Hearst Hassle : Demolition of Historic Herald Examiner Building Weighed

The Hearst Corp. has approached the Community Redevelopment Agency about the possibility of demolishing the historic Herald Examiner building, perhaps to create a parking lot, a CRA planner said this week.

Richard Macias, the CRA’s principal environmental planner, said Wednesday that a Hearst attorney told him about a month ago that demolition of the colorful structure at Broadway and 11th Street is one option under consideration, although the corporation has no definite plans.

Hearst executives and lawyers declined to comment.

Macias said he could not pass judgment because no plans have been submitted, but he remarked pointedly that “it is a major goal of the redevelopment agency to consider historic preservation.” He noted that without CRA approval, “it would be difficult for such a project to go forward.”

The Mission Revival-style building, completed on a half-acre lot in 1915, was largely designed by Julia Morgan, one of the few women architects of her day. William Randolph Hearst was so delighted by the building that he commissioned Morgan to design his legendary castle at San Simeon.

The newspaper building has been vacant since the Herald Examiner ceased publication Nov. 2, 1989. Since then, the structure’s newsroom and ornate lobby have been used as sets for movies, television features and commercials.

The Los Angeles Conservancy, which last summer nominated the building for the National Register of Historic Places, called the tiled, domed structure a “respected architectural landmark of Los Angeles” and an “excellent example of the Mission Revival-style of architecture.”

“Tearing that building down for a parking lot--for anything--would be a tragedy, a disgrace,” said Barbara Hoss, a spokeswoman for the conservancy. “Clearly, there are other good uses for a building of such prominence.”

Hoss said that although the Hearst Corp. could block the listing in the National Register, the building can be designated as “determined eligible.” This designation could carry some weight with government agencies that have the final say on demolition requests, at the same time making tax credits available to any buyer intent on preserving the structure.

The building already has acquired protection from two local agencies.

The city’s Cultural Heritage Commission has designated it a historical landmark. That means that any major changes to the building are subject to approval by the commission.

The panel has the authority to delay building permits for demolishing, relocating or substantially altering the structure, said Assistant City Atty. Mark Brown, legal counsel to the commission. The commission’s recommendations are made to the City Council, which can block demolition indefinitely.

Also, the building falls under the CRA’s jurisdiction because the property is within the boundaries of South Park, one of the agency’s designated redevelopment districts downtown.

Macias said any construction or demolition project in the district must be authorized by a permit from the CRA.

“If a project endangered a significant resource (such as a historic structure), there would have to be (evidence) that it would provide enough public benefits to override the loss of that significant structure,” Macias said.

Jim O’Donnell, a spokesman for Hearst Corp. in New York, said Wednesday that there was no one available in the corporate offices to discuss Hearst’s plans for the structure.

Jay Rocky, an attorney with Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, the legal firm representing the Hearst Corp., said there was no one in his office who could comment on the property until next week.

However, Macias said he talked to Rocky about the property in late November or early December, when Rocky asked what the procedures would be if the Hearst Corp. proposed redevelopment.

“We asked what they had in mind,” Macias said. “He indicated that they didn’t have any definite plans, but would consider as one option the demolition of the building.

“I asked if they demolished the building, what would take its place,” Macias said. “They said, a parking lot.”

The planner added: “He assured me that this was not a definitive plan, that it was still in the talking stages.”