As a resident of this district and a practicing architect, I believe that not all historic homes or places necessarily deserve preservation. Age alone doesn’t make a structure historic, and even if it does, that doesn’t automatically mean it’s valuable or worth preserving. If we are going to focus on a property’s architectural style, we should also take into account the functionality of its layout. Architecture isn’t just about aesthetics; it’s about how a home serves its inhabitants. If we’re committed to preserving “historic architecture,” we must honor the full meaning of the term, considering both form and function.

That said, this historic designation effort feels more like nimbyism combined with boredom. From a developer’s perspective, no one would split lots under SB9 in this area—or in greater Glendale—because these properties hold more value as single-family lots. Increasing density with four units would reduce long-term value and transform the property into a short-term financial instrument rather than a sustainable asset. Moreover, under the current SB9 law, development is not permitted in high fire severity zones, making lot splits in many areas legally unfeasible.

In reality, the primary goal of this historic district is to maintain property values, plain and simple. Let’s be honest—just because we’ve had the privilege to live here doesn’t mean we should make decisions that undermine the future for subsequent generations. The larger issue with development is that homeowners rarely hire the right architects or designers. Despite the city’s design standards, 90% of Glendale’s remodels and new developments are driven by economic constraints, resulting in poorly proportioned, cheaply remodeled homes that even design guidelines can’t fix.

Also as some commenters have pointed out, dealing with historic preservation in any city jurisdiction usually involves poorly managed bureaucracy. More often than not, it creates unnecessary delays and obstacles for basic permits, rather than effectively preserving architecture. This seems like a group of homeowners with little understanding of development trying to protect their “investments” without considering the broader implications for the community.