Demolition by Neglect

Opinion by Kellam deForest

The legal definition of demolition by neglect described by the National Trust for Historic Preservation (PDF left) is the “process of allowing a building to deteriorate to the point where demolition is necessary to protect public health and safety.”

Sometimes an owner of an old historic building will let it deteriorate to the point of collapse in order to be rid of the responsibility of upkeep, or to facilitate development of the property.

Recent news has brought demolition by neglect examples to the forefront. One is the Chromatic Gate. As pointed out on Santa Barbara View, fading paint and lack of upkeep are reducing this 20th-century modern sculpture to an eyesore or worse. The City of Santa Barbara, who owns the sculpture, says it has no money for maintenance. There are those who object to its modernity and location on the beachfront who would be happy to see it demolished.

Second is the Miramar Hotel. As recently as 2000, the Miramar was an operating hotel complex, albeit a bit run-down. Since then various investors have proposed plans to refurbish the hotel campus and build a new luxury hotel. These investors made promises but have let the property deteriorate to such an extent that they now can demonstrate that the property is an eyesore that they are now asking the County to pay for the demolition by having keep the funds from the Transient Occupancy Tax. Any transient occupancy tax would, of course, not occur until a hotel is built. Caruso Affiliated says they will not proceed with clean up until they get this concession.

As we have seen with numerous examples, there are those who are prone to demolish the historic structures such as La Entrada without sufficient funds and then hope the public will bail them out with concessions and funding.

Pearl Chase defeated the El Mirasol high-rise condominium project.

Friday’s Vintage Views of Santa Barbara provides an illustration. The untitled photo is the reflecting pool and garden of the El Mirasol Hotel that occupied the block where the Alice Keck Park Memorial Garden is now located. After the west wing of the hotel was destroyed in a fire in 1966, there were those who fought for the preservation of the garden. The bulldozers got there first to clear the land of structures to build a series of nine- and eleven-story condos. Thankfully under the leadership of Pearl Chase this atrocity was prevented. The developers were bailed out by the generosity of first the Santa Barbara Museum of Art and then by the bequest of Alice Keck Park—and we now have a world-class garden on the site.  Some of the stonework and many of the mature trees of El Mirasol garden remain.

The $35,000 cost to restore the Chromatic Gate is a doable project, but are we going to have to dig into our near-empty pockets to redo the Miramar property? The public should not have to subsidize the developers to pay for demolition created by their own calculated, not-so benign neglect. And I do not know where we are going to find another Mrs. Park to do it for us.

About Kellam de Forest

Kellam de Forest, Citizen Extraordinaire. The son of the legendary Santa Barbara couple, Lockwood and Elizabeth de Forest, his name is synonymous with the history, art and preservation of Santa Barbara. His parents published “The Santa Barbara Gardener” from 1925-1942, and were responsible for inspired landscape architecture throughout the area. His grandfather’s moonlight-inspired paintings were featured this spring in a show at Sullivan-Goss, drawing a review in the New York Times. With that legacy, the grace and beauty of Santa Barbara runs deep in Kellam. He serves as secretary of the Pearl Chase Society, where he pens the “Preservation Watch” column; he volunteered his historic expertise in the writing of the Historic Element for the General Plan, and he regularly comments on all manner of political and development issues, in person and online. Santa Barbara View is honored to have Kellam de Forest as a contributor.

5 Responses to Demolition by Neglect

  1. el_smurfo February 15, 2012 at 7:02 am #

    You can’t write an article like this without mentioning the City’s onerous development process. If my tiny project is any indication, it must be nearly impossible to maneuver the bureaucracy and end up with a profitable project (as much of the recent downtown development proves).

  2. Anonymous February 15, 2012 at 11:20 am #

    History lessons from Kellam/ PRetty cool! Wish he did have Mrs. Park in the trenches again.

  3. SBBeachcomber February 15, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

    I’d be happy to see the MiraMar demolished. It does seem to be quite the safety hazard with all the vacation rentals next to it. It surprises me no one has been hurt ” exploring” there. Seems like a huge liability for the City.

  4. Anonymous February 15, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

    It’s a shame that the Miramar has been allowed to deteriorate to a place where demolition looks better than keeping it. But in the right hands, how cool it would have been to restore and update as unique old California beach cottages for families instead of the typical pricey and ultra chi-chi retreat for the rich. Another missed opportunity.

  5. Greg Huglin February 18, 2012 at 4:24 pm #

    The Miramar is not located in the City of Santa Barbara but it is in the .
    County. So, ‘bed taxes’ go to the County not the City.
    I’ve heard estimates of about $1.5m per year in ‘bed taxes’ possibly
    generated by a rebuilt Miramar.
    One of Rick Caruso’s employees, Rick Lemmo, told me by phone several
    years ago that the demolition could cost $1m.

Leave a Reply