Council OKs Demolition of Historic Structure

Ending a four-year dispute, a divided Los Angeles City Council cleared the way Wednesday for the demolition of the 70-year-old McKinley Building, ravaged by subway construction and earthquake damage.

Ultimately, the council was split over whether to allow the historic structure’s elderly owner to raze the Spanish Revival building on Wilshire Boulevard or to give the city more time to determine the economic costs of saving it.

But it also became a debate over whether the council should continue to approve demolishing old buildings in a city some believe is too quick to replace landmarks with contemporary architecture that is often far less distinctive.

The McKinley controversy also has pitted the Los Angeles Conservancy, which has fought to save the building, against several council members and the building owner, who hired a team of lobbyists, consultants and lawyers to help him win the demolition approval.

And, while lawmakers often defer on these land-use issues to the council member representing the district in question, this issue became a major concern for other members. Councilman Nate Holden, who represents the area, fought for the demolition, but council members Laura Chick, Hal Bernson and Joel Wachs had asked for delays, and Mike Feuer became a mediator of sorts between the owner and the conservancy.

The 1927 building at the corner of Wilshire and Oxford Avenue was badly damaged during the MTA’s subway tunnel construction and also by the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The city has not conducted its own analysis of the costs involved in rehabilitating the structure, but an environmental impact report put the tally at close to $8 million. Officials indicated, however, that the amount was considered excessive.

Still, Dr. Robert Larner, the owner, who will be 80 next week, told the council he wanted the building demolished to be through with it.

*

When it was over, Larner, tears filling his eyes, said: “After four years of this, I can only tell you I’m glad it’s over. I feel like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders.”

Conservancy officials have said Larner was determined not to sell the building, refusing to allow prospective developers to tour it and failing to return calls. All of which Larner denies.

But in a meeting chaired by Feuer last month, Larner and his associates agreed to open the building for tours. A developer indicated he would buy the building, but Larner said Wednesday it was more an option deal than an offer.

Conservancy officials, and some council members, disputed the contention that developers aren’t interested in the building, which sits across from the Wiltern Theatre.

“Fiction: The building is beyond repair, it’s an eyesore,” said Jack Rubens, a conservancy attorney. “Fact: Of course it can be saved. . . . We have developers ready to put down money today.”

But several council members who supported the demolition agreed that Larner has been put through enough. “I just don’t think it’s fair to leave him with the liability, the tax burdens. . . . This has gone on for long enough,” said Councilwoman Ruth Galanter.

Others, however, said the council should be less concerned about Larner than maintaining the building.

“I think the issue before us is about something much bigger than is someone a good person and have they had some aggravation and uncertainty,” said Chick, who said the city has had a policy of “knock them down and build it bigger.”

“I grew up here,” she said. “The landmarks of my generation are basically gone.”

Feuer also tried to sway his colleagues.

“This is about whether we value a sense of place in our city or not,” he said. “Often times, value has price.”