The Eastern Columbia Building first achieved landmark status in 1985. Image courtesy of Los Angeles Conservancy.

Los Angeles, a city that is perhaps the most filmed, photographed, and written about metropolitan area in modern history, has been at the center of public discourse surrounding the typical array of conservation issues in the past few years as more and more of the former Spanish Pueblo falls victim to development schemes and the pressure to modernize.

Now, as the city stands poised for an unprecedented decade of changes in which it will play host to the 2028 Olympic Games, the Los Angeles Conservancy’s Adrian Scott-Fine sits down with Archinect for a conversation about some of the challenges, recent developments, and contriving dilemmas facing conservationists in the City of Angels.

A former Director of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Scott-Fine shares his thoughts on the group’s efforts and upcoming projects in this exclusive interview.

How has the Conservancy evolved since your time as Director began in 2010? I know you came from the National Trust for Historic Preservation — to what extent has working in Los Angeles differed from your experience there?

I have been in Los Angeles now for nearly eleven years, so I have gained a sense of perspective in terms of the evolution of our work. We always struggle with the reactive and proactive efforts, a bit like a tug of war, as we hope to achieve a balance between the two. Given our role as an advocacy-based non-profit organization, reactive nearly always prevails. We must be concerted and intentional on proactive efforts, and design these to address a real need. I am proud of a lot of the work we are doing, including promoting and building awareness about LGBTQ historic places, the Chicano Moratorium, and our Legacy Businesses initiative. We strive to always move the needle and ensure we are telling the full story by preserving all kinds of historic places, which includes advocating for places that have difficult, challenging stories. During COVID, we launched our People + Places online series, which is a platform to bring knowledgeable people to a wide audience while imparting stories about diverse places.

I have worked in heritage conservation in the Midwest, the East Coast, and now Los Angeles and throughout California (I currently also serve as President of the California Preservation Foundation). The work is different from place to place, in large part due to the preservation infrastructure (ex. preservation ordinances, land use measures, etc.) and tools (ex. CEQA, tax abatement, etc.) available. In the Midwest, I spent a lot more time making the case for saving and reusing older and historic buildings. While at the National Trust for Historic Preservation working throughout the northeast states, the work was a mix of addressing disinvestment in cold market communities as well as development pressures. Generally, people understood the value of historic places but needed help in making the financials work and filling gaps. In Los Angeles and throughout California, our work is a mix of both, though there is an intensity and frequency here that challenges you in additional ways, namely around how best to address increased density and housing issues.

Several of the Conservancy's projects have crossed over and touched on broader issues like seismic retrofitting and affordable housing. Do you feel like the work that the conservancy does is of a different scope than similar groups in cities like Boston or Philadelphia? What kinds of challenges are unique to Los Angeles in a conservational sense?

Challenges such as the (affordable) housing crisis are particularly amplified in a place like Los Angeles, and because it is a matter of scale. Other cities are more contained in terms of geography, overall size, and the number of historic resources. We are fortunate in L.A. to have SurveyLA which provides a sense of how many and where historic resources are located in the city (approximately 6%), though the rate and frequency of planned redevelopment do not make it any easier. The types of resources are also vastly different in a place like Philadelphia or Boston in comparison to Los Angeles. Likewise, the preservation solutions are also different and must respond accordingly. Some preservation groups are able to help save places by directly intervening in real estate matters by buying threatened historic properties. This approach is not really viable in L.A., so we must use other advocacy approaches to press for preservation-based outcomes.

We strive to always move the needle and ensure we are telling the full story by preserving all kinds of historic places, which includes advocating for places that have difficult, challenging stories.

How do you anticipate the Olympics will impact the city? Will it have any effects on the Conservancy's work? You worked very closely with USC on the Coliseum renovation — how do you think it will perform in its third turn as an Olympics venue? What are you looking forward to in 2028?

As far as we are aware, the Olympics will not have a direct adverse impact on historic places in L.A. We are fortunate to have facilities already in place that will be employed for the games, which is ideal, such as the Coliseum. Many of these facilities have already seen reinvestment and upgrades to meet current and future needs associated with the Olympics.

The Taix case (and the messy politics behind it) is unsettling, but then again, we have seen some more encouraging developments around town lately. Are there any lessons to be learned from some of these stories? How would you rate the environment for conservation overall given what we have seen occur in the city over the past year or so?

The Taix result to date is a Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) designation that is no more than preservation of architectural salvage and saves only two exterior signs and a wood bar top, not the Taix building itself. The Council's final vote and Councilmember Mitch O'Farrell's motion not only dismisses Taix as a historic resource but greatly undermines the City's HCM program (dating back to 1962) and sets a dangerous precedent for citywide heritage conservation efforts. HCM designation is tied to historic buildings and places, not building fragments and salvage. We believe this action is problematic on numerous levels for larger preservation efforts throughout Los Angeles.

As far as we are aware, the Olympics will not have a direct adverse impact on historic places in L.A.

If there is a lesson to be learned, it is a reminder that politics and real estate interests can always trip up long-established programs and practices. We always need to remain vigilant in pressing against these types of approaches and stand up for historic places.

The desire to provide greater housing is an issue and challenge that has changed things in recent years, as it is increasingly used as an argument to justify doing something that may destroy a historic place. An unwillingness to consider alternative approaches has made it more difficult to press for win-win outcomes that do not needlessly destroy historic places that otherwise could be preserved and reused. Preservation is a core part of the affordable housing crisis as a majority of affordable housing is currently provided within older and historic buildings. Our work is also part of the multi-pronged solution, as we will not solve the problem alone by building new and only focusing on the production side.

In general, would you call Los Angeles a developer's town? Why or why not?

Yes, to a degree, as L.A.’s approach to planning, land use and development is largely transactional-based, on a parcel-by-parcel approach. Real estate is an extremely valuable commodity in L.A. and it seemingly increases in value overnight, so therefore there is great pressure to monetize on this and seek entitlements that can further increase values.

Preservation is a core part of the affordable housing crisis as a majority of affordable housing is currently provided within older and historic buildings.

Taix and other landmark buildings have an obvious appeal, but background buildings have been another issue taken up increasingly by the LAC. How do they factor into the popular imagination of the city, and what kinds of challenges are unique to their preservation?

Background buildings are collections of modest, small-scale, yet distinctive structures that create the overall feel of a street or neighborhood. They may not be individually significant, but, collectively, they help define the character of a community. Like much of L.A.'s low-rise building stock, background buildings are increasingly vulnerable to development pressures and other market forces. One by one — or block by block — background buildings are being replaced with mid-rise developments that can seem sterile and disconnected from the existing community context. Instead of the blunt instrument of massive razing and redevelopment, we need a more surgical approach that integrates new development into an existing context. Therefore, we recognize the need for new tools to incentivize sensitive infill, thoughtful urban design, and the conservation of small, yet special buildings.