HCM-85 — designated 1971-07-07
Gilbert Residence
1333 Alvarado Terrace
active mills act contract on a property in a medium-to-high or high barriers equity tier — subsidy is plausibly funding upkeep the owner could not otherwise sustain
Mills Act subsidy is plausibly doing real work — owner is in a medium-to-high or high barriers equity tier where the savings likely matter to upkeep
street view ↗ satellite ↗ big orange landmarks ↗ (bariscale, 2007) stone · sandstone (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 3 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 4 neighborhood health — median household income, distress indicators, displacement risk.
- F. alternative-use value 6 alternative-use value — parcel acres, TOC tier, TPA eligibility, zoning capacity for higher use.
overall confidence: unknown
Site
- lat / lon
- 34.04546, -118.28123
- parcel acres
- 0.5726787650002478 (inferred)
- typology
- sfr
- TPA / TOC
- yes — tier 2
- 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
- single permit within 5y
- last permit
- 2022
- permits last 24mo
- 0
- code complaints 24mo
- 0
- CSR open cases
- 0
- Mills Act contract
- yes — see contract details below
- federal HTC
- no
- Wikipedia pageviews 12mo
- —
- walking-tour inclusion
- no
- median hhi (tract)
- $62,632
- assessed value
- —
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
- 6037224310
- CalEnviroScreen overall percentile
- 76.4 (decile 8)
- cleanups percentile
- 50.3
- groundwater threats percentile
- 0.0
- hazardous waste percentile
- 30.2
- toxic release percentile
- 80.2
- lead exposure percentile
- 99.7
- EnviroStor cleanup sites nearby
- —
- in CGS liquefaction zone
- no
- type-1 contamination probability (fused)
- 0.40 — moderate
- type-2 structural-risk probability
- 0.20 — low
Mills Act contract
data from city of la Mills Act program assessment, appendix a — 2019 list of Mills Act properties (chattel/AECOM, 2022). matched to this HCM by HCM number.
- ma contract number
- 992347258
- ma contract year
- 1999
- property use type
- Multi-family
- 2019 owner savings (annual)
- $514
- 2019 la city revenue loss (annual)
- $56
- percentage of savings
- 10.9% (low)
- AECOM equity index score
- 4.17
- AECOM equity category
- high barriers
- designation type
- hcm and hpoz
- HPOZ
- pico - union
Narrative
history
hcm-85, the gilbert residence, is a single-family residential structure designated as a historic cultural monument by the city of los angeles. specific construction date and architect of record are not available in the current dataset; these details are marked as null across all relevant fields and cannot be reliably stated without supplementary archival research. the residence takes its designation name from a former occupant or owner surname 'gilbert,' though the identity, tenure, and historical significance of this individual are not confirmed in the fetched record. no major documented events, alterations, or ownership transfers are reflected in the available data. the absence of nrhp listing suggests the property has not been evaluated or accepted at the federal level of historic significance, which is a meaningful gap in the evidentiary record for a designated hcm. all historical claims beyond designation status should be treated as provisional pending archival review of building permits, title records, and city landmark files.
architectural significance
the typology is recorded as single-family residential (sfr), but no architectural style, design attribution, or distinguishing feature data is available in the fetched record. architect prominence is null, precluding any comparison to documented works or assessment of design rarity. without these inputs, it is not possible to identify comparable extant examples in los angeles or to characterize the structure's formal attributes with analytical confidence. field inspection and review of original permit drawings or historical photographs would be necessary to complete any defensible architectural assessment. until that documentation is obtained, this axis remains substantially unresolved.
neighborhood context
the tract-level data presents a moderately stressed socioeconomic context. the median household income of $62,632 falls below the citywide los angeles median (approximately $71,000–$74,000 in recent acs vintages), and the five-year population change of -670 persons indicates meaningful demographic contraction in the surrounding tract — a signal of either outmigration, household downsizing, or housing loss rather than growth pressure. transit proximity and toc/tpa designation are not recorded, limiting assessment of transit-induced redevelopment demand. the 311 externality indicators (encampments, dumping, graffiti) are all zero within 500 feet over the 24-month window, suggesting the immediate block face is not generating measurable nuisance load, though this may also reflect underreporting or data lag. taken together, the neighborhood registers as a transitional or modestly declining district rather than one experiencing acute distress or speculative investment pressure. | metric | value | |---|---| | census tract | 06037224310 | | median hhi | 62632 | | 5yr δ population | -670 | | 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 (would_survive_without_protection) scores 5 at medium confidence. with no nrhp listing, no identified architect, no documented mills act contract, and no evidence of recent owner investment, the counterfactual survival case is neither strong nor weak — the property is an undifferentiated sfr in a below-median-income tract without obvious market demand driving demolition or renovation. the score of 5 reflects genuine uncertainty rather than a neutral finding; it is not a clean midpoint but rather a placeholder pending data. axis b (tourist/cultural currency) scores 0 with unknown confidence: no google reviews, no wikipedia pageviews, no walking tour inclusion, no nps designation. there is no documented evidence of any external visitor draw. this zero is treated as a true zero given the sfr typology and the absence of any contrary signal. axis c (subsidy efficiency) scores 0 with unknown confidence because no mills act contract, no federal htc, and no vacancy or complaint data are available; this axis is effectively unevaluable rather than efficient. axis d (externality load) scores 0 at medium confidence; all 311 subcategories are zero and no code complaints are recorded in the 24-month window, supporting a genuine low-externality finding for the parcel and immediate surroundings. axis e (neighborhood health) scores 4 at high confidence, reflecting a below-median hhi and a five-year population decline of 670 — both quantitative signals of neighborhood stress or stagnation rather than vitality. this meets the candidate flag threshold of e ≤ 5. axis f (alternative use value) scores 0 with unknown confidence due to null parcel acreage, null zoning capacity, and no tpa/toc designation; redevelopment uplift cannot be quantified. the candidate flag requires f ≥ 6, which is not met; additionally, the overall confidence is rated 'unknown' due to null values across b, c, and f, failing the confidence_min: medium gate. the flag is therefore reassess rather than candidate. the data deficit here is the central analytical problem: the hcm record is materially incomplete, and the scores computed from available signals are insufficient to support either retention confidence or a remediation referral without field validation.
sources
- la311: https://data.lacity.org/resource/h65r-yf5i.json?$where=within_circle(location%2c%2034.04546479097119%2c%20-118.28122900705661%2c%20152)%20and%20createddate%20%3e%20'2024-05-10'&$limit=1000 --- _generated by hcm-1200 orchestrator on 2026-05-10t22:35:53.960z._