Landmark Assessment Report

Landmark Assessment Report

Date: April 28, 2021

For: Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner

Subject: 1132-1142 Princeton Street

From: Elysha Paluszek, Associate Architectural Historian, and Amanda Duane,

Senior Architectural Historian, GPA Consulting

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Executive Summary

The properties at 1132 and 1142 Princeton Street comprise a courtyard apartment complex that

was developed on two separate legal parcels (Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers

4266-016-058 and 4266-016-059). The two properties were nominated as Santa Monica Landmarks

on November 2, 2020. The City of Santa Monica (City) retained GPA Consulting (GPA) to prepare

this Landmark Assessment Report to determine if the properties are eligible for designation, and if

so, under which criteria. The two properties will be considered as one unified apartment complex

for the purposes of this report.

The complex consists of four total buildings: two mirrored S-shaped apartment buildings and two

detached garages. Both properties were identified in the 2010 Santa Monica Citywide Historic

Resources Inventory (HRI) Update prepared by ICF International and in the 2018 HRI Update

prepared by Architectural Resources Group (ARG) and Historical Resources Group (HRG). The

2010 HRI indicates that the property appeared to be eligible as a Structure of Merit for representing

a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type, and as the work of

architect Martin Stern, Jr. The property was assigned a status code of 5S3 in the 2018 HRI Update,

which indicated that the property appeared to be eligible as a Landmark as an excellent

example of a 1940s courtyard apartment as well as representing the work of notable architect

Martin Stern, Jr.

GPA evaluated the property under the six Santa Monica Landmark criteria. As a result of this

analysis, GPA concludes that the property does not appear to be significant under any local

criteria, and therefore does not appear to be eligible for designation as a Santa Monica

Landmark.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA 2

Figure 1: 1132-1136 Princeton Street, view looking south.

GPA Consulting, March 17, 2021.

Figure 2: 1138-1142 Princeton Street, view looking southeast.


Introduction

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the courtyard apartment complex at 1132-1142 Princeton

Street as a Santa Monica Landmark in response to two designation applications, one for each

street address, received by the City of Santa Monica in November 2020. The complex is located

on Princeton Street west of Wilshire Boulevard in the northeast and mid-city areas of the City of

Santa Monica (see Figure 3).1 The property comprises two legal parcels (Los Angeles County

Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 4266-016-058 and 4266-016-05).

1 The boundaries for the northeast and Mid-City areas overlap. The area between Washington Avenue and

Wilshire Boulevard is located in both areas.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Figure 3: Apartment complex and parcel boundary. Base image courtesy of LA County GIS.

Elysha Paluszek and Amanda Duane were responsible for the preparation of this report. They fulfill

the qualifications for historic preservation professionals outlined in Title 36 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Part 61. Their résumés are included in Attachment A.

Methodology

In preparing this report, GPA performed the following tasks:

1. Reviewed existing information, including the 2010 and 2018 Historic Resources Inventory

Updates and the Landmark Applications prepared by Chattel, Inc.

2. Conducted a field inspection of the property on March 17, 2021, to ascertain the general

condition and physical integrity of the apartment complex. Digital photographs of the

exterior of all buildings were taken during this field inspection.

3. Conducted research into the history of the property. Sources referenced included building

permit records, city directories, newspaper archives, genealogical databases, and historic

maps.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


4. Reviewed and analyzed ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical

materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation designations, and

assessment processes and programs to evaluate the property for significance as a Santa

Monica Landmark.

5. Evaluated the property under the Santa Monica Landmark and Structure of Merit criteria.

Previous Evaluations of Property

The property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street was previously evaluated as part of the 2010 and 2018

Historic Resources Inventory Updates. In 2010, the property was evaluated as a potential Structure

of Merit and assigned a status code of 5S3 (appears to be individually eligible for local listing or

designation through survey evaluation). It was evaluated in 2018 as a potential Santa Monica

Landmark and assigned a status code of 5S3.

Historic Context2

Theme: Multi-Family Residential Development (1899-1977)3

… In the years leading up to the United States' entry into the war in December 1941,

a series of dramatic shifts began. Thousands of people migrated to Southern

California from other parts of the country. The rapid influx of Douglas Aircraft and

other defense workers exacerbated Southern California's already intense need for

housing. In response, the federal government converted newly-built public housing

complexes to "defense housing," and constructed additional "war worker" housing

complexes. These investments provided temporary relief, but housing was a

problem that persisted for many years after the war's end.

Like many cities in Southern California, the defense workers of World War II

transformed the landscape of Santa Monica. In 1940, the population of Santa

Monica was 53,500. During the war, Douglas aircraft had 44,000 people (mostly

women) on its payroll at the Santa Monica Cloverfield facility, nearly doubling

Santa Monica’s population. Unlike other cities, Santa Monica had little open land

on which to construct defense worker housing, even if the money and materials

had been available. Instead, density increased in an already built-out city. Leslie S.

Storrs, former zoning administrator with the City of Santa Monica, recounts that

many people took in boarders and/or subdivided their single-family residences for

defense workers out of patriotism in a time of national emergency. In one large

home on Georgina Avenue, some 26 renters were accommodated. A review of

Sanborn Maps indicates that many owners of single-family residences in the city

erected small apartment units at the rear of their properties or over their garages.

2 The following, unless otherwise noted, is excerpted from Architectural Resources Group and Historic

Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Survey Report (Santa

Monica: City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development, August 9, 2019). 3 Excerpt begins with most relevant postwar period.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


“Santa Monica officialdom did what it had to do,” according to Storrs. “It in effect

suspended all zoning regulations and urged that accommodations be created for

the workers whether zoning violations resulted or not.” Variances were also created

for wartime industry, under the guise that they were “for the duration of the

emergency.” As with many reactive measures, the ill-defined nature of the

variance (and a housing shortage that persisted well after the war was over)

created a density problem in Santa Monica that was to persist for many years. It

effectively changed the city composition from owner occupied single-family

residences to a city of renters. In 1957, the City of Santa Monica enacted a master

plan which “provided for multiple units in traditionally single-family neighborhoods.”

By 1950, four out of five Santa Monica residents were renters. By 1960, 69 percent

of housing units in Santa Monica were occupied by renters. The war not only made

a mark on Santa Monica through population increases and the establishment of a

substantial industrial base, it changed the city’s mix of single-family and multi-family

residential housing forever. …

In addition to the ad-hoc apartments created in the city, Santa Monica became

home to a number of small garden apartment complexes. Due to the scarcity of

land, large garden apartment complexes like those seen in the San Fernando

Valley and other areas of Los Angeles were not feasible. However, two- and three-

building versions of the property type were scattered about the city. Drawing upon

the site-planning ideas of Clarence S. Stein (1882-1975) and Henry Wright (1890-

1978) and their “Radburn Plan,” these apartments emphasized a landscaped

backbone over the urban grid. Buildings were typically sited to face green spaces

rather than the street. Architect Kenneth Lind received recognition for his designs

for garden apartments in Santa Monica in Architectural Forum.

Large courtyard apartments also began to appear around the city. Although

smaller versions of this property type had been present in Santa Monica dating

back to the 1920s, these newer postwar versions often featured a central swimming

pool in their courtyards.

During the 1950s, economics became the driving force in multi-family residential

construction in Santa Monica. Contributing factors to the Santa Monica apartment

phenomenon included a national climate of economic incentives that

encouraged the construction of multi-family housing. In describing the “apartment

boom” of the 1950s and early 1960s, Babcock and Bosselman wrote, “In the present

economic and legal climate, incentives are available not only to the landowner,

but to the developer, the investor and the lender.” Between 1941 and 1950, the

federal government created “Section 608” which “provided Federal Housing

Administration (FHA) insurance for as much as 90% of mortgages on rental housing

projects.” The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 “permitted owners to charge off high

percentages of the original cost of a new building during the early years of the

building’s life,” thereby encouraging new construction. In the early 1960s, the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


federal government eased existing restrictions limiting investment in multi-family

housing lending among savings and loans.

These incentives had a profound effect on the pattern of urban infill development

in Santa Monica. Civic leaders encouraged these changes. The 1953 Santa

Monica Community Book states, “In many areas, old residences must be torn down

to make way for hotels and apartments, for Santa Monica cannot expand

horizontally.” But the effects received mixed reviews. As City Zoning Administrator

Leslie S. Storrs writes:

Builders rushed to erect ‘608’ apartments…Unfortunately buildings

designed to conform to the requirements of this section were very much

alike. Typically, they were two stories in height, of frame and stucco

construction, covered more than 72% of the total lot area and barely met

the hopelessly inadequate requirements of the then-effective zoning

ordinance in the matter off-street parking.

In the 1967-68 fiscal year, the City Building Department issued 1,388 permits for

multi-family residential buildings and only 10 permits for single-family residences.

In sum, these factors contributed to the large quantity of vernacular modern

apartment houses constructed in Santa Monica around mid-century, and were

contributors to the pervasiveness of the “dingbat” or “stucco box” typology within

the city. James Black and Thurman Grant, contributing authors to Dingbat 2.0: The

Iconic Los Angeles Apartment as Projection of a Metropolis, laud Santa Monica as

one of only three Los Angeles area neighborhoods that offer “Quintessential

examples of the environments created by dingbats throughout Los Angles in the

1950s and 1960s.” Relative to other cities with a proliferation of dingbat apartments,

Santa Monica is noted for its number of “hunchbat” or “dumbat” types that

maximize their buildable volume. The alleyways of the township plat design also

provide rear-parking access to these apartments.

Yet, the same factors also contributed to the building of many well-designed, mid-

scale modern apartment complexes in the city. Incentives also likely contributed

to the development of several high-rise apartment buildings. Project by project,

the city granted zoning variances to accommodate these large new

developments.

The surge in demand for multi-family residential development during the 1960s and

1970s was also driven by former suburban homeowners who were now empty-

nesters looking for a more leisure-oriented lifestyle and less maintenance. Many

new communities were actively marketed as “adults only.” Eschewing their picket

fences and lawnmowers for tennis courts, gyms, and other recreational amenities

buyers flocked to Santa Monica. The completion of the Santa Monica Freeway

extension [Interstate 10] in 1966 only made the city more desirable, as it could now

effectively serve as a commuter suburb to Los Angeles.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Whereas early multi-family residential development, including the ad-hoc creation

of living units and even the spread of dingbat apartments, was mostly funded by

individual investors, the mid-1950s brought an influx of large developers and

development corporations to the city. Developers responded initially with the

creation of cooperative apartments, then condominiums. Cooperative

apartments were owned collectively: owners technically owned a share or

percentage of the project. Condominiums diverged from the co-operative

apartments in that each unit was owned individually and monthly ownership dues

funded maintenance of the common areas. A lack of financing for the new

ownership concept, however, suppressed development until 1964. In 1961, the FHA

was authorized to insure mortgages on “condos” for 85 percent of the appraised

value. Yet it wasn’t until September 1963 that tax appraisal methods for the

condominium were settled and developers began building them in full force.

Multi-family residential development was so essential to the Santa Monica identity

that a political movement emerged to preserve it. During the 1970s, the Santa

Monicans for Renters’ Rights (SMRR) organization was formed to preserve

affordable housing in the city and a rent control ordinance was passed at the close

of the decade.

By the early 1970s, the transformation of Santa Monica to a multi-family residential

community was complete. 80 percent of Santa Monica’s dwelling units (excluding

condominiums) were multiple-unit dwellings. Santa Monica was known to be a

community with many elderly renters. A 50-square block survey of rental units in the

city found that 80 percent of the apartment buildings had no children as residents.

Mid-City

Due to the patchwork nature of tract development in this neighborhood and

haphazard building patterns, Mid-City is home to a wide variety of multi-family

residential property types spanning most of the decades of the 20th century. The

area originally included apartment buildings and bungalow courts in the Spanish

Colonial Revival and Streamline Moderne styles and evolved to include Modern-

style apartments, dingbats, and other vernacular apartment types. An

architecturally significant example of a large, Modern-style, post-World War II multi-

family residential project in the Mid-City area is the Santa Barbara Biltmore

Apartments (1956, Palmer & Krisel), constructed by owner/builder Ben Kreeger on

the northwest corner of Yale Street and Arizona Avenue. The 68-unit building was

designed around a central courtyard with pool, and the units included built-in

furniture.

Northeast [Santa Monica]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Montana Avenue east of 17th Street contains a concentration of multi-family

residential buildings from the 1940s. Although tracts in the Northeast were

subdivided in the early 20th century, many of these neighborhoods were not built

out until the 1930s. This later development, along with the area’s proximity to

Westwood and UCLA, resulted in the development of the eastern Montana

Avenue corridor as a multi-family residential enclave. The area includes a number

of Minimal Traditional and Mid-century Modern buildings, which were walking

distance from the Montana Avenue commercial center. After World War II, many

homes in the Northeast neighborhood of Santa Monica were razed to make way

for new apartment buildings.

Property Type: Courtyard Apartments

The courtyard apartment is a multiple-family residential property that is two stories

in height and oriented around a central common area, such as a landscaped

courtyard. A courtyard apartment is significant for its association with residential

development in Santa Monica as one of the region’s dominant multiple-family

residential building types.

Character-defining features include:

• Two stories in height

• O-, E-, or U-shaped plan; may be composed of two L-shaped buildings

• Orientation around a common outdoor area, typically a landscaped

courtyard; may include a fountain or other feature

• Detached garage(s) at the rear, or integrated carport along the side or

rear

Theme: Period Revival Styles

Sub-Theme: American Colonial Revival

American Colonial Revival describes a varied style that combines a number of

architectural features found throughout the American Colonies, particularly in New

England. The style has neither the strict formality of the Georgian Revival nor the

decorative embellishments of the Neo-Classical Revival, although it sometimes

incorporates elements of both. It also sometimes adapts elements of Dutch

colonial architecture, such as the gambrel roof. American Colonial Revival

buildings are typically one or two stories in height, and are sometimes symmetrical

but frequently asymmetrical, with rectangular, L-shaped, or irregular plans. They

typically feature side-gable or cross-gable roofs, sometimes with gabled dormers;

exterior walls clad in horizontal wood siding and occasionally brick; prominent brick

chimneys; double hung, divided light wood sash windows, usually with louvered

wood shutters; paneled wood doors, sometimes with sidelights, transom lights, or

fanlights; and restrained use of Classical details. Some American Colonial Revival

houses have small, pedimented porches, while others have shed-roofed porches

supported on wood posts extending the length of the primary façade.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


The U.S. Centennial Exposition of 1876 inspired a sense of patriotism in Americans

and fostered an interest in the styles of the Colonial era. Early examples of a revival

style in the late 19th century were rarely accurate reproductions, but were instead

free interpretations with details inspired by colonial precedents, while later

examples shifted to more historically correct proportions and details. The American

Colonial Revival style was popular for grand homes in the early 20th century, and

by the 1920s was being applied to more modest homes. In the 1930s, the restoration

of Colonial Williamsburg brought renewed interest in the style, and it remained

popular into the post-World War II era.


• Side gable or cross gable roof, sometimes with dormers

• Asymmetrical composition (occasionally symmetrical)

• Horizontal wood siding at exterior walls

• Paneled wood entry door, sometimes with sidelights, transom light, or

fanlight

• Double-hung, divided light wood sash windows, usually with louvered

wood shutters

• Projecting front porch

• Prominent brick chimney

Theme: Minimal Traditional

The Minimal Traditional style is defined by a single-story configuration, simple

exterior forms, and restrained use of traditional architectural detailing. The Minimal

Traditional house was immensely popular in large suburban residential

developments throughout the United States during the 1940s and early 1950s. The

style had its origins in the principles of the Modern movement and the requirements

of the FHA and other Federal programs of the 1930s. Its open plan reflected the

developer’s desire for greater efficiency. Modern construction methods addressed

the builder’s need to reduce costs and keep homes affordable to the middle class.

Conventional detailing appealed to conservative home buyers and mortgage

companies. In Southern California, the style is closely associated with large-scale

residential developments of the World War II and postwar periods. Primarily

associated with the detached single-family house, Minimal Traditional detailing

was also applied to apartment buildings of the same period.


• One-story height

• Rectangular plan

• Medium or low-pitched hip or side-gable roof with shallow eaves

• Smooth stucco wall cladding, often with wood lap or stone veneer accents

• Wood multi-light windows (picture, double-hung sash, casement)

• Projecting three-sided oriel

• Shallow entry porch with slender wood supports

• Wood shutters

• Lack of decorative exterior detailing

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Martin Stern, Jr.

The building was designed by architect Martin Stern, Jr.4 Stern was born in 1917 and moved to Los

Angeles in the 1930s where he studied architectural engineering at the University of Southern

California. Early in his career, he found work as a sketch artist in the film industry. In 1942, Stern was

drafted into the army, and was eventually promoted to a position in the Army Corps of Engineers.

After World War II, he returned to Los Angeles and established his own architectural firm,

specializing in the design of single-family and multi-family residential buildings, offices, and

restaurants. Stern was known in Los Angeles for expressive Googie-style designs for several

locations of Ship’s Coffee Shop; however, the most influential work of Stern’s career would be in

Las Vegas.5

During the early 1950s, land was still inexpensive and plentiful in Las Vegas, which consisted at that

time of a series of low-slung motels and casinos accentuated by swimming pools and eye-

catching neon signs. Stern’s first commission in the desert city was for a low-rise addition for the

Sahara hotel and casino, constructed in 1953. By the end of the decade, however, land was in

increasingly higher demand, creating a need to develop upward rather than outward. In 1959,

Stern designed a fourteen-story skyscraper for the Sahara that signaled a shift toward large, bold

towers along the Strip. He redesigned or expanded the Sands Hotel, Riviera, and El Rancho Hotels,

designed a skyscraper and convention center for the Sahara, and completed entirely new

designs for the MGM Grand Hotel (now Bally’s), the Mint Hotel, and the uniquely Y-shaped

International Hotel (now the Las Vegas Hilton). He also designed numerous properties in Reno,

Tahoe, and Atlantic City.6 As one of the first to incorporate multiple gaming and hospitality uses in

large buildings, Stern’s body of work made him a key figure in the evolution of Las Vegas casino

design that has since become the standard for casino resorts.7

Property Description

The apartment complex at 1132-1142 Princeton Street consists of four buildings: a pair of mirrored,

two-story S-shaped apartment buildings and two adjacent one-story garage and utility buildings.

The west apartment building has the addresses 1132, 1134, and 1136 Princeton Street while the

east apartment building has the addresses 1138, 1140, and 1142 Princeton Street (see Figure 3).

The buildings are arranged on either side of a narrow communal courtyard area with a

rectangular grass lawn surrounded by a concrete walkway. At the south end of the courtyard is a

4 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic

Resources Inventory Update Survey Report (Santa Monica: City of Santa Monica Planning and Community

Development, August 9, 2019), Appendix B: Individual Resources. 5 “Dreaming the Skyline: Martin Stern,” University of Nevada, Las Vegas Digital Collections, accessed March

30, 2021, http://digital.library.unlv.edu/skyline/architect/martin-stern; “The Sarno Awards for Lifetime

Achievement in Casino Design: Martin Stern, Jr., 2011 Honoree,” University of Nevada, Las Vegas Center for

Gaming Research, accessed March 30, 2021, https://gaming.unlv.edu/sarnoawards/stern.html. 6 Douglas Martin, “Martin Stern Jr., 84, Architect, Dies; Redefined Vegas Skyline,” New York Times, August 2,

2001, accessed March 30, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/02/arts/martin-stern-jr-84-architect-dies-

redefined-vegas-skyline.html; Myrna Oliver, “Martin Stern Jr.; Architect Shaped Vegas,” Los Angeles Times,

August 1, 2001, accessed March 30, 2021, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-aug-01-me-

29439-story.html. 7 Ibid.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


small dog walk, consisting of a patch of dirt enclosed by a low brick wall. A variety of shrubs and

small trees are planted on the perimeter of the courtyard and along the front elevation, lining the

foundation of both buildings.

The primary elevations of both apartment buildings face north toward Princeton Street. The

hipped roof over each building has a low-pitched slope with overhanging eaves; the eaves are

partially boxed with a continuous open band covered with metal mesh that runs along the center

of the eave, presumably to provide ventilation. The apartment exteriors are clad in stucco with

horizontal wood channel siding wrapped around the second story of the primary elevations. The

windows on each elevation are symmetrically arranged on both stories and consist of four-over-

four, three-over-three, and one-over-one double-hung wood windows. The most common type is

the four-over-four double-hung wood windows, while the one-over-one windows only appear to

correspond to the location of bathrooms. On the primary elevations, second-story windows are

embellished with decorative louvered wood shutters. Some one-over-one windows on the second

story are arranged over a wood panel. The use of this panel is unclear, but it may be to

accommodate an air conditioning unit.

There are three main entryways on each apartment building that correspond with the three

associated street addresses. One entryway is on the primary elevation and two entryways open

onto the courtyard area between the buildings. The entrances are characterized by applied

ornamentation inspired by the American Colonial Revival style, consisting of a broken pediment

supported by fluted pilasters. Centered above each entrance on the second story is an octagonal

multi-light fixed wood window. The entryways do not have doors but rather lead directly into a

vestibule with separate doors for each unit.

The rear and side elevations of the building are similar in design to the front and courtyard-facing

elevations, including the stucco exterior, stacked configuration of features, and double-hung

wood windows, but they are much less decorative; there are no louvered shutters, entryway

surrounds, or areas of wood channel siding. There are three secondary entryways to the vestibules

that consist of rectangular openings. The secondary entryway on the south-facing elevation of

the top “leg” of the S-shaped plan is centered in a projecting one-story volume. The entryways

opposite the two courtyard-facing entryways consist of rectangular openings on the ground floor

and a small flush or projecting deck on the second floor. The decks are either flush with the exterior

wall or slightly projecting and are enclosed with wood channel siding. The projecting decks have

a narrow wood post support. On the rear, south-facing elevations of both buildings is a partially

glazed wood door, accessed by a set of concrete steps with round metal handrails.

Adjacent to each apartment building is a one-story garage and laundry building. There are

multiple identical garage door openings along the east- and south-facing elevations of the

garage and partially glazed wood doors provide access to laundry facilities.

The property appears to be in overall good condition. Alterations to the property documented in

available building permits include reroofing 1132-1136 Princeton Street in 2003. The roof was likely

replaced at least once prior to 2003. The roof on 1138-1142 Princeton Street also appears to have

been replaced. No other major alterations were observed or documented in the permit records.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Summary of Landmark Designation Evaluation and Integrity Analysis

Although the property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street retains integrity overall, it is not significant

under any of the six Landmark designation criteria. The following is a detailed analysis of the

property’s potential significance under each of the Landmark designation criteria and an

examination of the property’s integrity.

Evaluation for Local Landmark Designation

Per §9.56.100(A) of the Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance (adopted in 1976

and later amended in 1987, 1991, and most recently 2015), a property merits consideration as a

Landmark if it satisfies one or more of six statutory criteria. The following discussion considers the

significance of 1132-1142 Princeton Street under each criterion.

Criterion 1: It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic,

political or architectural history.

The multi-family residential buildings at 1132-1142 Princeton Street were constructed in 1947 in the

northeast and mid-city area of Santa Monica, in Tract 3000 (also known as Fairmount Villas and

Fairmount Hills) specifically. The tract was bounded by Montana Avenue on the north, Wilshire

Boulevard on the south, Stanford Street on the east, and 26th Street on the west. The tract was

subdivided initially in 1906 and again in 1915, this time into smaller parcels.8 The area developed

relatively slowly, potentially due to its proximity to the Douglas Aircraft facility, which deterred

residential development because of its industrial character and noise. By the late 1920s, the area

had seen significant residential development though undeveloped lots remained throughout.9

The area was not built out until the 1930s.10 The 1940s and 1950s brought rapid change for Santa

Monica in general and the vicinity of the subject property in particular. The city grew dramatically

as a result of an influx of jobs during World War II, and new housing was constructed wherever

possible in the city. Due to the scarcity of land, much of the housing built during this time was multi-

family residential. Courtyard apartments were a popular choice for housing in Santa Monica in

the postwar period since they could be constructed on moderately sized parcels.

The eligibility standards in the Santa Monica Citywide Historic Context Statement indicate that

multi-family residential properties eligible under Criterion 1 may be significant as the site of an

important event in history; for exemplifying an important trend, pattern, or type of multi-family

residential development; or as an early, rare, or excellent example of a multi-family residential

property type.11

The property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street is one of numerous multi-family residential properties

constructed in the postwar period to meet the need for housing. It is not an early, rare, or excellent

example of multi-family residential development. It represents the continued development of the

8 ARG and HRG, 61. 9 Santa Barbara Frame Finder, 1927 Aerial Photograph, accessed March 31, 2021,

https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. 10 Santa Barbara Frame Finder, 1938 Aerial Photograph, accessed March 31, 2021,

https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. 11 ARG and HRG, 142.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


city in the postwar period. Although the construction of the property is associated with postwar

development of the city, it cannot be said that it is significantly associated with this trend. It simply

represents a continuation of necessary residential construction that began in earlier decades.

There is also no evidence that the property represents or has a significant association with other

important aspects of cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history. Therefore, it does

not appear to be significant under Criterion 1.

Criterion 2: It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

The property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street is a typical example of a courtyard apartment building.

It possesses elements of the Minimal Traditional and American Colonial Revival styles, but it is not

an excellent example of either. It possesses typical features and characteristics from its period

including stucco cladding, horizontal wood siding, and multi-light double-hung wood windows.

Aside from a simple applied pediment around the building entrances, it possesses very little stylistic

detail. These characteristics can be found on postwar multi-family residential buildings throughout

the region, and the subject property does not possess any particular aesthetic or artistic interest

or value. Therefore, the property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street does not appear to be significant

under Criterion 2.

Criterion 3: It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or

national history.

Research revealed that an individual by the name of Ethel S. Bruce lived in one of the units of the

property from at least 1952 until her death in 1957. Ms. Bruce was a well-known tennis player in

Southern California between approximately 1900 and 1915. National Register Bulletin 32 provides

guidance for nominating a property for its association with a historic personage. In order to be

significant for its association with historic personages, a property must not only be associated with

a significant person, but it must also be associated with that person’s productive life or the period

in which they achieved significance.12 Bruce’s residency at the property took place well after she

achieved fame as a tennis player and is not associated with her productive life. National Register

Bulletin 32 notes that a retirement home (and presumably any residence occupied during

retirement) “may qualify if the person continued significant activities in that home, or if it can be

documented that the house is significant in representing the culmination of an important

career.”13 This is not the case for the property and Ethel Bruce. She simply appears to have lived

here in the final years of her life.

Furthermore, as a multi-family residential building, the property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street has

had numerous other tenants since its construction in 1947. Apartment buildings by their nature are

home to numerous individuals throughout their histories, and these individuals tend to occupy

apartments for relatively short periods of time. It is more unlikely that the property would be

12 Beth Grosvenor Boland, “National Register Bulletin 32: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting

Properties Associated with Significant Persons,” U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,

Cultural Resources. Accessed April 5, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB32-

Complete.pdf, 16. 13 “National Register Bulletin 32,” 16.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


significant for its association with a significant individual, given the high rate of turnover and brief

tenancy of apartment residents in general.

Research did not reveal any evidence of an association with a historic event important in local,

state, or national history. The property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street does not appear to be

significant under this criterion.

Criterion 4: It embodies the distinguishing characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style,

method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a

unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable

to such a study.

The subject property was built during the postwar period, when quick and cost-efficient

construction was prized to meet unprecedented demand for housing. As such, the materials and

methods used are common to postwar buildings throughout the region, and they would not be

valuable to a study of a period or method of construction, nor one of the use of materials or

craftsmanship.

1132-1142 Princeton Street was identified in the 2010 HRI and 2018 HRI updates as a Minimal

Traditional multi-family residence. It also possesses elements of the American Colonial Revival style.

According to the registration requirements in the 2018 historic context statement, properties

eligible for their architectural style, “may be significant as an excellent or rare example of an

architectural style, property type, or designed landscape.”14 The document emphasizes that “due

to the quality of architecture in Santa Monica, there is a high threshold for properties that are

eligible under this context. Eligible examples exhibit high quality of design and distinctive

features.”15

Minimal Traditional style residences (both single- and multi-family) are common in Santa Monica

and cities throughout Southern California. Due to their ubiquity, Minimal Traditional residences are

not typically significant for their architectural style. The style was intentionally kept simple and

minimal to facilitate quick and easy construction. It was a popular choice for postwar tract

developments; entire tracts of Minimal Traditional residences may be significant, but individual

examples usually do not qualify as significant or noteworthy.

Conversely, the American Colonial Revival style was not prevalent in the region and was not as

popular as other Period Revival styles in Southern California. Postwar examples of the style are

typically more stripped-down than earlier iterations, and this property is no exception. Numerous

other examples of American Colonial Revival architecture were recorded as part of the citywide

survey. These included single-family and multi-family residences. Among properties recorded

during the HRI update, prewar single-family residences were the most common property type

associated with the style; institutional buildings in the style were recorded as well. Though not a

widely used style for courtyard housing in Santa Monica, some examples do exist. These include

960 10th Street (1938) and 825-29 Idaho Avenue (1937), both of which are better examples of the

14 ARG and HRG, 326. 15 ARG and HRG, 326.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


style applied to multi-family housing in Santa Monica based on the registration requirements

established for this style and property type.

The property is also not a unique or rare example of courtyard housing, of which there are many

in Santa Monica. During the 2018 HRI update, approximately 60 properties were identified as

examples of courtyard housing, indicating the prevalence of the property type in the city. The

report completed with the HRI update indicates that 1940s and 1950s multi-family residences

recorded as part of the update consisted almost entirely of courtyard apartments identified as

potentially significant for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a property type.16 The

subject property was identified alongside the approximately 60 other similar examples as an

excellent example of a 1940s courtyard apartment building. The quantity of courtyard apartment

buildings identified throughout the city suggests that the apartment at 1132-1142 Princeton Street

represents a ubiquitous property type, and the subject property does not exhibit characteristics

that would elevate it above other examples.

The subject property does not possess any distinctive features. It is a typical example of its

respective styles and is constructed of commonly used materials. It is not a unique or rare example

of either the Minimal Traditional or American Colonial Revival style; Minimal Traditional residences

are neither unique or rare in the city or region, and there are other examples of American Colonial

Revival architecture in Santa Monica that better embody the style. In summary, the property does

not appear to be significant under Criterion 4.

Criterion 5: It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable

builder, designer, or architect.

Martin Stern Jr. (1917-2001) designed the property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street. Stern was an

architect primarily known for his designs of Googie style coffee shops in Southern California and

casinos and hotels in Las Vegas, Nevada. He was born in New York and moved to Los Angeles in

the 1930s with his family. He studied architectural engineering at the University of Southern

California. After being drafted in World War II, he served with the Army Corps of Engineers. Upon

returning from the war, he moved back to California and started a business constructing single-

and multi-family residences, office buildings, and restaurants. He began designing work for Las

Vegas hotels in 1953 and established a reputation as a hotel architect.17 As noted above, he is

most known for his work on Googie coffee shops and Las Vegas hotels. The design of apartment

buildings does not represent a significant or prominent portion of his career as an architect. The

property, though designed by Stern, is not a significant example of his work, nor is it a truly

representative example since it is an early commission and is not characteristic of the architectural

designs that he became known for later in his career. Therefore, the property does not appear to

be significant under Criterion 5.

16 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, “City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic

Resources Inventory Update Survey Report,” prepared for the City of Santa Monica Planning and

Community Development Department, August 2018, 36. 17 “Dreaming the Skyline: Martin Stern,” University of Nevada, Las Vegas Digital Collections, accessed

March 30, 2021, http://digital.library.unlv.edu/skyline/architect/martin-stern.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Criterion 6: It has a unique location, a singular visual characteristic, or is an established and

familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.

The apartment complex at 1132-1142 Princeton Street was constructed as infill in the postwar

period, a common trend in the city. It is a typical 1940s courtyard apartment. It is located among

similarly scaled residential buildings, each with a similar setback, on a low-density residential street.

Furthermore, there is a nearly identical property directly to the south, also designed by Martin Stern

Jr. the same year. Thus, the subject property does not have a unique location or singular visual

characteristic, nor is it an established or familiar visual feature in its neighborhood or Santa Monica

more generally.

The property, therefore, does not appear to be significant under Criterion 6.

Summary

In summary, the property at 1132-1142 Princeton Street does not appear to be eligible for listing

under any of the Santa Monica Landmark Criteria.

Integrity Analysis

It is standard practice to assess a property’s integrity as part of a historic evaluation. Integrity is a

property’s ability to convey its historic significance through its physical features. National Register

Bulletin 15 defines seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,

feeling, and association. In order to convey significance, a property must retain some

combination of these aspects of integrity from its period of significance. The essential aspects of

integrity vary depending on the significance of the resource.

Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the

historic event occurred.

The property retains integrity of location as there is no evidence to suggest the property has been

moved since it was constructed in 1947.

Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style

of the property.

The property retains integrity of design. Existing characteristics of the buildings, including its

symmetrical arrangement on the site, stucco and wood exterior, and detailing with American

Colonial Revival influences reflect its original aesthetic and function. The property appears to be

largely unaltered, aside from the replacement of the roof.

Setting: The physical environment of a historic property.

The integrity of setting has been altered by the demolition and redevelopment of surrounding

parcels since the 1940s. The property, therefore, does not retain integrity of setting.

Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period

of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

The property retains integrity of materials. The key exterior materials are present, including wood

windows, stucco and wood exterior, and wood decorative elements.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Workmanship: The physical evidence or the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given

period in history or prehistory.

The property retains integrity of workmanship which is conveyed through its features that convey

1940s construction techniques, including lightly textured stucco, panels of horizontal wood siding,

and thin wood window muntins.

Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of

time.

The property retains integrity of feeling, as the combination of its intact location, design, setting,

materials, and workmanship evoke the sense of a 1940s apartment complex.

Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic

property.

The property was not found to be significant for its association with historic events or personages,

so integrity of association does not apply.

Conclusions

The apartment complex at 1132-1142 Princeton Street does not appear to be eligible under any

of the Santa Monica Landmark Criteria due to a lack of historical and architectural significance.

It is a typical multi-family residence from the post-World War II period. Although it retains integrity

overall, it does not have a significant association with residential development in Santa Monica,

nor is it a significant or excellent example of an American Colonial Revival or Minimal Traditional

residence.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Sources

Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group. City of Santa Monica Citywide

Historic Resources Inventory Update Survey Report. Santa Monica: City of Santa Monica

Planning and Community Development, August 9, 2019.

Boland, Beth Grosvenor. National Register Bulletin 32: Guidelines for Evaluating and

Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons. U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources. Accessed April 5, 2021.

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB32-Complete.pdf.

ICF International. Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report. Satna

Monica: City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development, 2010.

Martin, Douglas. “Martin Stern Jr., 84, Architect, Dies; Redefined Vegas Skyline.” New York Times,

August 2, 2001. Accessed March 30, 2021.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/02/arts/martin-stern-jr-84-architect-dies-redefined-

vegas-skyline.html.

National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National

Park Service, Cultural Resources. Edited by Patrick Andrus and Rebecca Shrimpton.

Accessed April 7, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/.

Oliver, Myrna. “Martin Stern Jr.; Architect Shaped Vegas.” Los Angeles Times, August 1, 2001.

Accessed March 30, 2021. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-aug-01-me-

29439-story.html.

University of Nevada, Las Vegas Center for Gaming Research. “The Sarno Awards for Lifetime

Achievement in Casino Design: Martin Stern, Jr., 2011 Honoree.” Accessed March 30,

2021. https://gaming.unlv.edu/sarnoawards/stern.html.

University of Nevada, Las Vegas Digital Collections. “Dreaming the Skyline: Martin Stern.”

Accessed March 30, 2021. http://digital.library.unlv.edu/skyline/architect/martin-stern.

Attachments

Attachment A: Résumés

Attachment B: Photographs

Attachment C: City Directory Listings

Attachment D: Building Permits

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB32-Complete.pdf

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA Attachment A

Attachment A: Résumés

ELYSHA PALUSZEK

Elysha Paluszek is an Associate Architectural Historian at GPA. She

has been involved in the field of historic preservation since 2009.

Elysha graduated from the University of Southern California with a

Master of Historic Preservation. She has since worked in non-profit

and private historic preservation consulting in California. Elysha

joined GPA in 2010 and her experience has included the

preparation of environmental compliance documents in

accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Historic

American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record

recordation; large-scale historic resources surveys; National

Register of Historic Places nominations; local landmark

nominations; and evaluations of eligibility for a wide variety of

projects and property types throughout California. She has also

contributed to numerous context statements on a wide array of

property types and historic themes, including American Colonial

Revival architecture and garden apartment complexes in the City

of Los Angeles. Educational Background: Selected Projects:

• Master of Historic Preservation, University

of Southern California, 2010

• B.A., History, College of William and Mary,

2008

• 1441 Third Street Promenade, Santa Monica,

Historical Resource Evaluation Report, 2020

• Santa Monica and Vermont, Historical Resource

Evaluation Report, Los Angeles, 2019

• Garden Apartment Complexes, Los Angeles,

Multiple Property Documentation Form, 2019

• Sweeten Hall, Preservation Plan, Rancho

Cucamonga, 2019

• West Covina Historic Resources Survey and Historic

Context Statement Update, 2018-2019

• Drake Park Historic District, Historic Resources Survey

Update, Long Beach, 2018-2019

• Anthony-Kerry House, Historic Structure Report,

Beverly Hills, 2015-2019

• West Hollywood Commercial Historic Resources

Survey and Context Statement, 2016

• Whittier Non-Residential Historic Resources Survey

and Context Statement, 2015

• Alamitos Neighborhood Library, Long Beach,

Landmark Nomination, 2015

• American Colonial Revival Architecture, Los

Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, 2015

• Latinos in 20th Century California, Multiple Property

Documentation Form, 2014

• Hotel Rosslyn Annex, Los Angeles, National Register

Nomination, 2013

• 1111 and 1121 N. Los Robles Avenue, Pasadena,

National Register Nomination, 2013

• 1860 Catalina Street, Historic Analysis Report,

Laguna Beach, 2012

Professional Experience:

• GPA Consulting, Associate Architectural

Historian, 2018-Present

• SWCA, Architectural Historian, 2018

• GPA Consulting, Architectural Historian II,

2010-2015

• City of Los Angeles Office of Historic

Resources, Intern, 2010-2011

• Los Angeles Conservancy, Graduate

Intern, 2010

• Pasadena Heritage, Graduate Intern,

2009-2010

• National Trust for Historic Preservation,

Intern, 2009

Qualifications:

• Meets the Secretary of the Interior’s

Professional Qualification Standards for

architectural history pursuant to the Code

of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61,

Appendix A.

Professional Activities:

• Los Angeles County Historical Landmarks

and Records Commission, 2013-2017

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA Attachment A

AMANDA DUANE

Amanda Duane is a Senior Architectural Historian at GPA. She has

been involved in the field of historic preservation since 2011.

Amanda graduated from Savannah College of Art and Design

with a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in Historic Preservation. She has

since worked in local government and private historic

preservation consulting in California. Amanda joined GPA in 2012

and her experience has included the preparation of

environmental compliance documents in accordance with the

California Environmental Quality Act and Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act; Historic American Buildings

Survey/Historic American Engineering Record recordation; large-

scale historic resources surveys; Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit

and Mills Act applications; National Register Place nominations;

local landmark applications; historic context statements; and

evaluations of eligibility for a wide variety of projects and property

types throughout California. She is experienced in expertly guiding

property owners through the process of securing local and federal

historic tax credits and working with local governments to develop

design guidelines for administering local design reviews. Amanda

is also highly skilled in graphic design as well as interpretation and

exhibition design.

Educational Background: Selected Projects:

• B.F.A, Historic Preservation, Savannah

College of Art and Design, 2011

• 445 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica, Landmark

Assessment Report, 2020

• 1626 California Avenue, Santa Monica, Landmark


• 518 Adelaide Drive, Santa Monica, Landmark


• Million Dollar Theater, Los Angeles Historic-Cultural

Monument Application, 2019

• Drake Park Historic District, Historic Resources Survey

Update, Long Beach, 2018-2019

• Nirvana Apartments, Los Angeles, Federal Tax

Credit Application, Part 1, 2018

• 1527 17th Street, Santa Monica, Landmark

Application, 2018

• Mar Vista Gardens, Los Angeles, National Register

Nomination, 2018

• Bank of Italy, Los Angeles, National Register

Nomination, 2018

• Agfa-Ansco Corporation Building, Los Angeles

Historic-Cultural Monument Application, 2018

• Jewish History, Los Angeles Citywide Historic

Context Statement, 2016

• Forsythe Memorial School for Girls, Los Angeles,

National Register Nomination, 2015

• Exotic Revival Architecture, Los Angeles Citywide

Historic Context Statement, 2015

Professional Experience:

• GPA Consulting, Senior Architectural

Historian, 2012-Present

• Architectural Resources Group, Intern,

2012

• City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic

Resources, Intern, 2011-2012

Qualifications:

• Meets the Secretary of the Interior’s

Professional Qualification Standards for

architectural history pursuant to the Code

of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61,

Appendix A.

• National Preservation Institute, Section

106: An Introduction

Professional Activities:

• California Preservation Foundation

Conference Programs Committee, 2017

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B

Attachment B: Photographs

Photo 1: Front (north) elevation of 1132-1136 Princeton Street, view looking south.


Photo 2: Front (north) and courtyard-facing (east) elevation of 1132-1136 Princeton Street, view looking

southwest. GPA Consulting, March 18, 2021.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Photo 3: 1134 Princeton Street entrance on east elevation, view looking west. GPA Consulting, March 18,

2021.

Photo 4: 1136 Princeton Street entrance on east elevation, view looking west. GPA Consulting, March 18,

2021.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Photo 5: Side (west) elevation of 1132-1136 Princeton Street, view looking northeast. GPA Consulting, March

18, 2021.

Photo 6: Side (west) and rear (south) elevation of north end of 1132-1136 Princeton Street, view looking

north. South and east elevations of adjacent garage building at left. GPA Consulting, March 18, 2021.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Photo 7: Rear (south) elevation of north end of 1132-1136 Princeton Street, view looking north. GPA

Consulting, March 18, 2021.

Photo 8: Northwest corner of garage building at 1132-1136 Princeton Street, view looking southeast at

laundry entrance. GPA Consulting, March 18, 2021.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Photo 9: Front (north) and courtyard-facing (west) elevation of 1138-1142 Princeton Street, view looking

southeast. GPA Consulting, March 18, 2021.

Photo 10: 1138 Princeton Street entrance on west elevation, view looking west. GPA Consulting, March 18,

2021.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Photo 11: 1142 Princeton Street entrance on west elevation, view looking west. GPA Consulting, March 18,

2021.

Photo 12: Side (east) and rear (south) elevation of north end of 1138-1142 Princeton Street, view looking

northwest. GPA Consulting, March 18, 2021.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Photo 13: Side (east) elevation of 1138-1142 Princeton Street, view looking northeast. GPA Consulting,

March 18, 2021.

Photo 14: Side (east) and rear (south) elevation of north end of 1138-1142 Princeton Street, view looking

northwest. GPA Consulting, March 18, 2021.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Photo 15: Northeast corner of garage building at 1138-1142 Princeton Street, view looking southwest. GPA

Consulting, March 18, 2021.

Photo 16: Central courtyard, view looking north from dog walk. GPA Consulting, March 18, 2021.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Photo 17: Central courtyard, view looking south at dog walk. GPA Consulting, March 18, 2021.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA Attachment C

Attachment C: City Directory Listings

1952, page 196 (Ancestry.com):

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



_____________________________________________________________________________________________



_____________________________________________________________________________________________



_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Landmark Assessment Report – 1132-1142 Princeton Street, Santa Monica, CA Attachment D

Attachment D: Building Permits

1132 Princeton Street, construction permit, apartment building, 1947

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


1132 Princeton Street, construction permit, garage, 1947

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


1132 Princeton Street, permit for re-roofing, 2003

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


1142 Princeton Street, construction permit, apartment building, 1947

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


1142 Princeton Street, construction permit, garage, 1947

Documents

Landmark Assessment Report