the answer because many residents and tenants would still need or demand parking.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS Particularly at the stakeholder meeting, there was much discussion about the need to improve the project review and approval process. The acceptance rate and time required for steps such as plan checking, permitting, and inspection has varied with personnel over time. Several mentioned how previous city efforts to facilitate proj- The historic Garfield ects have brought significant benefits, citing Building (1924) is an Art Deco landmark the positive impact of dedicated city staff containing nearly members working daily with developers 100,000 square feet of vacant space in to solve problems in the downtown ARO downtown Los Angeles. district. A level of common knowledge, lan- Jim Lindberg, NTHP photo

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 25 there is a need for more information about ADAPTIVE REUSE ORDINANCE building reuse and its benefits. In the down- The ARO is frequently cited as the key that town ARO district, providing this informa- unlocked the reuse potential of older build- tion was one of the roles of the city staff ings in downtown Los Angeles, resulting in members, who took potential developers, more than 60 substantial rehabilitations. investors and tenants on regular building More than 14,000 units of new housing have tours to better understand reuse opportuni- been created in the 14 years that the ARO ties, challenges, and technical solutions. has been in place. For more detailed infor- mation on the ARO, see the case study at BUILDING CODES the end of this report. Building codes can be significant obstacles for reuse projects, particularly for larger and An experienced developer called the ARO more complex undertakings, according to “the most remarkable piece of legislation many stakeholders. Earthquake codes make in the city. It did its job. It’s an effective reuse of taller buildings significantly more vehicle for preserving buildings.” Another difficult and expensive than one-story reha- real estate consultant noted that the ARO bilitations. Los Angeles is noted for its strict succeeded because it removed barriers, but enforcement of state and local building, did not add new requirements. “It is permis- seismic, and fire codes, several participants sive and supportive. It does not mandate said. Fire codes and handicapped-access preservation or reuse and it has not created requirements add complexity and cost to its own regulatory gateways and hurdles,” reuse projects. Several participants men- he said. tioned that enforcement of building codes Since it was established in 1999, the ARO based on strict definitions of use (rather has been updated several times. In the view than level of occupancy) can limit design of several stakeholders, these changes have solutions. Because a change in use trig- made the ARO more restrictive and some- gers building code requirements, looser what more difficult to use. Many downtown definitions of use would remove a barrier and open the way for more reuse. Adding stakeholders noted that the ARO applied floors to existing buildings also triggers the only to buildings undergoing a change to building code and can require expensive residential use. Several groups have been upgrades. working on a new version of the ARO that would facilitate rehabilitation projects for Several participants suggested that the commercial use, as well. Not all stakeholders city fully adopt the new California Existing agreed that the ARO needs to be updated, Building Code. Applying the performance- however. based California Historical Building Code to all old buildings -- not just historic buildings TAXES AND FEES -- would be beneficial, some participants A few comments regarding taxes and fees suggested. The effect of the new statewide emerged during the discussion of regula- green building code, which now applies to tory barriers. Some suggested that park the rehabilitation of existing buildings, was fees should be reduced or restructured to also raised as a potential barrier to reuse. encourage reuse of existing buildings. These

26 The Partnership for Building Reuse fees are assessed under the Quimby Act, which requires that most residential devel- opment projects requesting a subdivision or a zone change must either dedicate land for recreation and park purposes or pay a fee in-lieu of doing so (“Quimby Fees”). An- other stakeholder noted that with rehabilita- tion tax credit projects, property taxes were reassessed when limited partners sell their portion of the project, resulting in substan- tial costs for the project.

CAP AND TRADE The stakeholder group noted the potential impact of the new California Cap and Trade Program for greenhouse gas emissions. They asked whether this program would create a barrier or an incentive for reuse. The group suggested that better techniques were needed to measure and evaluate the energy performance and greenhouse gas impacts of building construction, of rehabili- tation, and of operating performance. The discussion about environmental impacts raises the question of how to balance the environmental benefits of building reuse with the reductions in vehicle miles traveled that may result from greater development density and infill development.

The discussion about regulatory barriers was spirited and generated many ideas about potential solutions as well as pas- sionate comments about obstacles. On a cautionary note, however, one participant pointed out that regulatory change was slow and that by the time new policies were enacted, the nature of the problem might have shifted. “Regulations put in place to solve last year’s problems have unintended consequences,” he said.

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 27 Market Opportunities for Reuse IN THE INTERVIEWS AND STAKEHOLD- Growing Demand for ER MEETINGS, local practitioners cited a Housing range of market trends that point to new and growing opportunities for building re- The market for multifamily residential reuse use, particularly to provide housing, creative remains strong downtown and in areas office space, and live/work space. such as Hollywood. Downtown housing vacancy rates have fallen by nearly half in the last four years. However, the supply of General Market Trends pre-World War II office buildings—which are Health care, education, technology, and cul- often particularly well- suited to residential ture are expected to be the main economic use—is shrinking as more condominium and and market engines in coming years. Many apartment conversions of available pre-war participants noted an emerging preference structures are completed. As a result, many for urban over suburban locations for uses mid-century downtown office buildings are of all kinds, led by interest in residential lo- now being considered for significant reno- cations close to work and shopping oppor- vations to create residential units as well as tunities. “Socially, people want to work, live, new office space. and play within the same neighborhood,” noted one real estate developer. When Creative Office considering work and residential locations, creative professionals are seeking areas Conversions with a mix of uses, a more active pedestrian An evolution is occurring from an almost environment, and access to transit. entirely residential-oriented reuse market to one that includes conversions for cre- ative office spaces, live/work units, and mixed uses. “Creative offices are now in high demand, and target properties will be the Class A office buildings built in the 1940s through 1970s,” observed an experienced downtown developer. Others noted that the creative office market is growing faster than the Class A office market. Creative office tenants include entertainment, technology, Space available in advertising, and design- related businesses historic building, downtown Los Angeles. that are seeking collaborative, adaptable Jim Lindberg, NTHP and unique spaces. The physical charac- photo

28 The Partnership for Building Reuse teristics of a creative office space typically the Santa Fe Freight Depot building in the include an open plan, a highly flexible layout downtown Arts District. in a building with distinctive architectural Several stakeholders observed how building character that is located in a lively neigh- uses were mixing and blurring, rendering borhood with access to a range of services, traditional definitions obsolete. One inter- housing, and transit. Warehouse and indus- viewee noted that live/work reuse projects trial properties with large, unobstructed provided space for start-up businesses floor space, high ceilings and plenty of natu- to incubate until they reached the point ral light are ideal candidates for creative of needing a larger space. Another com- office use. Several stakeholders noted that mented on the increasing importance of the a key advantage of renovating an existing mobile office, offering that “the coffee shop building for creative office use is that reuse on the corner is becoming as important as offers a “speed to market” that is often the corner office” in the marketplace. faster than building new. This advantage is particularly important for start-ups and Several interviewees offered general technology companies seeking to expand opinions about the Los Angeles market (and contract) quickly without incurring for building reuse, including their thoughts high capital costs. on areas of the city with high potential for building reuse: In the retail market, an increasing num- ber of older, smaller shopping centers are • “Rehab is increasing because people are becoming obsolete. The proliferation of big beginning to understand that it is very box retail and increased internet sales has wasteful, expensive, and environmentally eroded shopping center market share and damaging to continue to build new.” increased the number of residents needed • “Industrial buildings in particular could be to support regional centers. The result is converted into the cleaner high tech or a surplus of older shopping complexes in media uses.” need of conversion or redevelopment. • “Office and other commercial buildings in Redevelopment for residential, office and older downtown areas (Los Angeles, Long retail uses is spreading to several areas that Beach, Glendale, Santa Monica) offer the were once exclusively industrial, particularly most potential. Hot locations include east south and east of the historic downtown of downtown Los Angeles, specifically the core. While some industrial uses continue, area east of Central Avenue and surround- a market is emerging for creative office, ed by freeways, Harbor, I-10, 5 and 101. residential, and live/work uses in formerly This ‘Gray Area’ with old manufacturing industrial structures. Stakeholders also uses presents an opportunity for signifi- noted that civic and educational institu- cant building reuse.” tions could provide uses for major vacant landmarks, such the reuse of the former • “The market has been attracted to west Bullocks Wilshire department store by the side communities of Santa Monica, Venice, Southwestern Law School and the Southern Playa Vista, West Los Angeles and Culver California Institute of Architecture’s reuse of

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 29 Housing, creative offices and retail uses have transformed the Arts District on the east side of downtown Los Angeles. Jim Lindberg, NTHP photo

City. Movement is also occurring in El Se- gundo and Burbank.”

• “In the past, we would only look at certain areas of downtown for projects but it has been revitalized enough now that there is no place that we wouldn’t consider for a project. East of the Historic Core is es- pecially ripe. The Expo line will open up development of this kind in West Adams.”

In wrapping up a conversation about the changing marketplace, one participant not- ed that today’s “hype” about creative office uses will someday go away, that the market is changing more quickly than ever, and that care should be taken not to develop policies or programs that are designed to address what will soon become “yesterday’s” chal- lenges and opportunities.

30 The Partnership for Building Reuse Solutions to Overcome the Barriers

WITH THE SUMMARY OF MAJOR BAR- • Create a “rehab ordinance” instead of a RIERS in front of them, the group of stake- “reuse ordinance” to facilitate more than holders were asked to generate ideas for just residential conversions. how to overcome these obstacles and how • Remove zoning and building permitting to foster more reuse of existing buildings in barriers to reinvestment for mixed-use Los Angeles. Ideas included the following: projects.

Remove Regulatory • Coordinate and align various downtown Barriers district ordinances, regulations and pro- grams to support and encourage adaptive • Align the city’s regulatory template with use of vacant or underused structures. the new urban vision and new market- place. • Coordinate permit process in city depart- ments related to planning, building and • Revise the change of use thresholds to fire around making reuse easier. make it easier to retrofit existing buildings.

• Advocate for using the flexibility that • Don’t over-define commercial uses in exists for historic buildings in state and particular. national building codes. • Use the concept of “equivalency of en- • Use a performance-based compliance titlement” to make changing uses easier. approach rather than proscriptive require- • Use occupancy as a proxy for use. ments

• Revise the live/work ordinance to allow up to five employees in a live/work unit. Promote New and Existing Incentives • Deregulate parking and eliminate mini- mum requirements, especially near transit. • Package and promote existing incen- tives, including transfer of development • Revise the pre-1974 construction date rights, rehabilitation tax credits, Mills Act requirement in the ARO to include newer property tax relief, energy incentives and buildings. rebates, etc.

• Reduce the minimum average unit size • Refine the transfer of development rights requirement in the ARO from 750 square program to make it easier to use, and feet. expand it to include areas along transit corridors.

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 31 Stakeholder discussion, 2013. ULI-Los Angeles photo

• Support the establishment of a state reha- embodied as well as operational energy bilitation tax credit that can be combined use. with the federal rehabilitation credit. • Provide job training and market opportu- • Create an incentive for reuse through the nities in the reuse industry. California Cap and Trade Program and • Pick a high-profile project, such as the develop metrics to support the concept of Los Angeles County Hall of Justice, to existing buildings as carbon sinks.. document the carbon emissions savings achieved through reuse. Develop Programmatic Support • Create a Green Business certification pro- gram that includes building reuse. • Work with partners to communicate the benefits of building reuse, including job creation, economic development, com- munity enhancement, and environmental sustainability.

• Create a new city reuse and redevelop- ment department or office to facilitate neighborhood revitalization, job creation and economic development through reuse.

• Focus on district-wide strategies to realize the potential of shared parking, transit infrastructure, district energy alternatives, and the conservation of historic context.

• Develop an energy Life Cycle Assessment tool for existing buildings that includes

32 The Partnership for Building Reuse Action Plan

IN MAY 2013, members of the Partnership expertise and guidance on the new for Building Reuse Advisory Committee and code. key advisors joined with ULI and Preserva- • Convene a ULI technical panel to de- tion Green Lab staff members to set priori- velop specific recommendations for ties for the list of solutions generated by changes to the downtown code that the stakeholders. In addition, this group will facilitate building reuse. Areas was asled to develop a practical, achievable for technical investigation include 18-month action plan. The implementa- minimum size requirements for living tion of this action plan will be facilitated by units, open space requirements, set- ULI Los Angeles, who will work closely with back requirements, live-work defini- other local organizations and partners. The tions, commercial use definitions, and action plan includes three primary strate- floor area ratio( FAR) formulas. gies.

• Advocate for strategies that remove 1. Integrate building reuse as a goal in barriers and streamline approvals, the update of the Los Angeles zon- using the ARO as a model. Expand ing code to align land use regulations eligibility to structures undergoing with the city’s vision for re-urbanization, rehabilitation for commercial uses as including infill and reuse. Los Angeles well as residential uses. has started a five-year revision of its comprehensive zoning code – the first 2. Streamline the building permitting and since 1946. One of the first areas of approval process by aligning three city work is a new Unified Downtown Devel- departments -- Planning, Building and opment Code. This new code presents Safety, and Fire -- around the goal of an opportunity to achieve greater levels making building reuse easier. The ARO of building reuse downtown, where so again provides an example of the bene- many vacant and underused structures fits of setting priorities and streamlining are located. As the ARO has demon- approvals for reuse projects, through strated, downtown is often a source of the use of policy statements and of policy innovation. Solutions developed dedicated technical staff members. for downtown can be applied in other Renewed interest in coordinating devel- mixed-use areas, such as Wilshire Bou- opment services among the city depart- levard and along other transit corridors. ments offers an opportunity to fully Tasks include the following: integrate building reuse as a priority for the city. Tasks include the following: • Gain ULI representation on the zon- ing code task force that will provide

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 33 • Seek the Mayor’s support for inte- gration of building reuse as part of departmental realignment around development services. Encourage use of dedicated staff to proactively facilitate solutions for building reuse projects.

• Provide specific recommendations for changes to policies and proce- dures related to building and fire code enforcement. Seek adoption of flexibility and performance-based solutions wherever possible.

3. Create support for policy reforms and incentives that encourage building re- use by documenting the environmental, economic and social benefits of building reuse and by sharing success stories. Tasks include:

• Create a coalition of research part- ners (ULI, National Trust, universities) to identify best practices and policies related to building reuse, highlighting opportunities for Los Angeles.

• Create and distribute a case study of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, that includes descriptions of key projects, as well as the cumulative economic and community benefits achieved.

• Package and promote existing incen- tives for rehabilitation and support expanded incentives at the state level (such as a state rehabilitation tax credit).

• Support efforts to establish a new state rehabilitation tax credit, provid- ing examples of the potential positive impact of a new credit in Los Ange- les.

34 The Partnership for Building Reuse Conclusion: Learning from Los Angeles

LOS ANGELES SERVED AS AN IDEAL • Create more flexible definitions of building PILOT CITY FOR THE PARTNERSHIP FOR use to make future adaptation to changing BUILDING REUSE. Throughout the city, in- market needs easier, faster and less expen- novative developers are demonstrating how sive. older buildings of all vintages and types can • Integrate building reuse as a goal in other be repurposed to meet the demands of a policy initiatives and reforms, such as zoning changing marketplace. The success of the code updates, building code reforms, park- ARO over the 14 years since it was imple- ing policy changes, transit-oriented devel- mented shows how strategic policy initia- opment guidelines and climate adaptation tives can produce remarkable results. plans.

With the current market for reuse showing • Use downtown as a policy innovator to test growing strength and with major citywide new ways to encourage building reuse. policy initiatives underway, the future of LESSONS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS building reuse in Los Angeles looks bright. • Conserve the authentic character of existing Indeed, Los Angeles offers many posi- buildings, including architectural features tive examples for city leaders, community and building materials that tell a unique groups, property owners, and developers story to prospective tenants and buyers. around the country who are looking for ways to encourage building reuse. Many • Plan for diverse uses and frequent changes in use when investing in new building infra- lessons from Los Angeles emerged from the structure and services, including elevators; ULI--National Trust Partnership for Building heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning Reuse pilot project that could be useful for systems; soundproofing; and building ac- city leaders, property owners and devel- cess. opers in Los Angeles and beyond. They include: • Design flexible interior spaces that appeal to the growing market for open plan living and LESSONS FOR CITY LEADERS work environments. • Modernize outdated zoning and building • Promote the speed to market advantages regulations to align them with comprehen- of building reuse projects to prospective sive plans for re-urbanization, including tenants and buyers when compared to new the reuse of existing structures, alongside construction. strategic infill construction.

• Support efforts to create diverse, mixed use • Remove regulatory barriers to make build- urban neighborhoods that attract and sup- ing reuse easier, rather than adding layers of port building reuse projects. review and process.

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 35 Case Study: the Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse Ordinance

THE ADAPTIVE REUSE ORDINANCE The result of the ARO has been the conver- (ARO) HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT IN- sion of many historic and other underused CENTIVE for preservation and reuse of structures to residential buildings, creating existing buildings in Los Angeles. Granting an estimated 14,000 new downtown hous- developers greater flexibility, the ARO is ing units, with thousands more in the devel- permissive rather than restrictive. It does opment pipeline. not impose its own regulations, but exempts qualified projects from certain existing The Ordinance regulations. The ARO establishes incentives to facilitate The effort to create the ARO began in 1996, the redevelopment of buildings. Develop- and in 1999 it was adopted by the Los An- ers of eligible projects can bypass the usual geles City Council. The ARO initially applied zoning and environmental approvals and only to downtown Los Angeles, but in 2003, apply for a building permit, thus making it was amended to include five other mixed- redevelopment less costly and time-con- use areas of the city. Another amendment suming than it would be otherwise. Exterior in 2003 permitted adaptive reuse projects changes to buildings designated as Historic- in commercial and high-density residential Cultural Monuments require review and ap- zones throughout the city, with the zoning proval by the Cultural Heritage Commission. administrator’s approval. The ordinance was ELIGIBLE BUILDINGS further amended in 2005 to establish fire and life safety provisions. The ARO applies to any existing building built before July 1, 1974, and to many build- ings constructed after that, as long as the property is at least five years old and is determined to be no longer economically viable in its current use. All historically sig- nificant buildings (those on a national, state, or city register) are eligible. Conversion of a portion of a building may qualify.

The proposed building conversion must be for new residential condominiums or apart- ments, live/work spaces, or hotel rooms. If the project meets certain criteria, it is auto- Historic Downtown Los Angeles, 2013. matically entitled to all program incentives Jim Lindberg, NTHP and only a building permit is required. No photo

36 The Partnership for Building Reuse public hearing is necessary and no Califor- • No additional parking spaces are required nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) re- beyond what already exists. Existing park- view is required: The criteria are as follows: ing spaces must be maintained, but they may be used for any on-site or off-site use • Located in a designated incentive area centers; • Nonconforming floor areas, setbacks, and heights are grandfathered in, so no vari- • Constructed before July 1, 1974 ance is required

• Commercial zoning or R5 (high density • No loading space is required residential) zoning • Mezzanine levels may be added as long as • Conversion to residential rental units they do not exceed one-third the size of If any of the following criteria apply, an ap- the floor below. Mezzanines do not count plication must be submitted to the Depart- toward FAR ment of City Planning for a “discretionary • Adaptive reuse projects permitted by review” and an environmental clearance: right do not require environmental clear-

• Located outside a designated incentive ance under CEQA. Also, CEQA does not area require a site plan review

• Constructed on or after July 1, 1974 • Rental units are not subject to rent con- trol.. • Industrial zoning The city has designated specific geographi- • Conversion will be to residential condo- cal areas where the ordinance is in effect: minium units • The central city community plan area and If the project requires discretionary review, Figueroa Corridor economic development a CEQA review is required. strategy area INCENTIVES • Hollywood redevelopment project area The following incentives are offered, which • Certain portions of the Wilshire Center/ help to speed the process and to mitigate Koreatown redevelopment area the cost of conversion:

• Lincoln Heights and Chinatown • Density restrictions are waived. The

number of residential units or hotel rooms • Central Avenue between Vernon Avenue permitted is not limited if the project and the Santa Monica Freeway complies with other standards. Each liv- ing unit must be at least 450 square feet, with a building-wide average size of 750 Examples of Reuse square feet. Hotel rooms have no size Projects restrictions, but each hotel room must The ARO has facilitated the redevelopment include a bathroom of largely vacant or underused buildings, spurring a resurgence of downtown Los

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 37 Angeles. Examples of reuse projects range cotta detailing was converted from offices from elaborate Beaux Arts-style office to 104 loft apartments and two penthouse buildings to factories and warehouses. units. The ground level houses three res- taurants, a salon, and a deli. THE OLD BANK DISTRICT Tom Gilmore of Gilmore Associates was • The Continental Building (1904) is a the first developer to use the ARO, creat- 12-story, richly ornamented Beaux Arts- ing the successful Old Bank District project style brick building known as the first sky- at Fourth and Main streets. He credits the scraper in Los Angeles. It was converted ordinance with making downtown redevel- from offices to 56 loft-style apartments. opment easier and less costly. Gilmore’s • The Farmers and Merchants Bank (1905), project consists of four formerly aban- a Classical Revival-style bank build- doned, historic office buildings. Today they ing now functions primarily as a special house more than 230 rental apartments events and banquet facility. It is also used with commercial activity at the ground as a film location.i level. SPRING TOWER LOFTS • The San Fernando building (1907) is an Gilmore’s development was followed by the Italian Renaissance Revival-style office development of Spring Tower Lofts, an office building converted to 70 loft apartments, building at 639 South Spring Street that was with two restaurants on the ground level. converted to 36 large loft apartments by Izek • The six-story Hellman Building (1902), a Shomof. Shomof purchased the property in brick and concrete structure with terra 1991 for $1.2 million, but he held the property for nearly a decade until rehabilitation finally became feasible, in large part because of the adoption of the ARO. He said that he was en- couraged to build the lofts as a result of the ARO, which exempted Spring Tower Lofts from height and density limits and parking requirements, and streamlined the approval process.ii

TOY FACTORY LOFTS The 250,000 square-foot toy factory and warehouse building (1924) on Industrial Street, east of downtown was redeveloped by Linear City Development. Yuval Bar- Zemer, a partner in Linear City, is a vocal proponent of the ARO, noting that the ARO’s Toy Factory lofts, Arts success is in its permissive approach. The District, downtown Los Angeles. seven-story building was purchased in 2002, Jim Lindberg, NTHP and redevelopment was completed in 2006. photo

38 The Partnership for Building Reuse The conversion created 119 live/work condo- of implementation. Behdad took a holistic minium units with 12 commercial spaces at approach, working with city planners and of- the street level. Amenities include a rooftop ficials to understand developers’ needs, and pool and deck and a 7,000 square-foot ur- helping developers to navigate the system. ban park on the lower roof of the building. All Behdad understood the challenges on both residential units were under contract within sides. One of his key contributions was 30 days of completion. the introduction of weekly meetings that brought together staff members from vari- Analysis ous city departments with the developers to According to a 2011 demographic study discuss adaptive reuse projects. compiled by the Downtown Center Business Improvement District, downtown Los Ange- Next Steps les has a 29,429 residential apartments and Whereas the ARO has been very successful condominiums, housing 46,000 residents. as a catalyst for saving numerous historic Before the ARO, there were 11,626 residential and non-historic buildings, revitalizing down- units, housing 18,000 residents. City plan- town, and increasing housing opportunities, ners estimate that the ARO can be credited city officials now think that the ordinance with creating about 14,000 housing units should be revisited. On January 10, 2012, the between 1999 and 2012. This period includes city council’s planning and land use commit- four years in which a severe market down- tee approved a motion to prepare an update turn caused a virtual stop in new develop- to the then 12-year-old ordinance. One goal ment. of the update is to spur another round of The ARO has been responsible for saving redevelopment, particularly in the upper historic structures and spurring the revital- floors of underused buildings on Broadway, ization of downtown. Although most assess- where an estimated 1 million square feet of ments of the ARO have been quite positive, vacant space above street level could be re- one criticism is that it can result in higher overall rents that makes it difficult for lower-income residents to stay in the neighborhood.

Developers have noted that an important factor in the ARO’s success has been the strong involvement of a champion at city hall. Hamid Behdad, the city’s direc- tor of adaptive use at the Farmer’s & Merchants National Bank (1905), time, oversaw the ordinance downtown Los Angeles. through its first seven years Jim Lindberg, NTHP photo

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 39 habilitated, most likely as creative offices. An update to the ARO is not expected to make major changes to the ordinance, but instead to address certain conflicts that have arisen, and to expand its reach to encourage more development of office and commercial space downtown.

One conflicting provision is that the current building code allows a mezzanine to be as large as 50 percent of the size of the floor below, while the ARO limits mezzanines to only 33 percent of the floor below. An- other provision overly restricts the number of employees permitted in a live/work unit. The average unit size required is yet another issue. Reducing the unit average minimum size from the current 750 square feet might improve financial feasibility by enabling de- velopers to create smaller, less costly units. Repairing these and other small conflicts could expand opportunities for further rede- velopment.

The development community has suggested some changes as well. As always, develop- ers would like to see the approval process streamlined further. Some developers would like to see fire and life safety regulations addressed with greater flexibility for reuse projects. They also suggest that seismic regulations be studied to be made more adaptable to existing buildings.

Case Study prepared by Adrienne Schmitz

i www.laloft.com ii John Grimmett, “Spring Street Lofts Open to 90 Percent Occupancy,” LA Downtown News, January 29, 2001. http:// www.ladowntownnews.com/news/spring-street-lofts-opent- to-percent-occupancy/article_89917ede-4890-544b-9d9b- b3a0540fb928.html?mode=jqm.

40 The Partnership for Building Reuse Stakeholders

Stakeholder Interviews Hal Bastian Central City Association and Downtown Center Yuval Bar-Zemer Business Improvement District Partner, Linear City Development Hamid Behdad Hamid Behdad Central City Development Group President, Central City Development Group Peter Belisle Randy Brant Jones Lang LaSalle Executive Vice President, Macerich Ken Bernstein Tom Gilmore City of Los Angeles President, Gilmore & Associates Tanner Blackman Richard K. Green City of Los Angeles Ph.D., Director, University of Southern California Lusk Center for Real Estate Claudia Carol Gensler Los Angeles Carl Muhlstein Managing Director, Jones Lang LaSalle Robert Chattel Chattel Architecture Andrew Ratner Executive Vice President and Senior Managing David Cocke Director, CBRE Structural Focus

Kevin Ratner Victor Cuevas President, Forest City Enterprises City of Los Angeles

Bill Whitney Jonathan Curtis Whitney & Whitney California Golden Fund and City Council, La Cañada Flintridge

Stakeholder Meeting Linda Dishman Participants Los Angeles Conservancy

Ryan Altoon Adrian Scott Fine Anderson Pacific Los Angeles Conservancy

Yuval Bar-Zemer David Flaks Linear City Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 41 Tom Gilmore Carol Schatz Gilmore & Associates Central City Association and Downtown Cen- ter Business Improvement District Lew Horne CBRE Ryan Spruston Gensler Los Angeles John Given City Build Advisors James Weiner Collaborative Project Consulting Lynn Jacobs Ventura Affordable Homes Bill Whitney Whitney + Whitney Brian Jones BMJ Advisors Nabih Youssef Nabih Youssef Associates Wade Killefer Killefer Flemming Architects John Zinner Zinner Consultants Mark Klein Collaborative Project Consulting Stakeholder Meeting Macy Leung Facilitators Sai Investment and Development Woodie Tescher Brenda Levin Principal, The Planning Center Levin Architecture Marissa Aho Karin Liljegren Senior Associate, The Planning Center Omgivning

Erick Lopez City of Los Angeles

Alexander Moradi ICO Development

Rick Newman Lowe Enterprises

Chris Robertson Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning

Rocky Rockefeller Rockefeller Partners Architects

42 The Partnership for Building Reuse About the Advisory Committee

Ryan Altoon a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Executive Vice President, Anderson Pacific the University of California, Los Angeles, and an MBA in real estate and finance from the Ryan Altoon is executive vice president of UCLA Anderson School of Management. Anderson Pacific LLC, an entitlement and Belisle is registered as an Engineer in Train- development company managing more than ing (EIT), is a council member of ULI, and a $1 billion in real estate and development in member of the American Society of Health- California, focused on sustainable mixed-use, care Engineers and CoreNet Global. transit-oriented projects. He is responsible for overseeing all entitlement and develop- Jonathan Curtis, Advisory Committee Chair, ment projects, debt and equity financing and ULI Los Angeles investment, and asset management. He also California Golden Fund and City Council, La oversees firm operations. Altoon manages Cañada Flintridge city, consultant, and investor requirements A Principal of the California Golden Fund, and tasks and facilitates strategic decisions Jonathan Curtis has 25 years of business for each project and for the firm. and legal experience in the corporate, real Peter Belisle estate, and land use areas. He has repre- Chairman, Project and Development Services, sented owners, managers, investors, pen- Jones Lang LaSalle sion fund advisers, banks, and other lenders, businesses, and developers. He has worked Peter Belisle is president of Jones Lang extensively in corporate, transactional, and LaSalle’s Project and Development Ser- administrative real estate matters, including vices group for the Americas. In this capac- the ownership, management, financing, and ity, he oversees a staff of more than 1,300 development of hotels, master planned com- professionals handling an estimated an- munities, new and existing entertainment nual project volume in excess of $13 billion. venues, and commercial and industrial prop- He also provides guidance to Jones Lang erties. Curtis was a partner with Sheppard LaSalle’s Mexico and South America project Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, where he and development management teams. His was the Practice Group Leader for the Real responsibilities include client relationship Estate and Land Use Group. He also served management, fiscal performance account- as Executive Vice President and General ability, and strategic leadership for all initia- Counsel of a large private real estate holding tives across the United States. Current clients company. Curtis holds a bachelor’s degree in include Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Host economics from the University of California, Marriott, Abbott Corporation, Bank of Amer- Los Angeles, and graduated cum laude from ica, and Kaiser Permanente. Belisle received Loyola Law School, Los Angeles.

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 43 Linda Dishman coordinating the programs and advocacy Executive Director, Los Angeles Conservancy efforts in Philadelphia, serving the states of Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Linda Dishman is the executive director of From 1994 to 2000, he was a Senior Field the Los Angeles Conservancy, the largest Coordinator with the Northern Regional Of- membership-based local preservation group fice of Indiana Landmarks, the largest state- in the country and the primary institution for wide nonprofit preservation organization in preservation in southern California. Estab- the country. Fine graduated from Ball State lished in 1978 in response to community University with degrees in Urban Planning efforts to prevent demolition of the Los and Development, Environmental Design and Angeles Central Library, the conservancy Historic Preservation. now works to preserve existing architectural resources by developing preservation strate- David Flaks gies and by raising public awareness through Chief Operating Officer, Los Angeles Econom- tours, lectures, and publications. Before join- ic Development Council ing the conservancy in 1992, Dishman was a senior planner for the city of Pasadena and As chief operating officer of the Los An- an architectural historian for the Western geles Economic Development Corporation Region of the National Park Service. (LAEDC), David Flaks leverages the ca- pabilities of the LAEDC’s Kyser Center for Adrian Scott Fine Economic Research, Business Assistance Director of Advocacy, Los Angeles Conser- Program, and Strategic Initiatives into a vancy single powerful and collaborative force to As Director of Advocacy for the Los Angeles deliver the LAEDC’s critically important Conservancy, Adrian Scott Fine oversees mission. This new alignment represents the the organization’s outreach, advocacy and integration of expert business assistance response on key preservation issues within and economic teams with a highly effective the greater Los Angeles area. This includes policy and message delivery system that setting priorities, developing initiatives, work- serves as a vital community resource while ing with local governments, and preparing promoting strategies that advance economic responses to Environmental Impact Reports. growth and competitiveness in Los Angeles Fine is also a board member of the recently County, southern California, and throughout formed Southern California chapter of the state. Docomomo. Previously he was the Director Flaks previously held the position of LAEDC of the Center for State and Local Policy for senior vice president of strategic initiatives the National Trust for Historic Preservation, where he oversaw the public policy, econom- based in Washington, DC, where his position ic and policy analysis, and communications providing research and responses on key and marketing competencies that supported state and local policy issues affecting historic the implementation of the first consensus preservation. From 2000 to 2009, Fine was Strategic Plan for Economic Development in the Director of the Northeast Field Office of Los Angeles County (2010–2014) and affect- the National Trust for Historic Preservation, ed policy in a way that furthers the LAEDC’s

44 The Partnership for Building Reuse mandate to attract, grow, and retain busi- with a projected 3 million square feet of new nesses and jobs in the county. He joined the development. LAEDC in 2007. John Given Eileen Fogarty City Build Advisors Founder and President, The Fogarty Group John Given recently established a consulting Eileen Fogarty brings more than 30 years of firm, City Build Advisors. Before that, Given experience leading economic revitalization was principal of development for CIM Group. and master planning for mixed-use develop- Before joining CIM in 1997, he was the city ment in major east and west coast cities. She planner for Greeley, Colorado, for four years specializes in creating conditions contribut- before returning to his native Los Ange- ing to long-term expansion and prosperity in les, where he served the city’s Community both distressed and thriving urban jurisdic- Redevelopment Agency for seven years and tions. Her exceptional ability to understand the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trans- her client’s vision is backed by services in portation Agency for five years. For more strategic community and master planning; than 30 years, Given has worked on building reinvestment and revitalization strategies, partnerships between public development public and private; establishing sustainable, agencies and private real estate develop- ment companies engaged in high-priority transit-oriented communities; packaging and redevelopment projects and transit-oriented facilitating site development and projects for development. His accomplishments include approval; and resolving conflict and building catalytic redevelopment projects in down- consensus. town Los Angeles and around the Hollywood As director of planning and community de- Metro stations. Given is a member of the Ur- velopment in Santa Cruz and Santa Monica, ban Land Institute, the International Confer- California, and Alexandria, Virginia, her ence of Shopping Centers, and the American award-winning strategic plans have resulted Institute of Certified Planners. He was a in the implementation of thriving urban tran- founding board member of the Hollywood sit centers where land uses are integrated Entertainment District and was chairman with innovative multimodal transportation of the city of Santa Monica Housing Com- and parking strategies. Fogarty completed mission. Given received a bachelor’s degree Santa Monica’s first sustainable general plan in urban planning from the University of and has lectured on the ground-breaking ap- Washington, Seattle, and a master’s degree proach at the University of California, Berke- in regional planning from Harvard University. ley; University of California, Los Angeles; and Lewis C. Horne throughout California. She guided the con- Executive Managing Director, CBRE version of the 570,000-square-foot Santa Monica Place indoor mall into an open-air Lew Horne is the executive managing direc- shopping, dining, and entertainment center tor of CBRE’s Greater Los Angeles region— adjacent to a new light-rail station; she also one of the largest and highest producing planned the transition of an aging industrial regions in the company. He has more than 25 area into a transit-oriented, mixed-use center years of experience as a real estate profes-

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 45 sional with the firm. Before joining the man- At Forest City, Jones was responsible for agement team in 1995, he was one of the top overseeing all aspects of development, in- industrial professionals in southern California. cluding site selection, government relations, He is well versed in all aspects of the own- financing, master planning, site and building ership, investment, and occupancy cycles, design, anchor and small shop leasing, con- including the stabilization and resetting of struction, and property management. In ad- distressed assets. Horne leads more than dition, he directed all facets of the division’s 1,100 regional professionals across multiple business activities, managing and leading a service lines, including brokerage, invest- staff of more than 100 employees. Jones was also a member of Forest City’s investment ment properties, corporate services, debt committee, which evaluates and authorizes and equity finance, facilities management, new investments for the firm. In this capac- investment properties, project management, ity, he guided the firm’s exploration of new and valuation and appraisal services. international business opportunities for the Brian Jones company. Jones has been in the commercial President, BMJ Advisors real estate industry since the early 1970s. He joined Forest City in 1978 as vice presi- As the managing director of BMJ Advisors, dent and project developer on the Charles- a consulting and advisory services firm ton Town Center, a major urban mixed-use focused on commercial and mixed-use real project in Charleston, West Virginia. Moving estate development opportunities, Brian west, he was subsequently responsible for Jones brings more than 30 years of experi- the following commercial developments in ence as a developer of premier shopping California: The Galleria at South Bay, Re- destinations. Most recently, he served as dondo Beach; Antelope Valley Mall, Palm- chairman and chief executive officer of West dale; The Mall at Victor Valley, Victorville; Coast Commercial Development division of The Promenade at Temecula, Temecula; and Forest City Enterprises, an $11.7 billion NYSE- Simi Valley Town Center, Simi Valley. Other listed national real estate company. Jones’s commercial developments include Galleria career with Forest City Enterprises included at Sunset in Henderson, Nevada, and the the development of 19 million square feet of Northfield Town Center in Stapleton, Colo- Class A commercial development projects, rado, to name a few. with an estimated portfolio value of $3 billion Macy Leung (before debt). He was the visionary behind Executive Vice President, California Golden two of the industry’s most innovative and Fund highly honored projects: Victoria Gardens and San Francisco Centre, each winning the Macy Leung is an executive vice president International Council of Shopping Center’s at the California Golden Fund. Previously, she worked with private and public clients in highest acknowledgment, the International asset valuation, conducted market feasibil- Design & Development Award—Americas, in ity studies, compiled economic reports, and 2006 and 2008, respectively. conducted architectural project manage- ment. Leung has worked as an economist

46 The Partnership for Building Reuse at the consulting firm Economics Research Christian L. Redfearn Associates, focusing on government and Associate Professor and Director, Graduate public partnership projects. Internationally, Programs in Real Estate, University of South- she was a development associate at Shui ern California On Land, Shanghai, China, managing a $3.2 Christian Redfearn is an associate profes- billion mixed-use development project in sor at the University of Southern California Chongqing, China, and worked as an ana- Price School of Public Policy and director of lyst at a real estate asset management firm graduate programs in real estate. His general focusing on distressed assets in the United area of research interest is urban economics, States and Asia. Leung is a graduate of with concentrations that include urban and Harvard University with a master’s degree in regional economics, urban redevelopment, real estate finance and development focus- small market and neighborhood dynamics, ing on urbanization and housing. She has aggregate price measurement, home owner- a bachelor’s degree in economics from the ship, and urban areas in lesser-developed University of California, Santa Barbara, and countries. He is interested in research in a master’s degree in architecture from Iowa applied microeconomics; applied econo- State University, Ames. She currently is on metric, urban, and regional economics; real the steering committee for ULI Young Lead- estate finance; and price index construction. ers in Los Angeles and is an active board He is currently involved in both domestic member of International Green Shield. and international research projects, includ- ing Swedish housing markets, residential real Rick Newman estate markets in Singapore, and Los Ange- President, Lowe Enterprises les Basin real estate submarket dynamics.

Rick Newman is president of Lowe Enter- Redfearn’s work has been published in the prises Real Estate Group, where he has Journal of Real Estate Finance and Econom- ics, Journal of Urban Economics, and Real overall responsibility for commercial, multi- Estate Economics. family, and mixed-use property investment; development; and asset management. He is Chris Robertson a member of the National Association of In- Urban Planner, Los Angeles County Depart- dustrial and Office Properties, the Economic ment of Regional Planning Development Corporation of Los Angeles Chris Robertson is an urban planner special- and ULI, and is an executive board member izing in sustainable development. She brings of ULI Los Angeles. He serves on the Execu- a multitude of experience to the table hav- tive Board Committee of the West Los Ange- ing worked with many jurisdictions across les Council of Boy Scouts, Board of Trustees the Country in both the public, private and for Park Century School, and the City of non-profit sectors. Chris holds a Master of Hope Real Estate and Construction Execu- Community Planning from the University of tive Committee. Newman holds a bachelor’s Cincinnati and a B.A. in English and French degree from Stanford University and a mas- from U.C.L.A. She is currently employed by ter’s degree from the Massachusetts Institute the L.A. County Department of Regional of Technology.

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 47 Planning, Land Divisions Section and serves CBRE South Bay Headquarters building in El on the ULI Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) Segundo. and ULI Women’s Leadership Initiative (WLI) committees.

Ryan Spruston Architect, Gensler Los Angeles

Ryan Spruston is an architect and designer with experience working on projects of varying scale ranging from the design of a 2,000-square-foot planetarium in the Berkeley Hills to the master plan of a new city of 50,000 residents outside of Valencia, Spain. He is a former associate director of the American Institute of Architects East Bay Chapter and currently serves as programs chair and Steering Committee member of the ULI Los Angeles Young Leaders Group. Spruston is also a member of the Holly- wood Design Review Committee. He studied architecture as the University of California, Berkeley, College of Environmental Design and the Istituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia in Venice, Italy. He brings a strong background in design visualization and digi- tal modeling to his practice and continues to pursue innovative and alternative methods of form making and design exploration.

Spruston has worked on the following rel- evant projects in California: 12301 Wilshire, the repositioning of an existing six-story office building for TPMC in west Los Angeles; Nautilus, a major renovation of two bio- tech buildings in San Diego for Alexandria Real Estate Equities; Sunset Media Center, a repositioning of an existing 22-story office building in the heart of Hollywood for Kilroy Realty (currently moving into construction); the Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles, a renovation and reuse concept for Next Century Associates; and 2221 Rosecrans, the

48 The Partnership for Building Reuse Acknowledgments

THIS PROJECT REPRESENTS A JOINT architect; from Gensler Los Angeles gener- EFFORT between the National Trust for ously shared their innovative research and Historic Preservation and the Urban Land analysis on the future of the office building. Institute. Jim Lindberg from the Preservation Generous financial support for the Partner- Green Lab drafted the report, Jeana Wiser ship for Building Reuse was provided to the from the Preservation Green Lab prepared National Trust for Historic Preservation by the maps, and Adrienne Schmitz from ULI the Jesse Ball duPont Fund and the Kresge wrote the case study on the Adaptive Reuse Foundation. The Southern California As- Ordinance and provided editorial assistance. sociation of Governments provided critical Gail Goldberg and Jonathan Curtis from ULI funding to help access permit data on build- Los Angeles provided editorial review, along ing demolition and construction trends. with Mark Huppert, Patrice Frey, and Mike Powe from the Preservation Green Lab.

Special thanks to Jonathan Curtis, chair, and all of the members of the project Advisory Committee who dedicated time and ex- pertise to this project. Advisory Committee members helped shape the methodology for the project, identified stakeholders, and conducted one-on-one interviews of local building reuse practitioners.

Robert “Bud” Ovrom, general manager of the Department of Building and Safety with the City of Los Angeles, helped facilitate the process of accessing permit data. Mat- thew Mallers at CBRE was very helpful in providing information on current building vacancy rates across each of the submar- kets in the city of Los Angeles. City planning staff members Alan Bell, deputy director, Tom Rothman, senior city planner, and Erick Lopez, code studies, all provided important background on the city’s planning and zon- Reuse projects past and future? ing process. John Adams, principal; Shawn Jim Lindberg, NTHP Gehle, design director; and Ryan Spruston, photo

Learning from Los Angeles | October, 2013 49

The Partnership for Building Reuse 700 South Flower Street, Suite 1406 Los Angeles, CA 90017 1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036