Eyesore or Crime Scene? Why We Must Save the Barry Building

GUEST COMMENTARY -

The owners want to demolish Brentwood’s Historic Cultural Monument #887. They say it’s too expensive to fix. The truth is much simpler: They broke it on purpose.

The Barry Building, officially designated as Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) #887 by the City of Los Angeles, is not dying of natural causes. It is being executed. If we allow the City Council to approve its demolition, we aren't just losing a landmark; we are handing a blueprint to every developer in Los Angeles on how to destroy history for profit.

In this particular case, the owners want to tear down the Barry Building and leave an empty lot with NO replacement project. And so far, they have been given the “go ahead” from the City of Los Angeles (LADBS board file # BF 250851).  This is a first for the City of Los Angeles! 

The Strategy: Demolition by Neglect

If you drive past the Barry Building in Brentwood, you probably cringe. It is boarded up with weathered plywood, with flaking paint. It looks abandoned, dangerous, and out of place. You might find yourself thinking, "Just tear it down already." This is exactly what the owners want you to think.

In 2007, the City declared the Barry Building a historic monument. This meant it couldn't be torn down without a fight. So, the owners stopped fighting the designation and started fighting the building itself—a strategy known as Demolition by Neglect.

Around 2016, they evicted the tenants, fenced it off, and then deliberately failed to secure it properly. Windows were left open during record rainfall, inviting water damage to rot the interior. They allowed the facade to peel, creating a neighborhood nuisance on purpose. They knew that if a building looks ugly enough for long enough, the neighbors will eventually beg for the bulldozers.

The $17 Million Lie: Exposing the Flawed Justification

Because the building is a Historic Monument (HCM #887), the law requires a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR correctly admits that destroying this building is a "significant impact." To override this, the owners need a "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which means they must prove that saving the building is financially impossible.

To support this claim, high-priced consultants (Hill International and CBRE) were hired, arguing it would cost $17.1 million to perform a massive, gold-plated restoration, claiming the math "just doesn't work" against the building's estimated $12 million value.

Here is the catch: The law doesn't require a complete palace restoration; it only requires the owners to make the building safe and compliant.

An independent cost estimate submitted by opponents shows that bringing the building into compliance with the required Soft Story Ordinance (Seismic Safety) would cost just $379,000.

The owners are trying to charge the city for their own neglect. They should not be rewarded with a demolition permit because they refused to maintain their property.

The Secret Plan and Dangerous Precedent

Why go through all this trouble? The owners have gone on record stating they intend to sell the property immediately after demolition.

Critics argue the Environmental Impact Report was deeply flawed because it only looked at the Barry Building in isolation. The owners also own the surrounding parcels of land and are hiding their true build-out scenarios—combining all those lots into one massive mega-development—to avoid public scrutiny, even if a successor owner takes over the properties.

If the City grants this demolition, they are setting a dangerous precedent:

Do you have a historic building you want to destroy? Just kick out the tenants, break the windows, wait five years for the neighbors to complain, and we will let you tear it down.

The Solution and Call to Action

The City and Applicant are presenting a false choice between public benefits of some speculative future project or saving the Barry Building. The answer is you can have both. 

We must hold the owners accountable and have the City enforce the law.

1. Reject the Demolition: The City must vote NO on the Statement of Overriding Considerations. There is no economic benefit that outweighs the loss of our history.
2. Enforce Compliance: The owners must spend the estimated $379,000 to bring the building into seismic compliance immediately.
3. Preservation, Not Demolition: The preserved building can then be sold to successor owners. Rising like a Phoenix from the decay of owner neglect, the Barry Building can be repurposed for creative space on the upper floors and community shops on the ground level within a new development.

Furthermore, saving the Barry Building guarantees full transparency and disclosure through an Environmental Review (CEQA) process for any new project—an empty lot won't offer the local community this protection.

Contact Your Representative

The City shouldn't be fighting in court to save one HCM (like the Marilyn Monroe house) while fighting in court to destroy another existing HCM (the Barry Building).

Tell your representative it is unacceptable for the City to fight in court to protect landmarks like the Marilyn Monroe house while simultaneously ensuring the destruction of an already designated Historic-Cultural Monument, the Barry Building.

City Council Representatives:

Please check in for updates and upcoming City Council Meeting(s) … Stay tuned for more…

(Ziggy Kruse Blue is a freelance contributor to CityWatchLA and also a Former Board Member of the HSDNC.) Ziggy and Bob can be reached at [email protected].