'A ray of hope' in Santa Monica
A number of you have opined today that this blog has turned into a gloom-and-doom fest, a big fat bummer. Well, it so happens that today, just for you, I've been working on an item that carries the headline "a ray of hope."
The story, which you can find here, is about a new low-income apartment complex in Santa Monica that won a major architectural award this week. The architect is Kanner Architects, a firm known for colorful modernist designs all over town, including the In-N-Out Burger in Westwood, a personal favorite of mine.
The AIA jury that honored the building called it "a ray of hope ... a succinct example of affordable housing done right."
So there you have it, your Keep Hope Alive, Audacity of Hope, Obama moment. Enjoy it, because in about an hour I'm posting on KB Home's huge quarterly loss. The CEO was not hopeful.
Your thoughts? Comments? Any other architectural stories you'd like to see? E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com.
Photo credit: John Linden

"Apartment projects tend to look somewhat cold for the most part," Kanner said. "And we wanted this building to have a warmer aesthetic feel to it....
I looked at the photos attached to the article.
The place has all the warmth of a factory or a bunker. Nasty, harsh, instituitonal...... YUCK!
Figures. Architects hand out awards to each other for buildings where 99% of the population would never want to live.
Posted by: AnnS | January 08, 2008 at 03:44 PM
Beautiful project. I'd like to take my HUD voucher and movE Promtly, if I could only leAve.
Posted by: SSD Trapped In Oregon | January 08, 2008 at 03:54 PM
Good to see that some non-millionaires can afford to live in Santa Monica.
What's the mechanism for this affordable housing? Is it L.A. Housing Authority? Section 8? Something else?
That would have been interesting to hear about, so we could get an idea of how it might be replicated elsewhere.
(I mean, before the bubble bursts completely and $500-$900/month apartments become commonplace.)
Posted by: John | January 08, 2008 at 04:11 PM
It's amazing how easily one can turn that ray of hope into mud (I have a special talent for it). I'll see your hope and raise you petty corruption. What happens with these projects often is that they'll use subsidies to build the thing, and then fill it with "friends" who by most definitions are not the low income folks that we expect to fill it with. The developers nephew, the mayor's mom's best friend, etc. Let's dig deeper. Or not, if we would prefer to preserve that hope. Now, if there was a quid pro quo with the AIA to get the award *that* would be a ray of hope as it's a sign that our economy is functioning at at least some level. Great article though!
Posted by: Victor the Predictor | January 08, 2008 at 04:49 PM
We should all be able to provide ourselves with decent shelter. However, "affordable housing" is modern day servants’ quarters, except that the rich have found a way to use tax dollars to pay for it *and* send the servants off their property at night. It’s ultimately a subsidy for the wealthier and higher income folks as they benefit most from lower labor costs for dishwashers, nannies, gardeners and other “dirty work” servants of our age. Of course, it also provides opportunities for politicians and bureaucrats to develop influence, choose winners, and provide patronage.
That said we should not take away from the architects, designers, and true believers who try to make these projects a success given their goals.
Posted by: tew | January 08, 2008 at 05:07 PM
AnnS -- Have you SEEN the kind of junk that passes for apartment buildings these days? I'll take this complex, which appears to actually have some sort of architectural theme going on, over any of the other five-story tall, Tuscan-style turds that have been built in the past several years...
Even if one isn't crazy about the architecture...Considering these are affordable units, they could have done much, much worse.
Posted by: perks | January 08, 2008 at 06:20 PM
This SM property is unbelievable. The rent on my 1 bdrm 620 sq. ft. 1948 duplex dump in Grants Pass is $445 with my share being $172 (HUD paying the diff). And the owners, H2 Holdings Llc (who have raised the rent 5 times in just over 4 years), do absolutley nothing to maintain it. Tenant rights and laws, the ones we see or feel, are a stacked deck in the LL's favor. State-of-the-art built-in microwaves throughout the apt. with there being only a 40 year old electric range in the kitchen, if you know what I mean.
Posted by: Monkey Under The GPs Microscope | January 08, 2008 at 07:12 PM
i think it looks very nice, as far as the pictures show. if i had to be in an apartment, i wouldn't mind a modern, minimalist setup like this at all. the windows are great.
but how long will it last? from my limited exposure to subsidized housing, maintenance always seems to be, um, inadequate.
Posted by: tarbubble | January 08, 2008 at 07:43 PM
In southern Cal 44 units is hardly a photon, let alone a ray. It's a nice example of no kids, no pets, no hope shelter; certainly better than living in your car or under a bridge. But is this really the best we can do? Where do you park? Where do the kids play? What defense do you have against a drive-by? I've got a hunch we'd be better served by converting some of those McMansions into apartments.
Posted by: Robert S. Hoover | January 08, 2008 at 09:17 PM
Word is Santa Monica RE market will be rescued by affluent "Hookers for Jesus" relocating to LA. Lefty is spot on.
Posted by: Keith | January 08, 2008 at 09:30 PM
Apologies in advance. Couldn't find an appropriate place to stick this post. I think it's important enough to publish though.
Here's another Ray of Hope (Trust but verify). On December 21, according to their website, the SEC allowed Egan-Jones into the rarified club of NRSRO's. Short for Nationally Rated Statistical Rating Organization. Others in the club are the more familiar Moody's, S&P, Fitch, etc. There was a total of 7 before this if I remember.
We cast much blame for the mortgage meltdown on these ratings organizations because they were the ones that applied AAA ratings to bundles of subprime mortages. We wuz conned. Makes sense knowing that these companies are paid by the companies they rate. (JD Powers, are you listening?). They seem to solve this problem by doing the research, and generating ratings for the users of the information. Simple and easy fix. Hope so... Hope it's not just another level up in the con.
According to their application to become an NRSRO, they do leave themselves a little loophole -- that they might, in the future "...begin to provide star or other similar ratings of shares of mutual funds that may be subscribers of its credit rating services."
Also interesting: Their designated compliance officer is not a college grad despite having attended 3 colleges. They did pass their series 7 license and worked as a sales assistant at some brokerages, then sold some software, and then owned and managed a retail store. Doesn't sound like they are qualified to be a compliance officer. Is this Egan-Jones' way of covering their butts in the future?
I predict we'll be hearing more about them in the future.
Posted by: Victor the Predictor | January 09, 2008 at 02:01 AM
I didn't mention what prompted the previous post. We heard about the rumours that Countrywide might be heading for bankruptcy, and saw how this rumour, true or not, drove it's stock price into the dirt. Weeeeell... as noted by reuters yesterday (read what they report with a very critical eye), "...credit rating agency Egan-Jones Ratings Co said on Tuesday the company "is severely challenged and might falter if it does not receive an infusion of at least $4 billion within the next couple of weeks." Is Egan-Jones just another soldier in the war of perceptions for profit?
Posted by: Victor the Predictor | January 09, 2008 at 02:15 AM
ann s probably thumbed her nose at that building from the driver seat of her range rover or jaguar on the way to $500.00 a session pilates class!!! ha ha
Posted by: mike | January 09, 2008 at 08:11 AM
But is this really the best we can do? Where do you park? Where do the kids play? What defense do you have against a drive-by? I've got a hunch we'd be better served by converting some of those McMansions into apartments.
Posted by: Robert S. Hoover
Perhaps. The article says: 'All of the units face a large central courtyard that brings light into the core of the project. "The goal was to create open space, very bright and light, and to allow the units to have as big spaces as possible," Kanner said.'
As far as crime, this strikes me as somewhat of a step up for both job hunting and police protection, though you are right as far as parking its no "jordan downs".
Posted by: ProblemWithCaring | January 09, 2008 at 08:46 AM
Peter - this is NOT a doom and gloomfest by a long shot! This is reassuring and GREAT NEWS for all of us who were priced out for the last 5 years.
To me, every passing day I get to read about how I'm this much closer to not having to go into huge amounts of debt to afford my future home.
Keep it coming, it's all positive to me and lots of people I know.
Posted by: Tim K. | January 09, 2008 at 09:28 AM
Why build low income housing in Santa Monica? Couldn't more units be built in other parts of the country for much less money?
What societal interest is served by moving poor people into wealthy neighborhoods? How about Beverly Hills, San Marino, and Palo Verde? Do low income units have to be built there also?
I don't drive a Bentley because I can't afford it. I don't live near the beach because I can't afford it. Why do low income people need to live near the beach?
Posted by: orcadrvr | January 09, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Monkey Under The GPs Microscope says: "The rent on my 1 bdrm 620 sq. ft. 1948 duplex dump in Grants Pass is $445 with my share being $172 (HUD paying the diff). And the owners, H2 Holdings Llc (who have raised the rent 5 times in just over 4 years), do absolutley nothing to maintain it."
What are you bitching about? The "government" (that's us) is subsidizing your life. Get one!!!!
Posted by: Sid | January 09, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Why do low income people need to live near the beach?
Posted by: orcadrvr | January 09, 2008 at 10:02 AM
(Or go to collgee. Or have a short commute, or breath fresh air, or drink clean water. Or graduate high school. Or not get AIDS.)
The standard of living of the low-income members of our Society and their infectious offspring definitely should NOT have any residual effects on the safety, well-being or standard of you and yours. Unfortunately, it does though.
Most repudiate the notion that in America, certain hallowed ground should be gated for The Select: the rest, ghetto.
Posted by: ProblemWithCaring | January 09, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Sid, who's subSIDizing who? Everytime I flush my toilet in GP a clandestine subterranean lab bounces a $1 million off a GPs satellite and deposits it in any number of mid-Wilshire banks to balance "They Live" corporate books. So don't tell me your subsidizing me when the Rogue Valley, or the Valley of the missing link, holds People hostage via subliminal microwaves so you can make your $250K doing whatever it is you do.
Posted by: Monkey Under The GPs Microscope | January 09, 2008 at 01:35 PM