HCM-189 — designated 1978-05-03
Residence
1407 Carroll Avenue
public open-data signals are too weak to classify; designation may be load-bearing via procedural friction, may be recognition only — rubric cannot tell without a demolition-pressure proxy
cannot classify — public open-data signals are too weak. would need a demolition-pressure proxy to resolve.
street view ↗ satellite ↗ big orange landmarks ↗ (bariscale, 2008) stucco (orchestrator-captured imagery is not building-aimed — use these for HITL verification)
Six-axis scores
- A. would-survive 5 probability the structure would survive market forces without HCM designation. low = needs protection.
- B. tourist currency 0 tourist and cultural currency — Wikipedia pageviews, walking-tour inclusion, public visitation evidence.
- C. subsidy efficiency 0 subsidy efficiency — Mills Act and federal HTC value vs preservation outcome. zero means no active subsidy.
- D. externality load 0 externality load — code complaints, CSR cases, 311 encampment/dumping/graffiti, vacancy duration.
- E. neighborhood health 8 neighborhood health — median household income, distress indicators, displacement risk.
- F. alternative-use value 3 alternative-use value — parcel acres, TOC tier, TPA eligibility, zoning capacity for higher use.
overall confidence: unknown
Site
- lat / lon
- 34.07011, -118.25517
- parcel acres
- 0.17259608277196767 (inferred)
- typology
- sfr
- TPA / TOC
- yes — tier 1
- zoning capacity
- —
- nrhp listed
- no
- architect prominence
- —
Condition + subsidy
all "condition" fields below are proxies derived from LADBS permit history, 311 CSR cases, and code complaints. none of these directly measures occupancy. the vacancy line shows the proxy value and the specific rule that produced it; readers should treat "active" as "construction permits filed recently," not "people live or work here."
- vacancy proxy
- active
- vacancy proxy basis
- recent investment over 250k in 60mo
- last permit
- 2023
- permits last 24mo
- 0
- code complaints 24mo
- 0
- CSR open cases
- 0
- Mills Act contract
- no — not in la OHR appendix a (2019 list of Mills Act properties)
- federal HTC
- no
- Wikipedia pageviews 12mo
- —
- walking-tour inclusion
- no
- median hhi (tract)
- $83,167
- assessed value
- —
Street view vision classification
claude vision analyzed 4 Google street view captures (n/e/s/w from the parcel coordinates) for visible distress indicators. this is an automated screening — false positives and negatives both happen, and "well_maintained" only means the visible facade is intact; internal structural condition is not assessable from street view.
- building visible
- yes
- building type
- multifamily
- overall condition
- fair
- other indicators
- none visible
- notes
- The Craftsman-style multifamily structure at 1407 Carroll Avenue is best visible from the west (270°), appearing intact with green shingle siding and no major distress indicators, though landscaping is somewhat sparse and the building shows general wear consistent with age.
Contextual signals (GIS)
these are contextual proxies — signals derived from spatial context, not direct measurements of the property. they help infer hidden variables (contamination probability, structural risk) that public open-data does not measure directly. source: cal OEHHA CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (cumulative pollution burden by census tract).
- census tract
- 6037197500
- CalEnviroScreen overall percentile
- 86.0 (decile 9)
- cleanups percentile
- 54.3
- groundwater threats percentile
- 59.6
- hazardous waste percentile
- 54.6
- toxic release percentile
- 76.8
- lead exposure percentile
- 83.5
- EnviroStor cleanup sites nearby
- —
- in CGS liquefaction zone
- no
- type-1 contamination probability (fused)
- 0.48 — moderate
- type-2 structural-risk probability
- 0.20 — low
Narrative
history
hcm-189 is recorded as a single-family residence within the city of los angeles historic cultural monument inventory. specific construction date, original architect of record, and original occupant are not available in the fetched dataset, and no supplementary archival records were retrieved for this analysis. without a known build date, the residence's place in los angeles's residential development chronology — whether it reflects early streetcar-era bungalow construction, mid-century tract development, or another period — cannot be confirmed. no major documented events, notable former residents, or significant alterations are recorded in the accessible data. all historical claims here should be treated as provisional pending a primary-source title search and permit history review through the los angeles department of building and safety.
architectural significance
the architectural style of hcm-189 cannot be characterized with confidence from the available data. the typology is recorded as single-family residential, but no architect of record, style designation, period of significance, or physical description was returned by the data fetch. without comparable extant examples cited in the nomination record, it is not possible to assess whether the structure represents a rare surviving specimen of a given residential form or one of many similar examples in the submarket. field inspection and review of the original hcm nomination file are prerequisites for any defensible architectural characterization.
neighborhood context
the tract surrounding hcm-189 presents a moderately healthy socioeconomic profile. the median household income of $83,167 places the tract above the citywide median, and a five-year population change of +254 persons indicates modest but positive demographic growth, suggesting neither severe disinvestment nor displacement-level pressure. encampment, dumping, and graffiti counts within 500 feet are each recorded at zero over the observed period, indicating an absence of acute public-order externalities immediately proximate to the parcel. transit proximity, business license churn, and eviction filing data were not returned, which limits a complete district-trajectory assessment, but the available signals point to a stable, mid-to-upper-income residential neighborhood. | metric | value | |---|---| | census tract | 06037197500 | | median hhi | 83167 | | 5yr δ population | 254 | | 311 within 500ft (24mo) | 0 | | encampment 311 calls | 0 | | ladbs code complaints (24mo) | — | | last permit year | — |
subsidy and condition
| field | value | |---|---| | mills act | — | | federal htc | — | | vacancy status | — |
classification reasoning
axis a (survival without protection) is scored at 5 with medium confidence, reflecting the absence of nrhp listing, no identified prominent architect, and no recorded mills act contract or other financial instrument that would signal owner-driven preservation investment. a score of 5 is essentially a null finding — the data are insufficient to conclude the structure would or would not survive market pressure unaided. the single-family residential typology in a moderate-income tract does not, by itself, indicate high demolition risk, but neither does it confirm protective market demand. axis b (tourist/cultural currency) scores 0; there are no google reviews, no wikipedia pageviews, no walking tour inclusion, and no nps designation, meaning there is no measurable external visitation or cultural profile attached to this property. axes c and d both score 0, but for different reasons: c (subsidy efficiency) is scored 0 with unknown confidence because no mills act contract or htc was identified, meaning there is no subsidy stream to evaluate for efficiency — this is a data gap, not evidence of poor efficiency. d (externality load) scores 0 with medium confidence because 311-derived encampment, dumping, and graffiti signals are all zero, consistent with a low-disturbance site. axis e (neighborhood health) scores 8 with high confidence, driven by the above-median hhi and positive population growth, indicating the surrounding district is not distressed. axis f (alternative use value) scores 0 with unknown confidence due to missing parcel acreage, zoning capacity, and tpa/toc designation data; no alternative use calculus is possible. the candidate flag conditions are not met. a is 5 (flag requires ≤4), b is 0 (flag requires ≤3, met), e is 8 (flag requires ≤5, not met), f is 0 (flag requires ≥6, not met), and overall confidence is 'unknown' (flag requires at minimum 'medium'). the flag is therefore reassess, which reflects genuine analytical indeterminacy: multiple axes — including the gating axes a and f — return unknown or data-absent scores. this is not a clean 'maintain' signal because the absence of data across c, d, f, and the architectural record means the hcm's designation rationale cannot be independently validated or refuted. a field visit paired with a permit history pull and nomination file review is the minimum next step before any determination can be defended. the medium-confidence scores on a and d provide modest anchoring: the property is not flagged as a high-demolition-risk site, and it is not generating measurable negative externalities. however, the zero scores on b and the unknown on f mean there is no affirmative case visible in the data for why hcm status is conferring public benefit. this is not an indictment of the designation — it is a data gap — but it is the operative uncertainty that drives the reassess recommendation.
sources
- la311: https://data.lacity.org/resource/h65r-yf5i.json?$where=within_circle(location%2c%2034.070106253047314%2c%20-118.2551661454036%2c%20152)%20and%20createddate%20%3e%20'2024-05-10'&$limit=1000 --- _generated by hcm-1200 orchestrator on 2026-05-10t23:24:33.565z._