by Paul R. Spitzzeri
The ambitious and audacious plan to level Bunker Hill, on the west side of downtown, and redevelop it and hundreds of acres considered ripe for the expansion of the city’s commercial core, while also facilitating traffic access, especially from the west, was created by Clarence C. Bigelow, a recent transplant from Ohio, and his Southwestern Investment Corporation and who claimed he had $25 million in underwriting from unnamed eastern sources.
About half a year after the proposal was featured in the 15 March 1928 issue of California Constructor, the trade magazine of the Southern California chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, the effort was apparently gaining significant levels of support, according to the Los Angeles Record of 18 September, which remarked that “this movement has received the hearty endorsement of 16 civic organizations” and named the chambers of commerce in Burbank and Huntington Park, as well as the East Side Organization of Los Angeles and the Hollenbeck (Boyle) Heights Improvement Association.
Three days later, the Los Angeles Times commented that “a complete investigation and analysis of the Bigelow plan . . . was started yesterday under the auspices of the City Planning Association” and a special committee headed by 28-year-old Hugh R. Pomeroy, who was also involved with the county planning commission, was a former member of the California Assembly and was an expert on zoning. The review followed an address given to the Association by Bigelow and it was mentioned that the organization was eager to know more about the effects of the plan on traffic and the Civic Center’s development.
Another powerful backer soon emerged as the paper’s edition of the 26th reported that, “after months of investigation and study the Downtown Business Men’s Association” decided that it was “indorsing in principle” the concept, with its secretary telling the Times,
After decades of sporadic effort on the part of individuals and associations to lower the grade of Bunker Hill there has been a concrete plan offered . . . without costing the taxpayers 1 cent in assessment. The Bigelow plan is sponsored by a man whose character and ability have stood the most rigid investigation. The project is adequately financed and all that is needed for its successful culmination is the co-operation of the property owners of the hill. I believe that this will be forthcoming. Bunker Hill is the great barrier to the steady flow of traffic in the downtown district and its demolition will do more to stop the progress of decentralization than any one other thing.
This last point is striking, given that aggressive annexation expanded the Angel City by leaps and bounds during preceding years, most notably northwest in the San Fernando Valley, but also significantly to the west and southwest, and decentralization was inevitable, though the emphasis then was on suburban residential districts with some commercial and industrial development in certain areas.
The Association issued a resolution calling for the lowering of the grade in the Bunker Hill area to that “of the present traffic arteries contiguous to said district” and asserting that this was “essential, necessary and vital for the future growth and prosperity of the city.” The private nature of the plan, without the need for a taxation vehicle in an assessment district, garnered support “provided that the project meets with the approval of the property owners” of the targeted area” and that this involved “our hearty approval and support to any plan that will result in the cutting down and removal of the Bunker Hill area.”
Lastly, it emphasized the need for any streets to be handed over to the city, which, of course, was to approve any resubdivision. The organization also remarked that the “Bunker Hill district should have been removed years ago” and should be done before costs rose. It then commented that the idea was “of vital interest to the future progress of the city of Los Angeles and all surrounding communities” while addressing traffic because “congestion in the central business district . . . never can be eliminated until said Bunker Hill area is removed.”
The 7 October number of the Times, which emerged as the biggest booster, as was often the case, among the city’s media outlets, included a feature by Charles C. Cohan, who hailed “four significant steps” taken with the Bigelow plan. These were data revealing the increase in property values; early efforts for appraising property; the realignment of streets; and a proposed organizational plan.
It was observed that the higher the elevation, the lower the property value, so removing Bunker Hill, it was argued, based on thirteen profile studies from county records, would bring values to comparable levels to those areas. A graph and a trio of photos published with the piece reflected this assessment, as well as reflected the “unsightly” portions of the area as the project’s conceivers viewed it. An example stated that elevated areas of Olive Street were worth some three-and-a-half times less than a nearby section of Hill Street not part of the Bunker Hill district, while others along Broadway and Figueroa Street were cited as demonstrating the change in valuation.
With respect to streets, it was noted that “special care has been devoted to . . . having the north and south streets in conformity with the Civic Center street plan” and for thoroughfares heading east to west mostly being at right angles. This realignment, it was judged, “not only provides for additional attractiveness, but is considered a necessary factor in expediting traffic” while it “shows the way to the saving of important time in city travel.”
The firm of James G. Stafford and Associates, Inc. was to work on the reappraisal, with field work to soon begin and a report generated within about three months. The article also noted the centrality of “bringing all the parcels of property involved into what would amount to one ownership, through the holding company, Los Angeles Central Properties, Inc., so that owners could sell outright for cash, take stock in the company or a combination of both.
With respect to the incorporation plan, a stock plan was laid out with preferred at $25 a share, with a retirement amount double that, and the total issue to be decided based on the appraisal amount. A bond issue was to be pursued “to cover [the] cost of demolition of the buildings, cost of regrade, cost of installation of storm drains, sanitary sewers, pavements, sidewalks, ornamental lights, public-utility tunnels,” as well as interest and taxes for the five-year life of the project. While the amount projected was $25 million, it was concluded that, “after the work is well started the project will be self-sustaining” with only some of that amount needed to be sold.
Further demonstrating its implicit support of the endeavor, the Times of 23 October highlighted another endorsement as the Commercial Board of Los Angeles, which, in its resolutions, cited the benefit of the financing, being private, not involving the city, its residents or property owners, an escrow arrangement that would avoid problems with clear title, and the establishment of a governing board “of leading citizens and property owners.” It also highlighted the improvements in downtown traffic flow, “a symmetrical periphery” for the growth of the downtown business area, not “distorted and less accessible protrusions,” and increasing values near the Civic Center “instead of the progress of decay now so evident.”
Two days later, the paper reported that Southwestern applied to the California department of corporations requesting the ability to issue $50,000 in stock “for engineering reports and appraisals.” This followed a June 1927 approval, not previously reported apparently, that allowed for a like amount of stock to be sold “to finance the purchase of dumping sites to be improved by filling and grading and then sold.” As noted in part one, Bigelow acquired a lease to a site at Alameda Street and Washington Boulevard that ended up involving about a quarter century of litigation with the city. The article added that the very powerful Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce was a supporter of the plan and this was included with the application.
The 1 November edition of the Times brought another organization’s consideration, this being the Greater Hill Street Improvement Association at a meeting of which Bigelow spoke of his plan along with Walter S. Cooper, an engineer who prepared the surveys and who told the assemblage that “our preliminary time schedules provide for about a six-year construction program,” which, however, “could be speeded up or retarded as conditions warrant.”
Cooper added that work would initiate “along the east and west sides, to provide additional traffic outlet” and for hauling and draining considerations. After that, “work would then begin at Fifth street and gradually extend northward,” with the first year reaching to 3rd Street, up to 1st the second year and continuing towards the end of the project area near Elysian Park. It was added that “all new improvements would be completed as the excavation work advances.”
The engineer continued that, because of their vital importance to traffic, the east to west streets would always be open and the Third Street Tunnel utilized while work was conducted on 4th and 5th streets and then those used while 3rd was being worked on. He also stipulated that “buildings now within the area could remain in use until construction work required their removal,” with some leveled and material saved for other uses, while others would be relocated “and the larger and more important structures remodeled and lowered to the new grade, or additional stories built beneath.”
Lastly, Cooper informed the group that the new grade was “approximately the level of the Second-street tunnel” and the 20 million cubic yards of dirt was estimated based on test borings that indicated that there was no “hard material.” He added that there were two sources for the volume and consulting engineers were employed to add further verification, within a 5% variance, though it was stated that the final grading work would likely be about a million fewer cubic yards.
Three days later, under the heading of “Project Draws General Favor,” Cohan wrote for the Times that there was growing interest in removing “the topographical wart on the profile of downtown Los Angeles” as “more than a score of civic and other organizations representing an aggregate membership of thousands” were backing Bigelow’s plan. A prominent name cited was Eli P. Clark, who came to Los Angeles to work with brother-in-law Moses H. Sherman on street railways and real estate development and also built the Hotel Clark. He told the paper,
I believe the razing of Bunker Hill would help to stabilize values in the central business district. Indeed in that respect it would have a healthy influence on property in every direction.
The hill is a detriment to the best welfare of the city for various reasons, among them the fact that it is a traffic barrier . . . Unquestionably it would be a good plan to remove it not only from the standpoint of business economics, but also because it is an obstacle in the way of carrying through the Civic Center plan of municipal beautification.
The present movement to remove the hill is a timely manifestation of a sentiment to do everything possible to advance the welfare of the community and maintain the city’s stride as a properly progressing, thoroughly substantial and wonderfully attractive place.
Another luminary quoted was former city engineer John H. Dockweiler, who offered that razing was certainly sound from an engineering perspective and called Bunker Hill was “a veritable Chinese wall preventing proper upbuilding.” Moreover, the project would take a liability and make the area an asset and he remarked that “shoppers will not walk up a steep grade,” so the redevelopment would “give stability” there and “mean a new breathing space for Los Angeles.”
Dockweiler then added, with no small amount of grandiosity and a strange historical perspective,
The project dovetails with the ideals of those who know and appreciate not only the historic in Los Angeles, but are cognizant of the great place the city occupies in civic enterprise and appearance. Los Angeles belongs to the world. The world looks to Los Angeles for ideals and accomplishments.
A third Angeleno of note cited in the piece was Walter P. Story, whose namesake downtown business building still stands and whose Studio City house also has survived the ravages of time. The Times claimed that Story did not only have a vested interest because of his presence in the business district, but was “a citizen concerned in the general welfare of the community.”
Story echoed Dockweiler and Clark in asserting,
The hill unquestionably is a barrier to civic progress. The fact is that it should have come down long ago, but it is opportune to raze it now.
I believe its removal would have a stabilizing influence on the entire business district which after all is a civic backbone. That the razing of the hill and realignment of the avenues in that area would add greatly to the traffic convenience of the entire county as well as materially enhance the city’s appearance, are powerful arguments for the plan.
In its edition of 11 November, the Times turned to another business figure of note, Clarence A. Barker of the well-known furniture company and who was president of the Retail Dry Goods Merchants’ Association. Barker offered his approbation of the demolition plan and commented that traffic improvements were paramount in his support, but added, “the replacement of the old-fashioned buildings and cheap structures . . . by modern buildings of more worth, which the enhanced real estate values will make it possible and advisable to build there, will greatly improve the appearance of our city.”
Traffic and real estate values were repeated by lawyer and traffic commission member David R. Faries, while Gordon Whitnall, who headed the city’s planning commission, was more measured in his remarks, offering that the idea “is new only in respect to the engineering features and the financial set-up,” while also observing that “given enough money capable engineers can accomplish anything,” so from that perspective he saw feasibility, but he demurred when it came to the financial side.
The Times quoted from chambers of commerce in Burbank, Eagle Rock, Glendale and Pasadena, while citing approval from seven others, including from somewhat distant ones in Artesia, Bellflower, El Monte and North Hollywood. Also mentioned was the Associated General Contractors of America, publisher of California Constructor, among ten other organizations from the region which supported the idea.
Media citations of opposition were rare, but an early example, brief as it was, appeared in the Los Angeles Record of 14 November, which informed readers that “Bunker Hill property owners were busy today circulating petitions against the razing of Bunker Hill” and that some 250 people were at a meeting at the Blackstone Apartments on Olive Street between 2nd and 3rd streets. At that confab, the attendees determined to seek “an injunction against the Bigelow plan of razing it and further plans for beautifying the hill as it now stands.”
As 1928 came toward its close, the Times of 14 December offered one more article citing backing for the bulldozing of Bunker Hill, with the Builders’ Exchange of Los Angeles resolving to support the project, chiming in about the advantage of private, rather than public (meaning taxation), financing as well as the purported widespread benefit to the Angel City and outlying districts. It further remarked that,
the success of such an undertaking under proper and legal direction will greatly enlarge and make more accessible the downtown district of Los Angeles, facilitating the ingress and egress between thickly settled districts, add greatly to the civic center investment of the taxpayer, and in the reconstruction period will add greatly to the welfare of those engaged in the necessary crafts and industries, and as well to the welfare of the city.
We’ll return soon with a third part, taking our look at the Bunker Hill razing proposal into 1929, so check back with us for that.
Reading the posts about the Bunker Hill redevelopment plan reminds me of the BOT (Build–Operate–Transfer) projects I was involved in decades ago, as there are some interesting similarities between the two.
BOT was a widely adopted model for large-scale public infrastructure projects in many countries during the late twentieth century. Like the Bunker Hill project, it relies heavily on private funding; however, BOT goes a step further by granting the private entity the right to operate the facility for a period of time before transferring it back to the government. This makes it a highly complex and sophisticated arrangement, requiring strong capabilities in construction, financing, and long-term operations management.
In the two major cases I participated – the Taipei 101 skyscraper and the airport light rail system – I led a team responsible for construction planning.