Big Echo Park real estate deal in the works

Google Map images from March 2015

Google Map images from March 2015

ECHO PARK ––  Less than six months after it was put up for sale, a large collection of apartments, vacant lots, homes and commercial buildings owned by the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel have found a buyer.

Some residents noticed that large, red FOR SALE signs had recently been removed from 14  properties near Echo Park Lake. “The sale is pending,” said Lee Black, Executive Managing Director at DTZ, the brokerage firm handling the sale for the church.

Black had no comment when asked if the church had agreed to sell the properties to a single or several buyers.  A sale to a single buyer could rank as one of the Echo Park’s biggest real estate deals since it includes more than 60 apartments and several vacant lots facing Echo Park Lake.

The sale, however, does not include several significant church landmarks and properties, including the domed Angelus Temple across from Echo Park Lake and the Sunset Boulevard office tower that houses the church headquarters, a Citibank branch and several commercial tenants.

The Echo Park properties were amassed over the decades after McPherson, known as Sister Aimee, opened Angelus Temple in the early 1920s.  The properties include more than 60 apartment units and several empty lots on Glendale Boulevard and Park Avenue immediately across from Echo Park Lake.



  1. One buyer for all the properties? I fear the worst.

  2. Wait a minute. So no sooner do they build a big housing project they said would be for seniors on Glendale Boulevard across from the Temple than they sell it off — and so not for the purpose stated to justify building that big thing?! So it turns out that was just a simple for-profit venture that had nothing to do with helping seniors, despite what the Temple said, since the new owner will do what they want with it, and that is not likely to be to give lower priced housing to seniors?!

    • Don’t think that property is part of the sale. The vacant lot across the street from it and the property next door to it are.

      • Yes correct. That building wasn’t for sale.

        Not really any news here, unfortunately. Sale is ‘pending’ but to whom, how much, and at what prices I guess are all still unknown?

    • Once liers, ALWAYS LIERS.

    • That senior “affordable housing” building is a joke anyways. None of their rent rates meet the standard are “affordable housing”.

      • “Affordable housing” is not “low income” housing. The city considers $1,600 a month to be “affordable” for a one-bedroom apartment. This is one of the issues every time the city gives density bonuses and other promotions, It does it for “affordable” housing, not for the needed “low income” housing.

        $1,600 a months if not “affordable” for a mere one-bedroom apartment, no matter if it is common out there.

        • I believe thosee density bonuses can come from offering “affordable” units (which seems to mean rents are on par with market rates for older nearby housing stock); and also from “low income” units (which is closer to what people actually think of when they hear the term “affordable”). I assume the bonus is greater, if you offer the “low income” units (than just the “affordable” ones.)

          I’d prefer we just cut red tape in the zoning to allow developers to actually build affordable housing without subsidies or all these complicated hurdles (i.e. streamline the approvals process; get rid of parking requirements near transit lines; etc.)

          The status quo certainly isn’t doing anyone any favors… except the politicians, that is.

          • It’s called inclusionary housing and many cities have it. There doesn’t have to be special deals, incentives, bonuses, etc — with inclusionary housing laws, it’s required to build some reduced rate units into all projects.

            LA politicians would rather wheel and deal with their developer patrons than have a law that spells it out clearly and somewhat equally for everyone.

            The housing element of the City’s general plan says that 57% of the new housing created in LA must be “low-income” in order to meet the projections set by the regional authority, SCAG, for the year 2021. Needless to say we are not even close to reaching that goal.

          • Well I’m pretty skeptical that a complicated top-down approach to land use will ever produce great results. Most of the charming urban neighborhoods around the world were built through a much simpler set of rules. I think the zoning code would work a lot better if it was just a digestible form-based process that small property owners could easily navigate (i.e. http://formbasedcodes.org/definition)

            The current process is nothing but a headache for all parties. It seems like only large scale, corporate developers, with lawyers on retainer have the money and time to thread that needle.

    • Prophets / Profits same difference. Who are you to question Jesus’ real estate speculations?

  3. I want to know what’s happening with this place:


    Been pending for two months. WTH?

  4. The red sign came down from the 1201 N. Alvarado location a while ago. It is already on Google maps, listed as “Large Scale Modern Art.” Does anyone know anything about this?

  5. You people of Los Angeles sure are gullible! The city has always told it’s lies to it’s citizens. That’s how I got Dodger Stadium built!! Remember the city used eminent domain to buy the houses in Chavez Ravine back in the 1950’s! A public housing project was suppose to be built on the site. But, I got my dream stadium instead!! SUCKERS!!!

  6. Oh! The traffic! Oh! The big buildings those evil developers will build! Oh! Oh! Oh!

    I go to this part of Echo Park for a rural/pastoral feel. Now that character will be ruined! The countryside despoiled! Where will the sheep graze?!

  7. This is sad. But in with the new out with the old. We love to hold on to things because they remind us of fond memories. I say good riddance. See you later bye. Make room enough for all these big belly innovators to implode onto themselves. Hopefully, I am able to stick around long enough to cash in on the spoils when it does.

  8. Yeah. This is great. I mean, it’s good that a pseudo religious cult entity founded by a psychotic drug addict who once faked her own kidnapping should be able to own and sell massive amounts of local property tax free, right? I mean, why should they have to pay taxes when the rest of us are footing their bills? It’s a WIN WIN! WINNING!

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 *