Mark
Mack
Venice, California makes
up a parcel of Los Angeles’s seaside fringe and is
an urban stage unlike any other. Venice revels in its otherness
and remains a world apart from the greater buzz of the Los
Angeles area. Architect Mark Mack has lived in Venice for
more than a decade and witnessed a revolution here, in a
community that usually welcomes revolutions. But this revolution,
in 1990, was different. Rather than bucking the mainstream,
Venice witnessed the mainstream arrive and settle alongside
the vanguards of liberal thought and counter-culture.
Outside money cleaned up the ill-conceived
Venice canals and saved them from their wretched state.
High-income property owners moved in while many long-time
residents moved out. The grassroots movement has tried to
intercede and slow the process of gentrification and preserve
the diverse culture of Venice. The struggle continues and
everyone involved still wonders, “What’s next?”
In this interview, Mark Mack, a commercial architect who
has designed residences in Venice and in Austria, where
he grew up, takes a 360 degree look at the district’s
180 degree shift from pioneering to profiteering.
Algis Kalvaitis: When did
you move to Venice?
Mark Mack: I moved to Venice
in the early 1990s. By then Venice had been through several
iterations. Venice had its beginnings as a vacation community.
Seasonal cottages were built here without insulation or
a push towards permanence. The vacation destinations were
almost tent-like structures.
When I came to the Venice canals in the 1990s,
all the sidewalks were washed out, the water was polluted
and overgrown. The canal management was horrible. The big
change arrived when Venice received financial funding from
UCLA to improve the blight. Furthermore, a tax was exacted
from each of the area property owners for the express purpose
of maintaining the waterways. As a result new sidewalks
were installed as well as a system for exchanging effluent
with ocean water. The result was a clean network of canals
that was sanitary and navigable by small boats.
Before the 1990s, it was a very un-precious
area. There were gangs, drugs and Jim Morrison. Now, I believe,
there is only one surviving Hell’s Angel. In the early
1990s, the UCLA money started flowing and property values
soared. This put big pressure on land use. Some of the new,
affluent citizens of Venice wanted large houses in an area
that would not support expansion. There are now $2 million
homes in Venice. This is almost a joke. I think that the
average for a house on the Venice canal is about $800,000.
A couple blocks over and the average drops to about $300,000.
AK: Is gentrification showing any signs of
slowing down?
MM: In one respect gentrification is slowing
down because developers are running out of space and community
groups like the grassroots are working hard to preserve
Venice. Nevertheless, there is still a lot of demand for
Venice property. A lot of original owners have cashed out
and moved on.
AK: Which political forces are at work?
MM: There is a distinct Balkanization between
the left and the right, rich and poor. Ironically, the left
is working hard to establish more restriction in order to
preserve the status quo. As time goes on, however, the left
seems to be predominately marginalized.
As I have mentioned before the Venice grassroots
has tried to limit growth through planning and ordinance.
The movement, however, is only a group that lobbies the
Venice district committee. The lack of an autonomous Venice
government has been both boon and bane. The lack of tight
restriction have in some ways made Venice into the unique
district that it is but now confounds the individual who
would prefer to halt gentrification. The left prefers to
uphold the anarchic quality of Venice. Their preservationist
stance filters down into architecture. They champion open
space over boxy, modern architecture.
AK: So in Venice, the liberals are the conservatives
and the conservatives are liberals?
MM: Venice is still a more open place, but
that is relative. It may be harder to change the status
quo in the city of Santa Monica, but that is only in respect
to Venice. Venice is still an eclectic environment. It has
the beach, great weather, a pedestrian friendly environment,
and a mixed use community. In Venice, the lots are small
and are not burdened by the need to maintenance a lawn.
It is one of the densest areas of Los Angeles which naturally
creates a different kind of neighborhood. You will not find
the kind of uniformity in Venice that you will find north
of Montana Boulevard in Santa Monica. Furthermore there
is the ocean, which is like the Central Park of Los Angeles—a
tremendous public space. This is where you see the most
diversity. The beach is an equalizer.
AK: How does density contribute to a healthy
in an urban environment?
MM: In order to have a successful urban environment,
you need to have a residential base and a mix of commerce
to invigorate it. Balance is crucial. There cannot be too
much of one or the other. It must be self-sustaining. For
example, Abbot Kinney should further densify. As a commercial
street, it should have a closed façade. I argued
for a flush front and to define the front space as work
and the back as residential. Grassroots lobbied for disallowing
two different zonings on the same floor. Mixed buildings
in Venice are required to meet commercial code even though
it may be one continuous space. Also, sometimes internal
memos change the code. You only find out about code changes
later from the inspector.
I find building live/work projects very liberating.
The practice, however, was exploited by developers over
time. Now the live/work definition has been change to a
residence status. The architect has to explicitly separate
commercial and residential space when contained in the same
building. Nevertheless, residents of Venice still prefer
to live in unconventional spaces even though a term like
“artist loft” is usually a euphemism for “condominium”.
AK: In the face of densification, how does
one define privacy? What are the most effective things for
establishing privacy?
MM: I like interior courts. I take the privacy
inside. Mandatory three-foot setbacks create un-private
exterior zones—a no-man’s land that is too small
to cultivate and becomes a receptacle for trash. By directing
all privacy within the building rather than halfway out,
I forego privacy in front but partition privacy in back.
By using skylights or interior courts, I can deal with privacy
issues architecturally.
AK: Can a neighborhood ever reach a critical
mass?
MM: Density needs to be mitigated by proper
zoning and effective use of space. For example, Larry Scarpa
is attempting to convert a portion of Venice’s old
railroad tracks, currently used for parking, into low-income
housing. There has been a lot of opposition from all sides
to this project. The profiteers oppose the introduction
of low-income housing into the area and the preservationists
cringe at the thought of a monolithic two-story parking
garage. Michael Sant, too, has been having a difficult time
creating a three-lot property where he combines a restaurant,
loft, underground parking and some commercial space. He
has tried to develop this idea on one of the few undeveloped
lots left on Abbot Kinney.
AK: Is there any room for low-income housing
in Venice?
MM: Venice is defined by a marginal line,
which is Indiana and Electric avenues. From there, towards
Lincoln and up to Rose there are a couple of low-income
housing projects. The low-income housing may be taken over
by private developers once the low-income designation runs
out. A movement wants to stop that from happening. If they
fail, the area will gentrify.
AK: What are Venice’s new and affluent
citizens seeking?
MM: They are not pioneers. They are looking
for something safe. Older people with money, I predict,
will continue to arrive. Then there are the movies stars
and the impulse shoppers. For me, Venice is an oasis, a
constructed fabric with a well balanced mixed of commercial
and residential. Unfortunately, the rise in prices has cut
out many people.
Meanwhile, developers just shrink a space
and sell it for the same price. Even the artists who arrived
in the 1960s such as Jack Anolie, Peter Alexander, and Laddy
Deal are now big property owners who have boxed themselves
into their own personal compounds. It is a bit sad that
those who arrived as pioneers have become the profiteers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algis Kalvaitis is pursuing
masters' degrees in architecture and urban planning at the
University of California, Los Angeles. He writes occasionally
for Inversion while surfing, stressing and building intricate
cardboard dioramas of the Smurf Village. Visit his Web site
at: www.bol.ucla.edu/~akalva/
Thoughts on this article or architecture in general?
Write us.
