GPA Landmark Assessment Report, April 2021

Home , Dingbat (building), Million Dollar Theater, Montana Avenue

Landmark Assessment Report

Date: April 28, 2021 For: Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner Subject: 1132-1142 Princeton Street From: Elysha Paluszek, Associate Architectural Historian, and Amanda Duane, Senior Architectural Historian, GPA Consulting ______Executive Summary

The properties at 1132 and 1142 Princeton Street comprise a courtyard apartment complex that was developed on two separate legal parcels (Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 4266-016-058 and 4266-016-059). The two properties were nominated as Santa Monica Landmarks on November 2, 2020. The City of Santa Monica (City) retained GPA Consulting (GPA) to prepare this Landmark Assessment Report to determine if the properties are eligible for designation, and if so, under which criteria. The two properties will be considered as one unified apartment complex for the purposes of this report.

The complex consists of four total buildings: two mirrored S-shaped apartment buildings and two detached garages. Both properties were identified in the 2010 Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) Update prepared by ICF International and in the 2018 HRI Update prepared by Architectural Resources Group (ARG) and Historical Resources Group (HRG). The 2010 HRI indicates that the property appeared to be eligible as a Structure of Merit for representing a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type, and as the work of architect Martin Stern, Jr. The property was assigned a status code of 5S3 in the 2018 HRI Update, which indicated that the property appeared to be eligible as a Landmark as an excellent example of a 1940s courtyard apartment as well as representing the work of notable architect Martin Stern, Jr.

GPA evaluated the property under the six Santa Monica Landmark criteria. As a result of this analysis, GPA concludes that the property does not appear to be significant under any local criteria, and therefore does not appear to be eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark.

______

Figure 1: 1132-1136 Princeton Street, view looking south. GPA Consulting, March 17, 2021.

Figure 2: 1138-1142 Princeton Street, view looking southeast. GPA Consulting, March 17, 2021.

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the courtyard apartment complex at 1132-1142 Princeton Street as a Santa Monica Landmark in response to two designation applications, one for each street address, received by the City of Santa Monica in November 2020. The complex is located on Princeton Street west of Wilshire Boulevard in the northeast and mid-city areas of the City of Santa Monica (see Figure 3).1 The property comprises two legal parcels (Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 4266-016-058 and 4266-016-05).

1 The boundaries for the northeast and Mid-City areas overlap. The area between Washington Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard is located in both areas.

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 2 ______

Figure 3: Apartment complex and parcel boundary. Base image courtesy of LA County GIS.

Elysha Paluszek and Amanda Duane were responsible for the preparation of this report. They fulfill the qualifications for historic preservation professionals outlined in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 61. Their résumés are included in Attachment A.

Methodology

In preparing this report, GPA performed the following tasks:

1. Reviewed existing information, including the 2010 and 2018 Historic Resources Inventory Updates and the Landmark Applications prepared by Chattel, Inc.

2. Conducted a field inspection of the property on March 17, 2021, to ascertain the general condition and physical integrity of the apartment complex. Digital photographs of the exterior of all buildings were taken during this field inspection.

3. Conducted research into the history of the property. Sources referenced included building permit records, city directories, newspaper archives, genealogical databases, and historic maps.

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 3 ______

4. Reviewed and analyzed ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation designations, and assessment processes and programs to evaluate the property for significance as a Santa Monica Landmark.

5. Evaluated the property under the Santa Monica Landmark and Structure of Merit criteria. Previous Evaluations of Property

The property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street was previously evaluated as part of the 2010 and 2018 Historic Resources Inventory Updates. In 2010, the property was evaluated as a potential Structure of Merit and assigned a status code of 5S3 (appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation). It was evaluated in 2018 as a potential Santa Monica Landmark and assigned a status code of 5S3. Historic Context2

Theme: Multi-Family Residential Development (1899-1977)3

… In the years leading up to the United States' entry into the war in December 1941, a series of dramatic shifts began. Thousands of people migrated to Southern California from other parts of the country. The rapid influx of Douglas Aircraft and other defense workers exacerbated Southern California's already intense need for housing. In response, the federal government converted newly-built public housing complexes to "defense housing," and constructed additional "war worker" housing complexes. These investments provided temporary relief, but housing was a problem that persisted for many years after the war's end.

Like many cities in Southern California, the defense workers of World War II transformed the landscape of Santa Monica. In 1940, the population of Santa Monica was 53,500. During the war, Douglas aircraft had 44,000 people (mostly women) on its payroll at the Santa Monica Cloverfield facility, nearly doubling Santa Monica’s population. Unlike other cities, Santa Monica had little open land on which to construct defense worker housing, even if the money and materials had been available. Instead, density increased in an already built-out city. Leslie S. Storrs, former zoning administrator with the City of Santa Monica, recounts that many people took in boarders and/or subdivided their single-family residences for defense workers out of patriotism in a time of national emergency. In one large home on Georgina Avenue, some 26 renters were accommodated. A review of Sanborn Maps indicates that many owners of single-family residences in the city erected small apartment units at the rear of their properties or over their garages.

2 The following, unless otherwise noted, is excerpted from Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Survey Report (Santa Monica: City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development, August 9, 2019). 3 Excerpt begins with most relevant postwar period.

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 4 ______

“Santa Monica officialdom did what it had to do,” according to Storrs. “It in effect suspended all zoning regulations and urged that accommodations be created for the workers whether zoning violations resulted or not.” Variances were also created for wartime industry, under the guise that they were “for the duration of the emergency.” As with many reactive measures, the ill-defined nature of the variance (and a housing shortage that persisted well after the war was over) created a density problem in Santa Monica that was to persist for many years. It effectively changed the city composition from owner occupied single-family residences to a city of renters. In 1957, the City of Santa Monica enacted a master plan which “provided for multiple units in traditionally single-family neighborhoods.” By 1950, four out of five Santa Monica residents were renters. By 1960, 69 percent of housing units in Santa Monica were occupied by renters. The war not only made a mark on Santa Monica through population increases and the establishment of a substantial industrial base, it changed the city’s mix of single-family and multi-family residential housing forever. …

In addition to the ad-hoc apartments created in the city, Santa Monica became home to a number of small garden apartment complexes. Due to the scarcity of land, large garden apartment complexes like those seen in the San Fernando Valley and other areas of Los Angeles were not feasible. However, two- and three- building versions of the property type were scattered about the city. Drawing upon the site-planning ideas of Clarence S. Stein (1882-1975) and Henry Wright (1890- 1978) and their “Radburn Plan,” these apartments emphasized a landscaped backbone over the urban grid. Buildings were typically sited to face green spaces rather than the street. Architect Kenneth Lind received recognition for his designs for garden apartments in Santa Monica in Architectural Forum.

Large courtyard apartments also began to appear around the city. Although smaller versions of this property type had been present in Santa Monica dating back to the 1920s, these newer postwar versions often featured a central swimming pool in their courtyards.

During the 1950s, economics became the driving force in multi-family residential construction in Santa Monica. Contributing factors to the Santa Monica apartment phenomenon included a national climate of economic incentives that encouraged the construction of multi-family housing. In describing the “apartment boom” of the 1950s and early 1960s, Babcock and Bosselman wrote, “In the present economic and legal climate, incentives are available not only to the landowner, but to the developer, the investor and the lender.” Between 1941 and 1950, the federal government created “Section 608” which “provided Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance for as much as 90% of mortgages on rental housing projects.” The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 “permitted owners to charge off high percentages of the original cost of a new building during the early years of the building’s life,” thereby encouraging new construction. In the early 1960s, the

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 5 ______

federal government eased existing restrictions limiting investment in multi-family housing lending among savings and loans.

These incentives had a profound effect on the pattern of urban infill development in Santa Monica. Civic leaders encouraged these changes. The 1953 Santa Monica Community Book states, “In many areas, old residences must be torn down to make way for hotels and apartments, for Santa Monica cannot expand horizontally.” But the effects received mixed reviews. As City Zoning Administrator Leslie S. Storrs writes:

Builders rushed to erect ‘608’ apartments…Unfortunately buildings designed to conform to the requirements of this section were very much alike. Typically, they were two stories in height, of frame and stucco construction, covered more than 72% of the total lot area and barely met the hopelessly inadequate requirements of the then-effective zoning ordinance in the matter off-street parking.

In the 1967-68 fiscal year, the City Building Department issued 1,388 permits for multi-family residential buildings and only 10 permits for single-family residences.

In sum, these factors contributed to the large quantity of vernacular modern apartment houses constructed in Santa Monica around mid-century, and were contributors to the pervasiveness of the “dingbat” or “stucco box” typology within the city. James Black and Thurman Grant, contributing authors to Dingbat 2.0: The Iconic Los Angeles Apartment as Projection of a Metropolis, laud Santa Monica as one of only three Los Angeles area neighborhoods that offer “Quintessential examples of the environments created by dingbats throughout Los Angles in the 1950s and 1960s.” Relative to other cities with a proliferation of dingbat apartments, Santa Monica is noted for its number of “hunchbat” or “dumbat” types that maximize their buildable volume. The alleyways of the township plat design also provide rear-parking access to these apartments.

Yet, the same factors also contributed to the building of many well-designed, mid- scale modern apartment complexes in the city. Incentives also likely contributed to the development of several high-rise apartment buildings. Project by project, the city granted zoning variances to accommodate these large new developments.

The surge in demand for multi-family residential development during the 1960s and 1970s was also driven by former suburban homeowners who were now empty- nesters looking for a more leisure-oriented lifestyle and less maintenance. Many new communities were actively marketed as “adults only.” Eschewing their picket fences and lawnmowers for tennis courts, gyms, and other recreational amenities buyers flocked to Santa Monica. The completion of the Santa Monica Freeway extension [Interstate 10] in 1966 only made the city more desirable, as it could now effectively serve as a commuter suburb to Los Angeles.

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 6 ______

Whereas early multi-family residential development, including the ad-hoc creation of living units and even the spread of dingbat apartments, was mostly funded by individual investors, the mid-1950s brought an influx of large developers and development corporations to the city. Developers responded initially with the creation of cooperative apartments, then condominiums. Cooperative apartments were owned collectively: owners technically owned a share or percentage of the project. Condominiums diverged from the co-operative apartments in that each unit was owned individually and monthly ownership dues funded maintenance of the common areas. A lack of financing for the new ownership concept, however, suppressed development until 1964. In 1961, the FHA was authorized to insure mortgages on “condos” for 85 percent of the appraised value. Yet it wasn’t until September 1963 that tax appraisal methods for the condominium were settled and developers began building them in full force.

Multi-family residential development was so essential to the Santa Monica identity that a political movement emerged to preserve it. During the 1970s, the Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights (SMRR) organization was formed to preserve affordable housing in the city and a rent control ordinance was passed at the close of the decade.

By the early 1970s, the transformation of Santa Monica to a multi-family residential community was complete. 80 percent of Santa Monica’s dwelling units (excluding condominiums) were multiple-unit dwellings. Santa Monica was known to be a community with many elderly renters. A 50-square block survey of rental units in the city found that 80 percent of the apartment buildings had no children as residents.

Mid-City

Due to the patchwork nature of tract development in this neighborhood and haphazard building patterns, Mid-City is home to a wide variety of multi-family residential property types spanning most of the decades of the 20th century. The area originally included apartment buildings and bungalow courts in the Spanish Colonial Revival and Streamline Moderne styles and evolved to include Modern- style apartments, dingbats, and other vernacular apartment types. An architecturally significant example of a large, Modern-style, post-World War II multi- family residential project in the Mid-City area is the Santa Barbara Biltmore Apartments (1956, Palmer & Krisel), constructed by owner/builder Ben Kreeger on the northwest corner of Yale Street and Arizona Avenue. The 68-unit building was designed around a central courtyard with pool, and the units included built-in furniture.

Northeast [Santa Monica]

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 7 ______

Montana Avenue east of 17th Street contains a concentration of multi-family residential buildings from the 1940s. Although tracts in the Northeast were subdivided in the early 20th century, many of these neighborhoods were not built out until the 1930s. This later development, along with the area’s proximity to Westwood and UCLA, resulted in the development of the eastern Montana Avenue corridor as a multi-family residential enclave. The area includes a number of Minimal Traditional and Mid-century Modern buildings, which were walking distance from the Montana Avenue commercial center. After World War II, many homes in the Northeast neighborhood of Santa Monica were razed to make way for new apartment buildings.

Property Type: Courtyard Apartments

The courtyard apartment is a multiple-family residential property that is two stories in height and oriented around a central common area, such as a landscaped courtyard. A courtyard apartment is significant for its association with residential development in Santa Monica as one of the region’s dominant multiple-family residential building types.

Character-defining features include:

• Two stories in height • O-, E-, or U-shaped plan; may be composed of two L-shaped buildings • Orientation around a common outdoor area, typically a landscaped courtyard; may include a fountain or other feature • Detached garage(s) at the rear, or integrated carport along the side or rear

Theme: Period Revival Styles Sub-Theme: American Colonial Revival

American Colonial Revival describes a varied style that combines a number of architectural features found throughout the American Colonies, particularly in New England. The style has neither the strict formality of the Georgian Revival nor the decorative embellishments of the Neo-Classical Revival, although it sometimes incorporates elements of both. It also sometimes adapts elements of Dutch colonial architecture, such as the gambrel roof. American Colonial Revival buildings are typically one or two stories in height, and are sometimes symmetrical but frequently asymmetrical, with rectangular, L-shaped, or irregular plans. They typically feature side-gable or cross-gable roofs, sometimes with gabled dormers; exterior walls clad in horizontal wood siding and occasionally brick; prominent brick chimneys; double hung, divided light wood sash windows, usually with louvered wood shutters; paneled wood doors, sometimes with sidelights, transom lights, or fanlights; and restrained use of Classical details. Some American Colonial Revival houses have small, pedimented porches, while others have shed-roofed porches supported on wood posts extending the length of the primary façade.

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 8 ______

The U.S. Centennial Exposition of 1876 inspired a sense of patriotism in Americans and fostered an interest in the styles of the Colonial era. Early examples of a revival style in the late 19th century were rarely accurate reproductions, but were instead free interpretations with details inspired by colonial precedents, while later examples shifted to more historically correct proportions and details. The American Colonial Revival style was popular for grand homes in the early 20th century, and by the 1920s was being applied to more modest homes. In the 1930s, the restoration of Colonial Williamsburg brought renewed interest in the style, and it remained popular into the post-World War II era.

Character-defining features include:

• Side gable or cross gable roof, sometimes with dormers • Asymmetrical composition (occasionally symmetrical) • Horizontal wood siding at exterior walls • Paneled wood entry door, sometimes with sidelights, transom light, or fanlight • Double-hung, divided light wood sash windows, usually with louvered wood shutters • Projecting front porch • Prominent brick chimney

Theme: Minimal Traditional

The Minimal Traditional style is defined by a single-story configuration, simple exterior forms, and restrained use of traditional architectural detailing. The Minimal Traditional house was immensely popular in large suburban residential developments throughout the United States during the 1940s and early 1950s. The style had its origins in the principles of the Modern movement and the requirements of the FHA and other Federal programs of the 1930s. Its open plan reflected the developer’s desire for greater efficiency. Modern construction methods addressed the builder’s need to reduce costs and keep homes affordable to the middle class. Conventional detailing appealed to conservative home buyers and mortgage companies. In Southern California, the style is closely associated with large-scale residential developments of the World War II and postwar periods. Primarily associated with the detached single-family house, Minimal Traditional detailing was also applied to apartment buildings of the same period.

Character-defining features include:

• One-story height • Rectangular plan • Medium or low-pitched hip or side-gable roof with shallow eaves • Smooth stucco wall cladding, often with wood lap or stone veneer accents • Wood multi-light windows (picture, double-hung sash, casement) • Projecting three-sided oriel • Shallow entry porch with slender wood supports • Wood shutters • Lack of decorative exterior detailing

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 9 ______

Martin Stern, Jr.

The building was designed by architect Martin Stern, Jr.4 Stern was born in 1917 and moved to Los Angeles in the 1930s where he studied architectural engineering at the University of Southern California. Early in his career, he found work as a sketch artist in the film industry. In 1942, Stern was drafted into the army, and was eventually promoted to a position in the Army Corps of Engineers. After World War II, he returned to Los Angeles and established his own architectural firm, specializing in the design of single-family and multi-family residential buildings, offices, and restaurants. Stern was known in Los Angeles for expressive Googie-style designs for several locations of Ship’s Coffee Shop; however, the most influential work of Stern’s career would be in Las Vegas.5

During the early 1950s, land was still inexpensive and plentiful in Las Vegas, which consisted at that time of a series of low-slung motels and casinos accentuated by swimming pools and eye- catching neon signs. Stern’s first commission in the desert city was for a low-rise addition for the Sahara hotel and casino, constructed in 1953. By the end of the decade, however, land was in increasingly higher demand, creating a need to develop upward rather than outward. In 1959, Stern designed a fourteen-story skyscraper for the Sahara that signaled a shift toward large, bold towers along the Strip. He redesigned or expanded the Sands Hotel, Riviera, and El Rancho Hotels, designed a skyscraper and convention center for the Sahara, and completed entirely new designs for the MGM Grand Hotel (now Bally’s), the Mint Hotel, and the uniquely Y-shaped International Hotel (now the Las Vegas Hilton). He also designed numerous properties in Reno, Tahoe, and Atlantic City.6 As one of the first to incorporate multiple gaming and hospitality uses in large buildings, Stern’s body of work made him a key figure in the evolution of Las Vegas casino design that has since become the standard for casino resorts.7 Property Description

The apartment complex at 1132-1142 Princeton Street consists of four buildings: a pair of mirrored, two-story S-shaped apartment buildings and two adjacent one-story garage and utility buildings. The west apartment building has the addresses 1132, 1134, and 1136 Princeton Street while the east apartment building has the addresses 1138, 1140, and 1142 Princeton Street (see Figure 3). The buildings are arranged on either side of a narrow communal courtyard area with a rectangular grass lawn surrounded by a concrete walkway. At the south end of the courtyard is a

4 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Survey Report (Santa Monica: City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development, August 9, 2019), Appendix B: Individual Resources. 5 “Dreaming the Skyline: Martin Stern,” University of Nevada, Las Vegas Digital Collections, accessed March 30, 2021, http://digital.library.unlv.edu/skyline/architect/martin-stern; “The Sarno Awards for Lifetime Achievement in Casino Design: Martin Stern, Jr., 2011 Honoree,” University of Nevada, Las Vegas Center for Gaming Research, accessed March 30, 2021, https://gaming.unlv.edu/sarnoawards/stern.html. 6 Douglas Martin, “Martin Stern Jr., 84, Architect, Dies; Redefined Vegas Skyline,” New York Times, August 2, 2001, accessed March 30, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/02/arts/martin-stern-jr-84-architect-dies- redefined-vegas-skyline.html; Myrna Oliver, “Martin Stern Jr.; Architect Shaped Vegas,” Los Angeles Times, August 1, 2001, accessed March 30, 2021, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-aug-01-me- 29439-story.html. 7 Ibid.

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 10 ______

small dog walk, consisting of a patch of dirt enclosed by a low brick wall. A variety of shrubs and small trees are planted on the perimeter of the courtyard and along the front elevation, lining the foundation of both buildings.

The primary elevations of both apartment buildings face north toward Princeton Street. The hipped roof over each building has a low-pitched slope with overhanging eaves; the eaves are partially boxed with a continuous open band covered with metal mesh that runs along the center of the eave, presumably to provide ventilation. The apartment exteriors are clad in stucco with horizontal wood channel siding wrapped around the second story of the primary elevations. The windows on each elevation are symmetrically arranged on both stories and consist of four-over- four, three-over-three, and one-over-one double-hung wood windows. The most common type is the four-over-four double-hung wood windows, while the one-over-one windows only appear to correspond to the location of bathrooms. On the primary elevations, second-story windows are embellished with decorative louvered wood shutters. Some one-over-one windows on the second story are arranged over a wood panel. The use of this panel is unclear, but it may be to accommodate an air conditioning unit.

There are three main entryways on each apartment building that correspond with the three associated street addresses. One entryway is on the primary elevation and two entryways open onto the courtyard area between the buildings. The entrances are characterized by applied ornamentation inspired by the American Colonial Revival style, consisting of a broken pediment supported by fluted pilasters. Centered above each entrance on the second story is an octagonal multi-light fixed wood window. The entryways do not have doors but rather lead directly into a vestibule with separate doors for each unit.

The rear and side elevations of the building are similar in design to the front and courtyard-facing elevations, including the stucco exterior, stacked configuration of features, and double-hung wood windows, but they are much less decorative; there are no louvered shutters, entryway surrounds, or areas of wood channel siding. There are three secondary entryways to the vestibules that consist of rectangular openings. The secondary entryway on the south-facing elevation of the top “leg” of the S-shaped plan is centered in a projecting one-story volume. The entryways opposite the two courtyard-facing entryways consist of rectangular openings on the ground floor and a small flush or projecting deck on the second floor. The decks are either flush with the exterior wall or slightly projecting and are enclosed with wood channel siding. The projecting decks have a narrow wood post support. On the rear, south-facing elevations of both buildings is a partially glazed wood door, accessed by a set of concrete steps with round metal handrails.

Adjacent to each apartment building is a one-story garage and laundry building. There are multiple identical garage door openings along the east- and south-facing elevations of the garage and partially glazed wood doors provide access to laundry facilities.

The property appears to be in overall good condition. Alterations to the property documented in available building permits include reroofing 1132-1136 Princeton Street in 2003. The roof was likely replaced at least once prior to 2003. The roof on 1138-1142 Princeton Street also appears to have been replaced. No other major alterations were observed or documented in the permit records.

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 11 ______

Summary of Landmark Designation Evaluation and Integrity Analysis

Although the property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street retains integrity overall, it is not significant under any of the six Landmark designation criteria. The following is a detailed analysis of the property’s potential significance under each of the Landmark designation criteria and an examination of the property’s integrity. Evaluation for Local Landmark Designation

Per §9.56.100(A) of the Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance (adopted in 1976 and later amended in 1987, 1991, and most recently 2015), a property merits consideration as a Landmark if it satisfies one or more of six statutory criteria. The following discussion considers the significance of 1132-1142 Princeton Street under each criterion.

Criterion 1: It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history.

The multi-family residential buildings at 1132-1142 Princeton Street were constructed in 1947 in the northeast and mid-city area of Santa Monica, in Tract 3000 (also known as Fairmount Villas and Fairmount Hills) specifically. The tract was bounded by Montana Avenue on the north, Wilshire Boulevard on the south, Stanford Street on the east, and 26th Street on the west. The tract was subdivided initially in 1906 and again in 1915, this time into smaller parcels.8 The area developed relatively slowly, potentially due to its proximity to the Douglas Aircraft facility, which deterred residential development because of its industrial character and noise. By the late 1920s, the area had seen significant residential development though undeveloped lots remained throughout.9 The area was not built out until the 1930s.10 The 1940s and 1950s brought rapid change for Santa Monica in general and the vicinity of the subject property in particular. The city grew dramatically as a result of an influx of jobs during World War II, and new housing was constructed wherever possible in the city. Due to the scarcity of land, much of the housing built during this time was multi- family residential. Courtyard apartments were a popular choice for housing in Santa Monica in the postwar period since they could be constructed on moderately sized parcels.

The eligibility standards in the Santa Monica Citywide Historic Context Statement indicate that multi-family residential properties eligible under Criterion 1 may be significant as the site of an important event in history; for exemplifying an important trend, pattern, or type of multi-family residential development; or as an early, rare, or excellent example of a multi-family residential property type.11

The property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street is one of numerous multi-family residential properties constructed in the postwar period to meet the need for housing. It is not an early, rare, or excellent example of multi-family residential development. It represents the continued development of the

8 ARG and HRG, 61. 9 Santa Barbara Frame Finder, 1927 Aerial Photograph, accessed March 31, 2021, https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. 10 Santa Barbara Frame Finder, 1938 Aerial Photograph, accessed March 31, 2021, https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. 11 ARG and HRG, 142.

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 12 ______

city in the postwar period. Although the construction of the property is associated with postwar development of the city, it cannot be said that it is significantly associated with this trend. It simply represents a continuation of necessary residential construction that began in earlier decades. There is also no evidence that the property represents or has a significant association with other important aspects of cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history. Therefore, it does not appear to be significant under Criterion 1.

Criterion 2: It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

The property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street is a typical example of a courtyard apartment building. It possesses elements of the Minimal Traditional and American Colonial Revival styles, but it is not an excellent example of either. It possesses typical features and characteristics from its period including stucco cladding, horizontal wood siding, and multi-light double-hung wood windows. Aside from a simple applied pediment around the building entrances, it possesses very little stylistic detail. These characteristics can be found on postwar multi-family residential buildings throughout the region, and the subject property does not possess any particular aesthetic or artistic interest or value. Therefore, the property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street does not appear to be significant under Criterion 2.

Criterion 3: It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history.

Research revealed that an individual by the name of Ethel S. Bruce lived in one of the units of the property from at least 1952 until her death in 1957. Ms. Bruce was a well-known tennis player in Southern California between approximately 1900 and 1915. National Register Bulletin 32 provides guidance for nominating a property for its association with a historic personage. In order to be significant for its association with historic personages, a property must not only be associated with a significant person, but it must also be associated with that person’s productive life or the period in which they achieved significance.12 Bruce’s residency at the property took place well after she achieved fame as a tennis player and is not associated with her productive life. National Register Bulletin 32 notes that a retirement home (and presumably any residence occupied during retirement) “may qualify if the person continued significant activities in that home, or if it can be documented that the house is significant in representing the culmination of an important career.”13 This is not the case for the property and Ethel Bruce. She simply appears to have lived here in the final years of her life.

Furthermore, as a multi-family residential building, the property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street has had numerous other tenants since its construction in 1947. Apartment buildings by their nature are home to numerous individuals throughout their histories, and these individuals tend to occupy apartments for relatively short periods of time. It is more unlikely that the property would be

12 Beth Grosvenor Boland, “National Register Bulletin 32: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons,” U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources. Accessed April 5, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB32- Complete.pdf, 16. 13 “National Register Bulletin 32,” 16.

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 13 ______

significant for its association with a significant individual, given the high rate of turnover and brief tenancy of apartment residents in general.

Research did not reveal any evidence of an association with a historic event important in local, state, or national history. The property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street does not appear to be significant under this criterion.

Criterion 4: It embodies the distinguishing characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.

The subject property was built during the postwar period, when quick and cost-efficient construction was prized to meet unprecedented demand for housing. As such, the materials and methods used are common to postwar buildings throughout the region, and they would not be valuable to a study of a period or method of construction, nor one of the use of materials or craftsmanship.

1132-1142 Princeton Street was identified in the 2010 HRI and 2018 HRI updates as a Minimal Traditional multi-family residence. It also possesses elements of the American Colonial Revival style. According to the registration requirements in the 2018 historic context statement, properties eligible for their architectural style, “may be significant as an excellent or rare example of an architectural style, property type, or designed landscape.”14 The document emphasizes that “due to the quality of architecture in Santa Monica, there is a high threshold for properties that are eligible under this context. Eligible examples exhibit high quality of design and distinctive features.”15

Minimal Traditional style residences (both single- and multi-family) are common in Santa Monica and cities throughout Southern California. Due to their ubiquity, Minimal Traditional residences are not typically significant for their architectural style. The style was intentionally kept simple and minimal to facilitate quick and easy construction. It was a popular choice for postwar tract developments; entire tracts of Minimal Traditional residences may be significant, but individual examples usually do not qualify as significant or noteworthy.

Conversely, the American Colonial Revival style was not prevalent in the region and was not as popular as other Period Revival styles in Southern California. Postwar examples of the style are typically more stripped-down than earlier iterations, and this property is no exception. Numerous other examples of American Colonial Revival architecture were recorded as part of the citywide survey. These included single-family and multi-family residences. Among properties recorded during the HRI update, prewar single-family residences were the most common property type associated with the style; institutional buildings in the style were recorded as well. Though not a widely used style for courtyard housing in Santa Monica, some examples do exist. These include 960 10th Street (1938) and 825-29 Idaho Avenue (1937), both of which are better examples of the

14 ARG and HRG, 326. 15 ARG and HRG, 326.

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 14 ______

style applied to multi-family housing in Santa Monica based on the registration requirements established for this style and property type.

The property is also not a unique or rare example of courtyard housing, of which there are many in Santa Monica. During the 2018 HRI update, approximately 60 properties were identified as examples of courtyard housing, indicating the prevalence of the property type in the city. The report completed with the HRI update indicates that 1940s and 1950s multi-family residences recorded as part of the update consisted almost entirely of courtyard apartments identified as potentially significant for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a property type.16 The subject property was identified alongside the approximately 60 other similar examples as an excellent example of a 1940s courtyard apartment building. The quantity of courtyard apartment buildings identified throughout the city suggests that the apartment at 1132-1142 Princeton Street represents a ubiquitous property type, and the subject property does not exhibit characteristics that would elevate it above other examples.

The subject property does not possess any distinctive features. It is a typical example of its respective styles and is constructed of commonly used materials. It is not a unique or rare example of either the Minimal Traditional or American Colonial Revival style; Minimal Traditional residences are neither unique or rare in the city or region, and there are other examples of American Colonial Revival architecture in Santa Monica that better embody the style. In summary, the property does not appear to be significant under Criterion 4.

Criterion 5: It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect.

Martin Stern Jr. (1917-2001) designed the property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street. Stern was an architect primarily known for his designs of Googie style coffee shops in Southern California and casinos and hotels in Las Vegas, Nevada. He was born in New York and moved to Los Angeles in the 1930s with his family. He studied architectural engineering at the University of Southern California. After being drafted in World War II, he served with the Army Corps of Engineers. Upon returning from the war, he moved back to California and started a business constructing single- and multi-family residences, office buildings, and restaurants. He began designing work for Las Vegas hotels in 1953 and established a reputation as a hotel architect.17 As noted above, he is most known for his work on Googie coffee shops and Las Vegas hotels. The design of apartment buildings does not represent a significant or prominent portion of his career as an architect. The property, though designed by Stern, is not a significant example of his work, nor is it a truly representative example since it is an early commission and is not characteristic of the architectural designs that he became known for later in his career. Therefore, the property does not appear to be significant under Criterion 5.

16 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, “City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Survey Report,” prepared for the City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department, August 2018, 36. 17 “Dreaming the Skyline: Martin Stern,” University of Nevada, Las Vegas Digital Collections, accessed March 30, 2021, http://digital.library.unlv.edu/skyline/architect/martin-stern.

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 15 ______

Criterion 6: It has a unique location, a singular visual characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.

The apartment complex at 1132-1142 Princeton Street was constructed as infill in the postwar period, a common trend in the city. It is a typical 1940s courtyard apartment. It is located among similarly scaled residential buildings, each with a similar setback, on a low-density residential street. Furthermore, there is a nearly identical property directly to the south, also designed by Martin Stern Jr. the same year. Thus, the subject property does not have a unique location or singular visual characteristic, nor is it an established or familiar visual feature in its neighborhood or Santa Monica more generally.

The property, therefore, does not appear to be significant under Criterion 6.

Summary

In summary, the property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street does not appear to be eligible for listing under any of the Santa Monica Landmark Criteria. Integrity Analysis

It is standard practice to assess a property’s integrity as part of a historic evaluation. Integrity is a property’s ability to convey its historic significance through its physical features. National Register Bulletin 15 defines seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In order to convey significance, a property must retain some combination of these aspects of integrity from its period of significance. The essential aspects of integrity vary depending on the significance of the resource.

Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

The property retains integrity of location as there is no evidence to suggest the property has been moved since it was constructed in 1947.

Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property.

The property retains integrity of design. Existing characteristics of the buildings, including its symmetrical arrangement on the site, stucco and wood exterior, and detailing with American Colonial Revival influences reflect its original aesthetic and function. The property appears to be largely unaltered, aside from the replacement of the roof.

Setting: The physical environment of a historic property.

The integrity of setting has been altered by the demolition and redevelopment of surrounding parcels since the 1940s. The property, therefore, does not retain integrity of setting.

Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

The property retains integrity of materials. The key exterior materials are present, including wood windows, stucco and wood exterior, and wood decorative elements.

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 16 ______

Workmanship: The physical evidence or the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.

The property retains integrity of workmanship which is conveyed through its features that convey 1940s construction techniques, including lightly textured stucco, panels of horizontal wood siding, and thin wood window muntins.

Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

The property retains integrity of feeling, as the combination of its intact location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship evoke the sense of a 1940s apartment complex.

Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

The property was not found to be significant for its association with historic events or personages, so integrity of association does not apply. Conclusions

The apartment complex at 1132-1142 Princeton Street does not appear to be eligible under any of the Santa Monica Landmark Criteria due to a lack of historical and architectural significance. It is a typical multi-family residence from the post-World War II period. Although it retains integrity overall, it does not have a significant association with residential development in Santa Monica, nor is it a significant or excellent example of an American Colonial Revival or Minimal Traditional residence.

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 17 ______

Sources

Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group. City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Survey Report. Santa Monica: City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development, August 9, 2019.

Boland, Beth Grosvenor. National Register Bulletin 32: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources. Accessed April 5, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB32-Complete.pdf.

ICF International. Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report. Satna Monica: City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development, 2010.

Martin, Douglas. “Martin Stern Jr., 84, Architect, Dies; Redefined Vegas Skyline.” New York Times, August 2, 2001. Accessed March 30, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/02/arts/martin-stern-jr-84-architect-dies-redefined- vegas-skyline.html.

National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Park Service, Cultural Resources. Edited by Patrick Andrus and Rebecca Shrimpton. Accessed April 7, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/.

Oliver, Myrna. “Martin Stern Jr.; Architect Shaped Vegas.” Los Angeles Times, August 1, 2001. Accessed March 30, 2021. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-aug-01-me- 29439-story.html.

University of Nevada, Las Vegas Center for Gaming Research. “The Sarno Awards for Lifetime Achievement in Casino Design: Martin Stern, Jr., 2011 Honoree.” Accessed March 30, 2021. https://gaming.unlv.edu/sarnoawards/stern.html.

University of Nevada, Las Vegas Digital Collections. “Dreaming the Skyline: Martin Stern.” Accessed March 30, 2021. http://digital.library.unlv.edu/skyline/architect/martin-stern. Attachments

Attachment A: Résumés

Attachment B: Photographs

Attachment C: City Directory Listings

Attachment D: Building Permits

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 18 ______

Attachment A: Résumés

ELYSHA PALUSZEK Elysha Paluszek is an Associate Architectural Historian at GPA. She has been involved in the field of historic preservation since 2009. Elysha graduated from the University of Southern California with a Master of Historic Preservation. She has since worked in non-profit and private historic preservation consulting in California. Elysha joined GPA in 2010 and her experience has included the preparation of environmental compliance documents in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record recordation; large-scale historic resources surveys; National Register of Historic Places nominations; local landmark nominations; and evaluations of eligibility for a wide variety of projects and property types throughout California. She has also contributed to numerous context statements on a wide array of property types and historic themes, including American Colonial Revival architecture and garden apartment complexes in the City of Los Angeles. Educational Background: Selected Projects: • Master of Historic Preservation, University • 1441 Third Street Promenade, Santa Monica, of Southern California, 2010 Historical Resource Evaluation Report, 2020 • B.A., History, College of William and Mary, • Santa Monica and Vermont, Historical Resource 2008 Evaluation Report, Los Angeles, 2019 Professional Experience: • Garden Apartment Complexes, Los Angeles, Multiple Property Documentation Form, 2019 • GPA Consulting, Associate Architectural • Sweeten Hall, Preservation Plan, Rancho Historian, 2018-Present Cucamonga, 2019 • SWCA, Architectural Historian, 2018 • West Covina Historic Resources Survey and Historic • GPA Consulting, Architectural Historian II, Context Statement Update, 2018-2019 2010-2015 • Drake Park Historic District, Historic Resources Survey • City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Update, Long Beach, 2018-2019 Resources, Intern, 2010-2011 • Anthony-Kerry House, Historic Structure Report, • Los Angeles Conservancy, Graduate Beverly Hills, 2015-2019 Intern, 2010 • West Hollywood Commercial Historic Resources • Pasadena Heritage, Graduate Intern, Survey and Context Statement, 2016 2009-2010 • Whittier Non-Residential Historic Resources Survey • National Trust for Historic Preservation, and Context Statement, 2015 Intern, 2009 • Alamitos Neighborhood Library, Long Beach, Landmark Nomination, 2015 Qualifications: • American Colonial Revival Architecture, Los • Meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, 2015 Professional Qualification Standards for • Latinos in 20th Century California, Multiple Property architectural history pursuant to the Code Documentation Form, 2014 of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61, • Hotel Rosslyn Annex, Los Angeles, National Register Appendix A. Nomination, 2013 • 1111 and 1121 N. Los Robles Avenue, Pasadena, Professional Activities: National Register Nomination, 2013 • Los Angeles County Historical Landmarks • 1860 Catalina Street, Historic Analysis Report, and Records Commission, 2013-2017 Laguna Beach, 2012

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA Attachment A ______

AMANDA DUANE Amanda Duane is a Senior Architectural Historian at GPA. She has been involved in the field of historic preservation since 2011. Amanda graduated from Savannah College of Art and Design with a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in Historic Preservation. She has since worked in local government and private historic preservation consulting in California. Amanda joined GPA in 2012 and her experience has included the preparation of environmental compliance documents in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record recordation; large- scale historic resources surveys; Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit and Mills Act applications; National Register Place nominations; local landmark applications; historic context statements; and evaluations of eligibility for a wide variety of projects and property types throughout California. She is experienced in expertly guiding property owners through the process of securing local and federal historic tax credits and working with local governments to develop design guidelines for administering local design reviews. Amanda is also highly skilled in graphic design as well as interpretation and exhibition design.

Educational Background: Selected Projects: • B.F.A, Historic Preservation, Savannah • 445 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica, Landmark College of Art and Design, 2011 Assessment Report, 2020 Professional Experience: • 1626 California Avenue, Santa Monica, Landmark Assessment Report, 2020 • GPA Consulting, Senior Architectural • 518 Adelaide Drive, Santa Monica, Landmark Historian, 2012-Present Assessment Report, 2020 • Architectural Resources Group, Intern, • Million Dollar Theater, Los Angeles Historic-Cultural 2012 Monument Application, 2019 • City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic • Drake Park Historic District, Historic Resources Survey Resources, Intern, 2011-2012 Update, Long Beach, 2018-2019 • Nirvana Apartments, Los Angeles, Federal Tax Qualifications: Credit Application, Part 1, 2018 • Meets the Secretary of the Interior’s • 1527 17th Street, Santa Monica, Landmark Professional Qualification Standards for Application, 2018 architectural history pursuant to the Code • Mar Vista Gardens, Los Angeles, National Register of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61, Nomination, 2018 Appendix A. • Bank of Italy, Los Angeles, National Register • National Preservation Institute, Section Nomination, 2018 106: An Introduction • Agfa-Ansco Corporation Building, Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument Application, 2018 Professional Activities: • Jewish History, Los Angeles Citywide Historic • California Preservation Foundation Context Statement, 2016 Conference Programs Committee, 2017 • Forsythe Memorial School for Girls, Los Angeles, National Register Nomination, 2015 • Exotic Revival Architecture, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, 2015

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA Attachment A ______

Attachment B: Photographs

Photo 1: Front (north) elevation of 1132-1136 Princeton Street, view looking south. GPA Consulting, March 18, 2021.

Photo 2: Front (north) and courtyard-facing (east) elevation of 1132-1136 Princeton Street, view looking southwest. GPA Consulting, March 18, 2021.