Hollywood House Dispute May Be Sign of Landmark Battles to Come

The massive Craftsman-style house on the corner of Wilcox and Fountain avenues that some say was once home to Clark Gable seems to list a bit to one side.

Its owner, Stanley Diller, says he wants to either knock it down or move it to another location so he can expand his Orchard Gables Convalescent Home, which is also on the premises. He says the building is an unsafe and ugly “old shack” that is getting in the way of progress and profit.

But there’s a catch: Some Hollywood preservation advocates want the house renovated and protected as a city landmark, as does the city’s Community Redevelopment Agency as part of its $922-million effort to redevelop Hollywood.

What’s more, according to CRA officials, Diller and his co-owners of the property at 1277 Wilcox Ave. accepted a low-interest $350,000 CRA loan in 1986 to renovate and expand the convalescent home and provide more beds for low-income elderly people.

Contending that the promised work was never done, the CRA is now threatening to foreclose on the 55,000-square-foot property, including the old building and the convalescent home behind it.

More broadly, the conflict over Orchard Gables raises questions that those planning the rebirth of Hollywood expect to recur frequently as the 30-year revitalization effort unfolds: How should the city balance its efforts to preserve buildings of only marginal historical or architectural significance with its efforts to make sure those buildings meet safety and earthquake standards? And what rights do property owners retain, particularly those who cannot afford city-mandated repairs?

The controversy came to light last week when Doug Carlton, leader of the preservation group Keep Old Los Angeles, called reporters to the site to publicize his offer to buy the house from Diller for $1.8 million.

“Any house built in the Craftsman-style right in Hollywood should be saved,” Carlton said. “We don’t need a redeveloped Hollywood; we need a restored Hollywood. Hollywood belongs to everyone in the world.”

Diller refused, saying, “We would like to have this knocked down to build more homes for the elderly. We have the (city) approvals right now.”

As the cameras rolled, a CRA official rushed onto the scene and reminded Diller he cannot demolish the 86-year-old building. Diller promptly began to complain about being caught in a Catch-22 situation in which the CRA won’t let him touch the structure, but other city officials have told him it is unsafe.

Diller said the building is unable to withstand an expansion or even continued use as the convalescent home’s kitchen and office suites.

“So what am I to do?” Diller asked repeatedly. “One (city) department doesn’t know what the other department does. And I’m stuck in the middle.”

City Building and Safety Department official Bob Harder said he could not confirm whether his department had determined the building is unsafe, but he said Diller hasn’t received the required demolition permit to destroy it.

One thing all those involved have agreed upon is that it will be difficult to strike a balance among the conflicting forces of preservation, redevelopment and property-owners’ rights.

“We have anticipated this general controversy since 1986 when the redevelopment plan was adopted,” said Councilman Michael Woo, who represents Hollywood.

“I think it is important for the city to distinguish between genuine landmarks and buildings that are simply old,” Woo said. “We will have to do that on a case-by-case basis.”

Cooke Sunoo, the CRA’s project manager for the Hollywood Redevelopment Project, said thousands of buildings in Hollywood were examined for architectural or historic value prior to 1986. More than 1,000--including Orchard Gables--were found to have some level of significance. That special status will raise a red flag when developers seek permission to demolish or change the buildings.

But controversy inevitably will arise once city officials begin deciding whether to approve or reject the proposals, Sunoo said. “The problem is there is not an absolute scale” of what should be saved. “There’s a judgment involved.”

According to Sunoo, Diller has been aware of his commitment to keep the building intact since the CRA loan was issued in 1986.

Last week, Diller insisted that he had no knowledge of the terms of the loan, and that, “I never signed for it--they didn’t give it to me personally.”

Documents filed with the city show, however, that a complicated web of partnerships and a corporation received the loans, and that Diller’s signature is the first of four to appear on the trust deed that the partners negotiated with the CRA on Sept. 9, 1986.

To receive the 7% loan, Diller and his partners promised to keep the property in good condition and repair it, and they agreed not to “remove or demolish any buildings thereon” while adding at least 50 additional beds.

But the site still has only 42 patients, Diller acknowledged. He said he has spent $70,000 on plans to expand the site.

Although the partners long ago defaulted on the loan, the CRA does not want to seize the property. “We have the option to foreclose,” Sunoo said, “but we would be loath to foreclose on a convalescent home.”

The CRA and Diller are now engaged in negotiations over the site, including the possibility of building condominiums on the premises but keeping the house and a number of the convalescent beds intact. In addition, “I think we need to be more vigilant in finding out why that work has not taken place,” Sunoo said.

So far, Woo and the city agency charged with protecting landmark buildings, the Cultural Heritage Commission, have not taken sides in the Orchard Gables dispute. Neither has Hollywood Heritage, a respected nonprofit preservationist group.

Christy McAvoy, a Hollywood Heritage board member, said the building is a good example of the Craftsman style, an architectural style indigenous to Southern California that marked a move away from fancy Victorian homes at the turn of the century to simple wood homes combining indoor and outdoor living through open spaces.

All involved in the Orchard Gables conflict expect it to be followed by similar clashes. In fact, a similar controversy has arisen over the Ontra Cafeteria on Vine Street.

In that case, the Cultural Heritage Commission drew the wrath of a judge by declaring the Ontra a landmark in order to stymie its owners’ efforts to tear it down. Declaring that the commission had abused its authority, the judge ordered the landmark status revoked, and the City Council declined to challenge his decree.

The council’s refusal to intervene means that city preservation officials in the future will take a more narrow view of what buildings to preserve, Commission President Amarjit Marwah said.