by Paul R. Spitzzeri
As Los Angeles grew by remarkable leaps and bounds in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, generally mirroring that of the United States, there seemed a pervasive and pronounced feeling, on multiple levels, that there were no limits to its growth. When it came to topographical conditions, whatever barriers existed were increasingly overcome by significant developments in engineering and construction methods and technologies.
The result over time, especially in the first three decades of the 20th century, was an emerging remolding of the physical landscape of the Angel City, including grading of higher elevations, building of structures on hillsides, boring through them for transportation and other infrastructure projects, and more. A core target for ambitious plans for redevelopment was Bunker Hill, on the west flank of downtown and where some of the earliest efforts were conceptually undertaken in that first decade of the century.
The largely barren hill area was first largely developed by the Prudent Beaudry, a native of Canada who acquired tracts there in the late 1860s and employed his boundless, indefatigable energy to subdivide sections into residential lots and constructed a water delivery system—all of which represented a new phase of real estate development during Los Angeles’ first significant and sustained boom period, which lasted several years through the mid-Seventies.
In succeeding years, especially during the next growth period, the much larger Boom of the Eighties, which peaked during William H. Workman’s service as the the city’s mayor in 1887 and 1888, Bunker Hill became known as an enclave for some of the wealthiest figures in town. Grandiose Victorian-era mansions dotted the area, including those of the Bradbury, Brunson, Rose, and Shephard families, among many others.
As other sections of the city were established, including during aggressive Angel City annexations in all directions, as fashionable residential areas for the well-to-do, Bunker Hill became much less desirable and was increasingly hemmed in by the relentless growth of the commercial core of downtown. This led to that initial idea for redeveloping Bunker Hill, though that concept, determined to involve some $20 million, was deemed too costly and infeasible.
Yet, further booms came, including one in the early 1920s, peaking in 1923 when, for example, Walter P. Temple, embarked on a wide array of real estate projects, founded his Town of Temple (soon renamed Temple City). There were many lavish and wide-ranging schemes for downtown Los Angeles redevelopment during that era, including the building of the Coliseum, plans for a Union Station railroad terminal, subway construction, a major street traffic plan and an imposing and sprawling Civic Center, much of which was actually carried out.
This leads to a new Bunker Hill scheme and the featured artifact from the Museum’s collection for this post, the 15 March 1928 issue of California Constructor, a trade publication from the Southern California Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, has a centerfold feature outlining the basics of the proposed razing of the area for redevelopment.
There are some other articles of interest, including much detail on how contractors should submit claims for a recent state law on refunds from a gasoline tax, while another delved deeply into public construction contracts “where [the] matter of low bid is the controlling consideration and it disregards the factor of responsibility, skill and integrity.” A core concern was the awarding of low-bid contracts to companies who were “irresponsible and inexperienced,” as well as the forcing of reputable and responsible firms to bid lower to secure government work. Another problem dealt with public agencies calling for bids simply to determine likely costs, but having no intention of awarding contracts.
There was also an encomium for Austin B. Fletcher, the first highway engineer for the state of California, serving in that role from 1911 to 1923 after working for the highway commission in his native Massachusetts (where he was a graduate of Harvard University) and in San Diego County. Fletcher, who also served as the director of public works and headed the reclamation board, then became a consulting engineer for the federal Bureau of Public Roads, was lauded for his work with the California highway system. It was added that he was “a pathfinder in road building in the West” and, in this year of the centennial of Route 66, it is notable to recall how much effort was put in to establishing standards for highways during the Roaring Twenties.
In the “Construction Information” section, general building projects were listed, including for commercial and residential projects. For the former, for example, a “stone-tile service station” was mentioned on Venice Boulevard in Los Angeles, as well as an office building in Torrance, while among the latter were a Holmby Hills house and one in Altadena that was designed by an up-and-coming Black architect named Paul R. Williams, who soon became famous for his wide portfolio of works in our region.
The magazine’s centerfold was devoted to “Regrading Project Outlined: Plans Formulated to Level Bunker Hill.” The brief article observed that,
Plans are advancing rapidly for the leveling of Bunker Hill in the city of Los Angeles. The proposed project, which will be one of the largest improvements ever undertaken in the southland, provides for the lowering and regrading of an irregular district extending from Fifth street [near Hope Street and Grand Avenue] north a distance of about one and three-quarters of a mile to Cottage Home street [below Elysian Park and Dodger Stadium and next to Cathedral High School], and from Hill street west a distance of about three-quarters of a mile to a point near Beaudry avenue.
Tentative procedure of construction provides for a five year program, during which time all buildings now situated on the hill will be razed, more than 20,000,000 cubic yards of earth will be removed, the territory will be re-mapped, and new improvements will be installed. The latter includes 90-ft. to 120-ft. streets, 30-ft alleys, sidewalks, ornamental street lights, storm drains, sanitary sewers, and underground public utilities lines. The regrading and improvement of the territory will represent an expenditure approximating $14,000,000.
The plans were developed by the newly formed Southwestern Investment Corporation, which was said to be establishing a holding company called Los Angeles Central Properties, Inc. and which was headed by Clarence C. Bigelow (1880-1969), a native of Ohio who was a ditch contractor there and then a bookkeeper with a Phoenix cotton company before heading to the Angel City.
Bigelow was best known for his unsuccessful quarter-century legal battle, from 1927 to 1951, with the City of Los Angeles over a former trash dump near Alameda Street and Washington Boulevard to which he had leasing rights, but how he was able to garner the financial and civic support for the Bunker Hill redevelopment scheme is a mystery, as no mention can be found of him until this project was publicized in March 1928.
Yet, the article continued, “Mr. Bigelow reports that his company holds a formal commitment from an eastern bonding house to underwrite $25,000,000, the amount necessary for the successful consummation of the improvement.” As to the general nature of the highly ambitious and audacious concept, it was explained that,
It is planned by the holding company to follow a procedure by which property owners in the affected area will have the option of selling their property outright at its present value to the corporation for a cash consideration, or being credited with full value in stock and thereby participating in the expected profits which will result from the increased value of the property due to the improvement.
Financial data submitted for the piece was that the assessed value of the “entire proposed area for regrade” was just north of $8 million, compared to nearly $9.2 million for just a block between Broadway and Hill Street and Sixth and Seventh streets in the heart of the busiest commercial section of downtown where St. Vincent’s Place was located. When buildings were included, the project area approached $11.5 million, while that sample section was not quite $10.8 million and another prime area between Olive Street and Grand Avenue and Fifth and Sixth streets, including where the Biltmore Hotel was situated, was pegged at about $10.5 million.
The piece, which included maps commissioned in November 1927 by Southwest and shows before and after layouts for the area, concluded with the comment that, “the complete regrade of Bunker Hill was increase the values surrounding the proposed area, as well as the values inside of it, which will make the present ratio of values still greater.”
It is worth noting that the “Proposed Resubdivision” map showing the regraded hill area included the sprawling Civic Center complex that went almost completely unrealized and showing the City Hall, which opened in April 1928, surrounded by a new Federal Building, a Hall of Justice, courts building, a state building, two large park sites and more.
When it came to media coverage of the Bunker Hill redevelopment concept, it is no surprise that the Los Angeles Times, headed by real estate baron Harry Chandler and a leading promoter of downtown improvement, devoted plenty of ink to the project. In its 11 March edition, the powerful paper observed that Bunker Hill was a “barrier to free traffic movement north and west of this congested district,” with the rapid proliferation of automobiles making the city the car capital of the world, while it was also noted that the proposal would be “adding further valuable area to the territory required by downtown business.”
After remarking that there 1,246 property owners in the defined area, the paper paraphrased Bigelow asserting “the undertaking to be feasible and practicable from an engineering standpoint and that it may be expected to pay highly in financial returns to owners in largely increased valuation of property.” It was added that “much of the excavated material” from the 20 million cubic yards to be removed “is expected to be utilized in filling operations within the area, especially north of Sunset Boulevard where the fill will offset the cutting.” Otherwise, the account was essentially what was published in California Constructor.
On the 14th, Southwestern took out an advertisement directed “To Owners of Property on Bunker Hill and adjacent to it on the North, Northeast and Northwest.” Tucked between the maps reproduced in the magazine, the firm stated that, “on February 25, we mailed you maps and data,” with about 150 of the distribution to 1,246 property owners returned because of insufficient addresses. These persons were requested to contact the company “so we can keep you informed on the progress of this big undertaking.” Moreover, it averred that, with the purported underwriting involved,
This commitment means that $25,000,000 of outside money is ready to come into Los Angeles, which in turn means more WORK and more WEALTH for this city . . . the complete regrade of Bunker Hill will materially increase the values SURROUNDING the “proposed area for regrade,” as well as the VALUES INSIDE OF IT and will greatly relieve the present congested traffic conditions.
The Times of the 24th revisited the proposal regarding “official cognizance of tentative plans to form a trust or corporation to finance a $50,000,000 project to raze the building[s] and tear down the area known as Bunker Hill by hydraulic power” came as discussions were held between Bigelow and a state corporation commission official.
It was noted that the Southwest president submitted to the official that “the present value of the property in the proposed section is between $25,000,000 and $30,000,000.” Following the expenditure in the razing of the structures and land, “the value of the land after the regrading is completed has been placed between $125,000,000 and $140,000,000.” The Los Angeles Record of the same date offered nothing materially different in its feature on the proposal.
Nothing major was located about the project until the Times of 8 July, under the heading of “BUNKER HILL’S RAZING PUSHED,” cited Bigelow as outlining next steps, including a property appraisal, expected to take about three months to complete and involving about 2,000 parcels and 1,500 structures, as well as the formation of the holding company, with Southwestern to act as sales agent. After it was remarked upon that “each detail [was] to be carefully scrutinized” so that the effort “is moving along steadily but unhurriedly,” Bigelow told the paper,
When the fact is taken into consideration that this project is comparable to such an engineering feat as the construction of the Hudson River tunnels and other projects of enormous size, it can be realized that we are not disposed to go rushing along with it, but to proceed carefully and surely. The consummation of the project contemplates a five-year program. But that does not mean it is proposed to wait until the elevated area is razed before obtaining beneficial results. As the work proceeds, and the level grades are established, new structures could rise.
Some further detail was provided relating to the properties in the area, with it commented that “participation in the project by stock ownership [would be] in proportion to the value of the property” and that “the participant [was] to share in the subsequent earnings as developed through the sales.” Otherwise, owners could sell to the holding company for all cash or a split with cash and stock, though Bigelow added that, once the appraisal was done, more information would be forthcoming on financing.
The project leader added that the work of earth removal would expend some $14 million while he “believes the project in its entirety can be carried through for $25,000,000,” which, of course, was the underwriting amount. With respect to street work, Grand Avenue and Olive Street were to be significantly realigned and extended above Sunset Boulevard, this latter also be straightened and widened between Hill and Hope streets and all such proposed changes were to soon be submitted to the City Planning Commission.
We will return with part two on this remarkable concept to radically remake a large portion, comprising hundreds of acres, of downtown Los Angeles, so check back for that.
Methinks I remember all of Bunker Hill south of the Hollywood Freeway being razed during the late 1950s-early 1960s. I would depart Los Angeles High School on Fridays to take the P-Car streetcar to downtown whence-ITH I would board the Freeway Flyer to visit the San Fernando Valley “By the Way Ranch” of my L.A. Times columnist Grandfather Bill Henry (LAHS 1909). The beautiful 1800s Victorian mansions had all been chopped up into flophouses with a high crime rate in the blighted area. Only a few such beauties were relocated to Heritage Square to be rehabilitated along the Arroyo Seco Parkway. Was this an extension of the 1920s plan for re-development?
Hi Daniel, thanks for the comment and, when we return with part two (and, likely, three), we’ll get more into what happened with this 1920s concept and end with some discussion of what happened later. We appreciate your interest!
As noted in this post, the 1920s’ development plans for Los Angeles even included proposals for subway construction, but I am a bit surprised and not sure how far those plans really progressed. According to my limited understanding, Los Angeles was far more famous at the time for its extensive electric streetcar system, whose network sprawled over more than 1,000 miles, rather than for any subway lines.
Of course, as we all know, in the following decades private automobiles and the widespread construction of freeways gradually replaced the electric streetcars. As a result, Los Angeles fell behind in mass transit development while many other countries were aggressively expanding their subway systems.
Since the 1990s, however, the city has been making ambitious efforts to catch up by building new subway and light-rail lines. Yet even after more than thirty years of expansion, the current rail network is still less than half the total mileage of the streetcar system that existed a century ago.
Personally, I don’t fully agree to catching up the construction of subway systems. So long we can accelerate the approval of autonomous driving, we may easily see an entirely new model of urban transportation.
Hi Larry, in the 1920s, there was a single one-mile subway from downtown to the northwest, though there were ideas for subways in the early Teens. Thanks!