PERSPECTIVES ON L.A. ARCHITECTURE : Do the ‘Art Police’ Have a Role? : The government has no more place dictating the aesthetics of private buildings than telling a painter what style to use.

President Bush, sitting a few months ago in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, praised American architecture, saying, “Its rich variety of styles and regional differences is as diverse and as dynamic as the American people themselves; the spirit of our country can be seen in our architecture.”

This admirable spirit is under siege in Los Angeles. City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky is among those rejecting a proposed building in his district purely on his dislike of the architectural design, saying, “We have a right to be involved in the design review process, because we are the ones who have to look at the building for the rest of our lives, onceit’s up.”

The councilman has it wrong. Government-controlled art and architecture are a disaster for any community or nation. Germany produces some of today’s best architects, but it took decades to recover from the Third Reich’s bombastic “Aryan” art dictates and oppression of the free, creative spirit.

Even in a democracy, a strong group can beguile and mesmerize a public that is already beset by fears that high density of development and freeway traffic jams are ruining the quality of life. Such groups have the answer: Interfere with development, file lawsuits, make it expensive and eventually the project will go away. The owner grows disgusted and gives up; at the least the building will be delayed indefinitely.

Many tools are available to the zealot; but here we are only interested in the government’s role in dictating, prescribing and approving the aesthetic design of privately owned buildings.

The city’s design review board process was established to interfere in just the wrong ways. Since aesthetic judgment is subjective, the zealot on the board can object to any project he or she wishes, often disregarding vested rights.

And why do the design review boards (appointed by the City Council) even exist? Because some true travesties have been built: developments that should never have been allowed because of their impact on the neighborhoods. However, they should have been prevented because of their negative social impact and not because of the subjective judgment of some people who disliked a particular design.

It is not possible to legislate excellence or beauty in buildings, just as it is not possible to legislate excellence in the fine arts--or even in politics. What can be legislated is careful planning. Clear land-use and development standards are designed to protect the interest of the public: the health and welfare of society. This must be done by updating the city’s General Plan and its individual community plans--not over the next 10 to 15 years, but now.

But while protecting the public, these planning laws must not control the thinking and the product of the design community.

Free the designers and Los Angeles will develop an eclectic style that reflects its heterogenous, multi-ethnic history and composition. Aesthetics is simply not the politicians’ arena.

Will we still end up with some “bad” building designs? Of course. Will we also produce some extraordinary building designs? Absolutely, because no art police will be standing by to pull the designer down to the lowest common denominator. The designs that emerge will create urban beauty that reflects this era, these times; it will be the truest reflection of our society and civilization.

Los Angeles can display its boundless creative energy, fashioned in a democratic society rather than the rigid and one-dimensional order of an autocratic system of government, or of one councilman’s concept of “beauty.”