“Montebello Represents Everything Desirable in Suburban Life”: Some Early History of Montebello to 1930, Part Two

by Paul R. Spitzzeri

Continuing with our look at some of the early history of Montebello, the suburb just to the southeast of Los Angeles and which has notable ties to the Workman and Temple family, we return to the early days of what, from about 1900 when it was established by the Los Angeles Jewish merchants Harris Newmark and Kaspare Cohn, was known as the Montebello Tract and the Town of Newmark within it.

The New Year’s Day 1905 edition of the Los Angeles Times included a short, but notable description of Montebello, observing that:

Nearly all of the 1200-acre piece known as the Montebello tract, on which stands the townsite of Newmark, was three years ago a barren waste. Now it is mostly a well-watered garden under intense cultivation and highly productive.

To support that statement, it was reported that A.E. Harrington had 40,000 12-ounce boxes of dewberries picked and sold for an average three cents per box and that they ripened sooner than others in the region, so they hit the market more quickly to that grower’s benefit. He also an acre of strawberries, from which fruit was picked starting in November 1903 and, within about four months or so, he realized $700 worth of the berry and this was considered better than the usual production for the area.

The paper continued that, “string beans, chile [sic] peppers, egg plant and tomatoes were picked about Newmark all through last winter,” and the abundance of such truck farming produce infers that the proximity of Montebello to Los Angeles was instrumental in having these available to Angel City consumers.

Also of importance was the expansion of a water works system that was touted in early advertising, like that discussed in part one of this post, and the $20,000 investment enabled better use of the vital fluid, so that “from five wells, a pumping plant, and two reservoirs with a total capacity of 4,500,000 gallons a flow of 250 inches of water is supplied to the tract under good pressure.”

Lastly, the piece noted that more than twenty residences were constructed, costing some $600 on the average, while several thousands of dollars of improvements were realized at the nursery of Howard and Smith, doubling the size of the facility from 10 to 20 acres. In fact, the business was very important to this community in its early years, as available space in Los Angeles was taken up by relentless development, so close outlying areas like in Montebello were attractive to owners like Howard and Smith.

An advertisement by exclusive real estate agents D.O. Stewart and Company of Los Angeles in the 10 March 1906 issue of the Los Angeles Express promoted free trips two daily during the week and on Sunday mornings to view 1 1/2-acre lots in a “reserved section” of Montebello. Among the major selling points was that the tract was just 15 minutes from downtown via the San Pedro, Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad with the fare being better than streetcar prices; that there was “the best water system in Southern California; that there was “prolific soil—perfect climate—grand views;” and that the subdivision offered “Suburban Life With City Comforts.”

A photo emphasized agriculture, specifically almonds, lima beans and English walnuts, while “Montebello’s great crops of winter vegetables testify to its entire freedom from frost.” Buyers of 168 lots placed on the market the following day, with prices of $250 for “inside” ones and $350 for corners—with half-due up front and the rest due in a year with no interest—were to acquire “positively the more desirable property in the Montebello Tract,” with costs covering water connections and meters, graded and graveled streets and a Title Insurance and Trust Company (TICOR) certificate of title.

Readers were exhorted, “don’t buy crowded city lots 30 minutes from the business center when spacious sites at Montebello . . . are available at bed-rock prices,” and were informed that the tract “is not ISOLATED—it is a thriving suburb” that “has every advantage that makes suburban life pleasant and profitable” for “the business, professional or workingman,” and presumably women and children, too!

Also of note was that there were no saloons, as the growing rise of Prohibition was being implemented by local and state government legislation and, later, was codified nationally by the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Finally, those pondering the ad were warned that “these lots will go like ‘wild fire'” and that they should “be on deck early and get a good selection” before the ship of good fortune sailed, as there was “no better investment.”

It was another year, though, before an official opening day was launched for the town with Stewart advertising, in later March 1907, that there were to be no sales until that landmark at Newmark. One ad promoted that the superintendent of the Los Angeles water bureau had a new house and orange grove in Montebello, though William Mulholland was not nearly as well known as he would be when his Los Angeles Aqueduct project was completed three years later and he went to greater regional renown. Once April Fool’s Day came, free round-trip tickets for five trips on the Salt Lake line were offered, as were rides from the depot to the town.

An image showed “A Cosy Home at Montebello” in what were deemed the “Finest Suburban Homesites in L.A. County,” with half-acre lots starting at $500, these “BIG lots at Beautiful Montebello” offered for far less than the “excessive prices” for small city lots. There were also some five-acre lots amid what was said to be some 1,000 acres being farmed on the tract, while buyers could obtain property in the “progressive townsite of NEWMARK” and were asked, “where can you find conditions more favorable to YOUR PROSPERITY, comfort, freedom and health?”

Moreover, proclaimed Stewart, “Montebello represents everything desirable in suburban life,” including the ease of transportation to and from Los Angeles, and it was “NOT RURAL” as the tract “is an up-to-date, progressive, productive suburb” with those streets “smooth as boulevards.” Also emphasized was that “famous Montebello never-failing water system” along with “healthful elevation, magnificent mountain view, equable climate, perfect drainage, rich soil, [and] good schools,” while “values are increasing.”

On that opening day, another Stewart promotional piece asserted that “Montebello and its townsite, Newmark, are among the finest suburban residence properties available around Los Angeles” and even staked a claim that the two “command finer views than Hollywood,” though there had not yet been much building in the portion of the Santa Monica Mountains famously called the “Hollywood Hills.”

Reiterating the twin pillars of progressiveness and prosperity, the sedulous sales agent added that “Montebello is distinguished by its many comfortable homes, its fruits, flowers, [and] mountain and valley views.” Tying the twin poles of proximity and distance from the burgeoning Angel City, it was added that the tract comprised “a growing community appealing particularly to business men who want to get away from the noise and turmoil of city life after office hours.”

This was because it was “an ideal environment in which to raise a family,” comments that were routinely made about developments in those suburbs in all directions around Los Angeles, while there were also “good schools, fine air, inspiring scenery, [and] country freedom.” All of this was also “so closely connected with the city by fast train service that all city advantages are quickly accessible.” Consequently, Montebello was “a sure subject for investment promising certain, big profits.”

An advertisement about two weeks later showed gushing artesian wells and the “interior of a Montebello nursery” as it was promoted that “the fact that Howard & Smith selected Montebello for the site of the largest flower, palm and shrub nursery in Southern California, proves the wonderful advantages.” The owners also testified in a separate piece that “we selected Montebello in preference to all other locations in California because of its superb location, the rich soil, abundance of water and the fact that it is absolutely frostless.

Moreover, Stewart assured readers, the tract offered “from the standpoint of climate, productive soil, and abundance of water.” Additionally, he averred that “suburban homesites at Montebello produce snug incomes as well as afford every opportunity to enjoy the delights of semi-country life.” The 1 1/2 and 5 acre tracts were also said to be such that profits would ensue from the growing of citrus, other fruit, nuts and olives.

A testimonial was provided by Edwin T. Earl, the owner of the Los Angeles Express newspaper, but who made his fortune in fruit raising and his invention of a refrigerated box car that helped revolutionize the shipment of fresh produce, and who, having bought two five-acre lots, enthused:

I have traversed the entire State looking for highly productive, well-watered land at a reasonable price, and I have just found it at Montebello.

Once again, it was posited that business figures in Los Angeles were “recognizing the opportunities at Montebello and its progressing townsite, NEWMARK, and are investing heavily.” Low prices, however, were sure to increase “compared with the brilliant future before the subdivision” though they were at a price favorable in juxtaposition to “any other suburban homesites offering fewer advantages.”

Heavy promotion by Stewart continued through April with the combination of photos of modern residences and the agricultural development of the tract generally taking precedence. While ads were smaller and lacked illustrations from that point, a new emphasis came with reports that an electric streetcar line from Boyle Heights, recently discussed in a post here, would continue east on Stephenson Avenue in Los Angeles city limits, this now being Whittier Boulevard, and on that latter thoroughfare in county land, to the Quaker City.

The Whittier News, quoting from the Los Angeles Herald, addressed the “persistent rumor” and noted that “Montebello and the new town of Newmark claim the assurance of an electric road, which, from the Herald’s conclusions, will simply be the extension of the Seventh street line to Whittier.” The paper concluded that the report “gives rise to the hope that in due time the Hillside City [Whittier] will be connected by a direct line across the mesa [from downtown Los Angeles and through Montebello/Newmark], which also might continue south from this city to connect with the La Habra line” of the Pacific Electric Railway.

The Times of 17 August reported that

Ranchers of this section are rejoicing over the prospect for early connection with Los Angeles by trolley. The proposed Huntington [Pacific Electric] line from Newmark, via Montebello, would bring this section within fifteen minutes of Los Angeles. To the growers of strawberries, dewberries and other small fruits and vegetables, this would mean a big increase in their profits. Montebello has an excellent location, but its development has been retarded because of its poor railway connections [the Salt Lake line notwithstanding].

The 10 October edition of the Whittier paper remarked that “a short line of railway from Los Angeles to Whittier, by way of Montebello, El Carmel, Ranchito is the topic that is just now attracting interest at the points named” and, here again, was enthusiasm for projected electric streetcar linkages.

El Carmel was a tract developed by Harriet Russell Strong, whose active life in Whittier included her efforts to preserve the adobe house of Don Pío Pico, in what was commonly called South Montebello, now including sections of City of Commerce, and which provided water to the Simons brickyard that will be mentioned in part three of this post. Ranchito referred to Pico’s El Ranchito portion of the Rancho Paso de Bartolo embracing portions of modern Montebello, Pico Rivera and Whittier.

Whittier Board of Trade officials went to Montebello to meet with business figures and ranchers and then schedule a second confab at Whittier, with the claim that the Board, with respect to neighboring communities, “is proving to be a ‘real live’ one in rushing to their rescue with whatever aid possible for it to bestow.” The account continued that,

The line to Montebello has in the past been a much-talked-of subject, yet no right-of-way has been procured and nothing definite has been arranged with the railway companies.

It was also notable that, by mid-October, the name of Newmark was all but dispensed with in favor of Montebello for the town and the larger tract. The Times began to publish regular reports under the heading of “Montebello Notes” with perhaps the earliest one appearing in the issue of 12 October and remarking that an improvement association, a common type of organization for unincorporated communities, was established.

The paper continued that there were the formation of committees and identification of “where work was outlined for the near future.” It added that “one of the objects the association will work for is the extension of a trolley line in this community” because “the people of the settlements of Montebello, Newmark and El Carmel are all interested in the enterprise.” It was briefly stated, as well, that “the Salt Lake Railroad Company has built a handsome depot here and has established an agent in it.” The use of “Newmark” essentially ended after this period.

We will return in a couple of days with a concluding part three to this post, so be sure to check back in with us for that!