Monday, October 24, 2016

Developer plans to build around Eagle Rock barbershop

Red circle shows where Hubert Barber Shop would be located

Red circle shows Hubert’s Barber Shop  1010 Development

By Nathan Solis

EAGLE ROCK — The rendering for a proposed 47-unit apartment building on Eagle Rock Boulevard show a white cube at the base of the four-story building. What is that?  That little cube turns out to be the 500 square-foot home of Hubert’s Barbershop, whose landlord has refused to sell to the developer. But the developer is not backing down either and is planning to wrap the apartment building around Hubert’s.

The Eagle Rock Church of the Nazarene, which owns the land surrounding Hubert’s, has agreed to sell the property to 1010 Development Corp., which has been planning the affordable housing complex for four years.  Along with apartments, ranging from 3-bedroom to 1-bedroom units, the project would also include underground parking and a 2,150 square-foot community center off of Yosemite Drive. The developer had offered commercial space in the new building if the barbershop’s landlord agreed to sell. But the landlord has not budged.

It’s not clear if the owners of Hubert’s are interested in moving into the new building.  On a recent visit to Hubert’s, the barbers declined to comment, saying only the shop had been around for 20 years.

According to developer Bob Buente of 1010 Development Corp., the project is at a decision point,but currently being revamped. Renderings showing the project are not finalized, but Buente says the exterior elevations and overall site plan at about 99 percent finalized.  And, as The Boulevard Sentinel noticed, those renderings included Hubert’s.

“This 47 unit family development will be income and rent restricted to families and individuals earning less than 60% of Area Median Income as defined by HUD,” Buente said in an email. “To put real numbers on this a family of four living in a 2-bedroom apartment could not have annual income greater than $51,240 and would pay no more than $1,119 in monthly rent.”

When asked why 1010 Development chose Eagle Rock, Buente explained that the location fits several points for their project.

“It has frequent transportation, great schools nearby and plenty of great businesses within walking distance.”

Nathan Solis is a Highland Park resident who writes about and photographs the L.A. music scene. You can find more of Solis’ stories, reviews and photos at Avenue Meander.

Hubert's Barbershop has been around for 20 years | Nathan Solis

Hubert’s Barbershop has been around for 20 years | Nathan Solis

Eastsider Advertising


  1. Why is so much low income housing being concentrated on Eagle Rock blvd.? There’s another large complex being built further on down the road.

    • 2 words: population control. put the low income people on a busy street to breath in the exhaust fumes and chemicals to kill them off faster.

    • outdated zoning

    • developers get all sorts of concessions if they include affordable housing.

      They can get increased density over what zoning allows (ie more units). They can get reduced setbacks (ie build closer to the street.. making sidewalks less walkable). They can exceed height restrictions. They can get the skids greased to make it past environmental reviews.

      • Why do you feel so entitled to be able to drive through the neighborhood at 40mph?

        Why is that more important than building affordable housing? Or economic growth?

        • never said I feel entitled to drive through the neighborhood at 40mph. If you’ve been paying attention, I’m a strong advocate of traffic calming stuff.

          Congestion reduces our productivity, which hurts the economy. Economic growth does not have to come with increasing population density. You can get growth in an area with more/ better retail, better jobs, more educated/ skilled workforce.

          Affordable housing is important, but it doesn’t have to be everywhere. Prices are rising due to demand, but we exacerbate demand by subsidizing people who can’t afford to live here.

          • Unlike other low income housing programs, no one is being subsidized with a density bonus. We’re just removing red tape for developers who build it. If anything, the existing zoning subsidizes parking at the expense of affordable housing.

            And this is replacing a church (which pays no taxes.) With apartments (and possibly retail) that will increase tax revenue.

            I’m all for maximizing capacity and speed of our highways, but this is not a highway, it’s a main street. We should be encouraging commercial and social activity instead of worrying about how fast you can drive. More housing in central areas like this means more foot traffic to support all the mom and pop shops nearby.

          • well, these folks are not going to stay within their 1/2mile TOD radius. They will venture outside the bubble … in their car. All those other folks in other new TOD developments will venture outside their bubble as well

          • Yeah, well we live in a big city. Traffic congestion is par for the course.

          • that’s convenient.
            Then, I’ll say: we live in a desirable city. Extremely high housing prices are par for the course.

  2. Jesus would side with the barber.

  3. why? because Joey Weezer can be bought. yet another HUGE POS being forced on our community.
    How many years was that “church” allowed to landbank this property WITHOUT PAYING TAXES?

  4. Curious to see what developers consider affordable nowadays seeing that it’s new construction.

  5. This looks like a win-win, right? What’s the big deal? The barber gets to stay and it makes the building more interesting.

    • Except for the people who have to look at it, or worse live in it’s shadow.

      • Exactly. I don’t get it, people are drawn to our community because of its charm and character and then proceed to change it, and not in a good way. It’s not progress, it’s an abomination.

        • The key is to locate your shit building next to buildings that have character so you can cash in on their character even while building a stucco box.

  6. Not even Jesus would be able to build affordable housing in Los Angeles without subsidies.

    • I’m guessing they mean non-luxury when they say affordable. So it will be standard construction without luxury amenities like rooftop decks, soundproofing, high end finishes, rain shower, etc, etc. No way would low income housing get a go ahead in that neighborhood.

  7. ah, the stack and pack warehousing of humans continues.

    These new residents (along with the vast majority of new residents in the plethora of similar developments happening all over) will own and use cars to get around .. increasing congestion, decreasing our mobility efficiency, increasing the amount of time people spend in cars. Maybe they’ll walk to SuperA, or down the street for the occasional burrito or cup of coffee.. but they’ll still drive to other shopping and entertainment, drive their kids here and there, drive to their friends house, drive to work and back.

    The cluster-bunk that is LA planning continues.

    • LA County is growing by 70,000 people a year and housing stock by 7,000 units a year.
      Any suggestions on how to deal with it besides ‘not in my back yard”?

      • There’s no easy answer.
        But here’s a thought experiment: Let’s say 10M more people wanted to move here over the next year or two. Let’s say that we can’t expand our infrastructure to handle them.. such as water, waste, transportation, etc. for quite some time (say another 20 years).
        Should we build for the 10M new residents now and fix the infrastructure later?

        • A big reason we can’t pay to maintain our existing infrastructure is because the population is so spread out. Concentrating development in places where we’ve already invested in infrastructure helps us pay for that upkeep by creating much more tax revenue per block than what’s there now.

          It would take LA county 100’s of years to add 10 million people. But infill development is certainly more cost effective than more suburban greenfield development, where very little infrastructure exists.

        • page 4 http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/sustainability/images/report_ecsd_2014-0624.pdf

          population is increasing yet VMT per capita on the decline. This will only continue. infrastructure is there, just underutilized.

          • thx for the link. More important than per capita VMT is the product of VMT and population, which equals total miles traveled. This is nearly flat over the study period, showing that the decrease in VMT was offset by increased population. You may argue that the decline in VMT will be persistent and will continue to decline. I would argue we should wait and see.. because the bulk of the VMT decline came during recession years with high gas prices. As the economy improves (and if gas stays low), I would venture we’d see an increase in VMT. Additionally, the data stops at 2012 … and there has been significant building since then.. but we don’t know if there’s a commensurate drop in VMT.

            Finally, another reason VMT is not really a good metric, is that it does not measure the quality of the mile. One mile in stop/go locally congested streets is much more harmful to the environment than one mile unobstructed on the freeway. Here in Pasadena, the areas of town that have seen rapid high density development, have also seen significant increases in congestion and significant reduction in the quality of that mile.

          • Idling cars are becoming less and less of a problem as we move towards hybrids and electric cars.

            But the only realistic way to really reduce driving in LA would be to cut off the myriad subsidies that drivers receive (subsidized parking on development, subsidizing highway budgets with the general fund, flawed traffic engineering metrics, etc.) In other words, just level the playing field for all modes of travel, and let the market sort it out.

            Also, I notice you like to trot out that line about Pasadena having terrible congestion from building a few mid rise apartments in the last decade. Most traffic data I’ve seen suggests the opposite, with hardly any streets operating near capacity during rush hour:



          • total volume of cars as a function of the number of lanes only tells part of the story of congestion. It only measures thruput at one point on the road. It does not measure how many lights you have to sit through because you can’t turn left. It does not measure how volume may be lower, because upstream flow is restricted.

            Simplistic metrics are more prone to paint a false picture leading to poor decision making.

        • Good question! Thanks

  8. I looked 1010 up. Apparently they are a “faith based affordable housing developer.” Whatever that means. One thing I’m pretty sure of is they are going to build a POS eyesore on what could be a very pretty street just a couple blocks from the nicest part of Colorado.

  9. Hah! The barber shop is actually the best thing about the design… sorta breaks up the massing.

  10. If you take the trees out of that rendering, you come up with a rather bleak stucco box.

  11. Guys, make up your minds. Do you hate low-income people or not? Do you want them in the “nicest part” of your neighborhood or not? This is article is devoid of facts, and you’re filling in the gaps with your own prejudices. This is a low-income, transit-oriented development. Look that sh*t up on the Googles, and you’ll know that it’s on ER Blvd because it’s near buses and walking distance from a grocery store (i.e., no cars), and that “low-income” means low-income. Subsidies come in the form of density and height bonuses, so you Tea Party types please tell me please how “Joey Weezer” gets paid off here. Anyone? You can also look up the developer, and see what their criteria are for tenants, from income limits to criminal records. And Nathan: You’re a better journalist than this. Make a phone call next time. And no one will take you seriously if you keep linking to the Boulevard Sentinel as a “source.” That is one man’s personal hate-diary, filled with faux facts tailored to match his old-white-man worldview.

    • transit oriented development… puh-lease.
      The vast majority of these folks will own and use cars. This will generate far more local miles traveled than currently exists … making congestion worse, which, I might add, will make it much much harder in the future to get road diets for bike lanes (which I favor), make *local* pollution worse, etc etc.
      You TOD fan-boys crack me up

      • Eagle Rock Blvd. already has bike lanes.

        • you need to look outside the immediate micro-environment. All of these high density developments do not only impact their little 1/2 mile microcosm. All of the various developments across Eagle Rock , HLP, Pasadena, etc increase regional congestion, making things like adding bike lanes in the region much more difficult.

          Imagine if bike lanes weren’t put on Colorado .. and ten years from now, with the increased congestion, road delay studies were done, and induced delays by removing a lane made the project a non-starter.

          If we had sufficient transit infrastructure (by sufficient, I mean useful and dense enough to be a reasonable alternative to the auto for a reasonable segment of the population), then the increased population density is much less deleterious. However, we currently don’t have a transit system that is useful for the majority of people.

          • How do you intend to pay for mass transit upgrades if you don’t encourage development along our existing transit lines? Money doesn’t grow on trees.

          • the bulk of metro’s local funding comes from sales tax. The rest from federal sources. Neither require high density housing for funding.

            High density housing provides income to developers.

          • additionally, I’ll assert that in LA, we’ve mostly built ourselves into a box.
            There are few existing right of ways where we can add surface rail, so increasing that density will be tough.
            We can bore for subways, but that is super expensive, and tough (ref: right of way battles under BH Highschool).
            Other modes, like bus are stuck in the same traffic as autos, so there’s little incentive for auto owners to switch. Additionally, removing auto lanes to become bus only lanes is difficult, given our current level of congestion.
            Walkable neighborhoods are great, but people still drive out of their bubble.
            I don’t want to sound super pessimistic, because I really would love it if I didn’t have to rely on my car.. and could transit places, but I’m just trying to add a dose of reality to the TOD fan-boy ferver

          • More housing and retail on our main streets, means more people spending more money locally (aka sales tax revenue.)

            And most corridors require a certain level of bus ridership to be competitive for federal funds (which rail projects require to pencil out.)

            Personally, I think we should move away from funding mass transit via sales tax and gas taxes. And start looking at how we can capture more of that tax revenue from development along these routes, since those folks stand to benefit the most.

      • you’re stating the obvious but missing the details TF. of course congestion rises as population does. but VMT per capita in los angeles is on the decline (http://www.tripnet.org/docs/CA_Transportation_by_the_Numbers_TRIP_Report_Sep_2014.pdf). Also inline with the decline in VMT per capita statewide (http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/monthly/VMTHIST1.pdf) check out the numbers since 2005!!!

        You cannot effectively battle congestion by fighting much needed housing supply unless you want LA to turn in to big manhattan/SF, where only the 0.01% reside/work. The trend is clear, mobile technology is the best answer to reducing congestion.

        This will happen by leveraging mobile tech to take advantage of underutilized resources (little used roadways/5+ empty seats in 90% of cars/better predictability & information for transit customers). this will challenge the thinking of legacy planners, but the data does not lie.

        • see my other reply to you above.
          I do agree that technology can reduce congestion. Google driving cars would be super cool, because you can have busy four way intersections with no stopping.
          The downside (and this happens without technology as well), is that quiet residential streets where people might walk and meet their neighbors, and kids might play and ride bikes, become convenient cut-throughs, destroying nice aspects of residential neighborhoods.

          • Unfortunately that’s already happening, and with virtually no traffic enforcement it get very dangerous.

          • How would you have a busy 4-way intersection with no stopping? Pedestrians still need to be able to cross the street. Cross traffic still needs to pass through.

            Congestion at intersections is not something you can avoid in the city. The only way I see self driving cars reducing congestion is if it liberates a lot of urbanites from owning cars (a new form of uber or zipcar, that is.)

            In that scenario, I think you’d see more people realizing they can just use their own two feet, or ride a bus for a lot of trips… as those options will always be cheaper.

      • “The vast majority of these folks will own and use cars. This will generate far more local miles traveled than currently exists … making congestion worse, which, I might add, will make it much much harder in the future to get road diets for bike lanes (which I favor), make *local* pollution worse, etc etc.”

        What evidence do you have to support these claims? What is a vast majority? 51% 60% 80%

        Wouldn’t congestion on ERB have to exist before it could be made worse? Do you know what the travel volumes are now and what they would be such that a road diet works now but is precluded in the future? Also, Eagle Rock Boulevard already has bike lanes. What street are you thinking about a road diet on and what will be used with the excess road space if there are already bike lanes on ERB?

        If the people who move here are doing so to be closer to work and to be able to walk to destinations they previously drove to, this would lead to less average VMT, even if most people continue to drive.

        What you say is possible, but not fact. I hope you can acknowledge that, “etc etc”

        • The data is that 16% of LA residents do not own a car (with a high of 21% in some areas). So, that does mean the vast majority own cars. But there are also many studies of TOD shifting people toward transit as their primary mode of transportation (especially when commuting). However, is this Eagle Rock Blvd development TOD? ER Blvd removed their rail decades ago, and it’s more than half a mile from the Glendale Metrolink Station, etc. As far as I can tell it’s not a TOD.

          Personally, commuting by transit works for me because I bike four miles to my stop (note: I live really close to this development). I’m pretty sure that a majority would call me crazy. I applaud the city’s long-term transit goals, but at the moment the network is riddled with gaps.

  12. Pretty dick move to “wrap the apartment around” his store. But hopefully he cashes in on this with new customers who move in here.

  13. No more apartment buildings in Eagle Rock….PLEASE

  14. I had my hair cut there two or three times. The price was right but the results weren’t that good. I guess I got what I paid for..

  15. It’s ugly and cheap-looking. and it doesn’t have to be. Let’s permit ourselves to hate fugly boxes we will have watch decay year after year for the rest of our lives.

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments civil and on topic and refrain from personal attacks. The moderator reserves the right to edit or delete any comments. The Eastsider's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy apply to comments submitted by readers. Required fields are marked *