Main Street U.S.A. : Neighborhoods: Amid a push for development, a blocklong stretch of Larchmont Boulevard struggles to maintain its personal, homey character.
While other areas of Los Angeles have lurched into the future with the construction of gigantic shopping malls and other grand-scale developments, a blocklong section of Larchmont Boulevard south of Hollywood has remained a time-capsule reflection of Main Street U.S.A.
“It’s like a little tiny village in the middle of this big city,” said Australian-born Rachel Pawsey, now a Los Angeles resident, as she relaxed on a bench one recent afternoon with her squirming 3-year-old nephew, Charlie.
Having completed a daily quest for ice cream--with a quick look in the pet and toy store windows--on the strip between Beverly Boulevard and and 1st Street, Pawsey and Charlie became part of the small-town atmosphere of Larchmont Village, a rare Los Angeles business district where the shops depend heavily on foot traffic.
In recent years, however, the extremities of the strip have been nibbled away by banks and real estate offices that have moved in. Many business owners and neighbors are now concerned that an influx of such businesses--better able to afford soaring rents but that do not attract browsers--will gradually chip away at the unique character of Larchmont Village.
That fear was voiced by business owners and residents at a recent meeting organized by the Larchmont Boulevard Assn. to discuss a proposal to build a real estate office-retail complex and an underground parking lot in the middle of the block.
When Western Capital Resources, a real estate purchasing subsidiary of gigantic Fred Sands Realtors, agreed to purchase the property at 161-215 N. Larchmont Blvd. late last year, Sands representatives were immediately interested in housing their local offices in a building to be constructed on the site. But Sands officials argued that the project would be economically feasible only if it also included the adjacent city-owned 36-space parking lot.
Local developer Ronald A. Simms Commercial Development, which held the option to build on the parking lot, agreed to a joint-development proposal.
Both Simms and Sands officials said they knew the proposal would cause consternation among local merchants. Merchants still complain that the construction of a subterranean parking lot across the street from the proposed development two years ago disrupted business for months. They now say that underground parking is inappropriate for the area.
But Thomas W. McCormick of the Sands purchasing subsidiary and Hymie I. Barber of Simms argue that the extended block of mostly local businesses can incorporate the real estate office, expand parking and still preserve the village feel of the street. The proposed development, they said, would include street-level shop space, an upstairs Sands office and a single-level underground parking lot to replace the city lot.
“This is a development that will take the street into the next century. It will be the crowning jewel to Larchmont,” Barber told the 60 merchants and neighbors who gathered recently to discuss the proposal.
But the home and shop owners at the meeting, most of whom opposed the Sands office proposal, voiced a litany of fears about the “potential encroachment” into Larchmont of one more non-retail business and parking problems that real estate employees have brought to the area.
Though McCormick and Barber insisted that the real estate office would hardly affect the street-level charm of Larchmont, many who spoke at the meeting, as well as Larchmont browsers and shop owners, questioned whether the Fred Sands office would expand.
“We are all very sure that Fred Sands won’t stay on the second floor,” said Ann Zabonian, owner of Bon Chance, a small shop on the strip. Zabonian was standing in the shop doorway on a recent quiet afternoon. “I’m sure things will change around here.”
Both Barber and McCormick, who were bombarded with criticism at the residents meeting, said the area cannot be immune to change, and that residents should not oppose all development, but rather demand that it be appropriate.
While chatting on the street with a shop owner, even Barber said “real estate offices and banks are killing off the street.” But he said the Sands proposal represents a compromise.
In addition to locating retail shops on the ground level to preserve the pedestrian feel of the block, Sands officials said they have considered other potential complaints, such as the replacement a city parking lot on the property with a city-operated underground garage.
But neighbors and merchants complain that two levels of the existing underground lot across the street from the proposed development go virtually unused by shoppers who don’t feel secure parking underground and who prefer street-level lots. They also said that 40 to 50 of the proposed 75 parking spaces in a new underground lot would be taken up by Sands employees.
“When we close (the ground-level) lot, people are going to go to the Beverly Center instead of Larchmont,” said Daryl Trainor, owner of Village Catering. “We know from experience that people don’t like underground parking.”
Barber agreed that the existing underground lot, which his company developed two years ago, is under used, but he faults the city of Los Angeles, which operates the lot, for not encouraging parking there. He said that if the Sands-Simms project goes through, real estate company employees can be encouraged to park in both underground lots, freeing street space for shoppers and browsers.
Sands and Simms officials, who say the project is not viable unless the city parking lot is part of the development, said they would await community input and approval before trying to move ahead.
Though the city of Los Angeles would have to approve the redevelopment, McCormick said the final purchase of the property is not necessarily contingent upon the city’s decision. Asked what other options were, he said that “given the price (of the property) . . . putting the office in upstairs is the way to make it work economically.”
Marshaling their forces, shop owners have begun petitioning against the proposal, and Dr. Timothy C. Gogan, Larchmont Boulevard Assn. president, has written a letter to City Councilman John Ferraro, who represents the Larchmont area, saying that “from petitions . . . and phone calls . . . (we conclude that) the people . . . want the city-owned lot to remain as it is.”
In the meantime, shoppers can still stroll the sidewalks, get shoes fixed while they wait at Van Dry Clean & Shoe Repair, get a haircut and have a casual chat with barber Jerry Cottone at Larchmont Barber Shop, or just sit and take in the atmosphere from a park bench or outdoor table.
Though newer, less personal businesses have moved into the area in recent years, there are still plenty of owner-operated shops where proprietors and employees know many customers by their first names. Although a shoe store that provided short-term baby-sitting for customers is now gone, personal contact is still an important part of the community.
A young man named Evan, who works at Village Catering, bolted from behind the counter on a recent afternoon to play with three small children strolling down the street with their mother.
Paul Thompson, owner of a small jewelry shop on the strip, spends much time popping into to other stores for conversation with fellow owners and quick chats with local customers.
Many nearby residents make a point of going to Larchmont to shop or get a haircut simply because they enjoy its homey atmosphere.
“Larchmont Boulevard really serves the community,” Hannah LeVelle said as she sat on a bench bantering and laughing with a friend. “It is a pleasant place to come and just look--to enjoy the fresh air.”
