ROCKHAVEN SANITARIUM Historic Resource and Conditions Assessment - DRAFT
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ROCKHAVEN SANITARIUM Historic Resource and Conditions Assessment - DRAFT Glendale, California prepared for The City of Glendale prepared by Architectural Resources Group, Inc. Architects, Planners & Conservators Pasadena, California July 2009 Acknowledgements PROJECT TEAM City of Glendale Management Services Robert K. McFall, Assistant City Manager Department of Parks, Recreation & Community Services George Chapjian, Director Gary Marello, Park Services Administrator Koko Panossian, Administrative Analyst Teresa Aleksanian, Administrative Analyst Glendale Public Library Cindy Cleary, M.L.I.S., Director of Libraries Planning Department Jay Platt, Historic Preservation & Urban Design Public Works Facilities Services John B. Hickman, Facilities Services Superintendent Consultant Team Architectural Resources Group, Inc. - Architecture and Historic Preservation Charles Chase, AIA, Principal-in-Charge Katie Horak, Project Manager Justine Leong, Architect Amanda Davis, Architectural Historian / Preservation Planner KornRandolph - Landscape Architects Amy Korn, ASLA, Design Principal Matt Randolph, ASLA, Principal Landscape Architect Sebastian Garcia, Senior Project Manager The consultant team would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance and enthusiastic support of this project: Mike Lawler, president, Crescenta Valley Historical Society; Patricia Traviss, granddaughter of Rockhaven founder Agnes Richards and later Director of Rockhaven; Ivan Cole, groundskeeper at Rockhaven; and George Ellison, Glendale Library, Special Collections. ROCKHAVEN SANITARIUM Historic Resource and Conditions Assessment - DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................2 1.1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................2 1.2 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................2 1.3 Previous Designations and Surveys ............................................................................................4 2. Statement of Signifi cance .........................................................................................................................4 2.1 Historic Context Statement .........................................................................................................4 2.2 Defi nition of Period of Signifi cance .........................................................................................14 3. Description and Treatment Recommendations .......................................................................................15 3.1 Site ............................................................................................................................................15 3.2 Buildings ...................................................................................................................................16 3.3 Landscape .................................................................................................................................44 4. Evaluation of Integrity ............................................................................................................................44 5. Conditions Assessment and Treatment Recommendations .....................................................................46 6. Summary of Landscape Analysis and Recommendations ......................................................................47 6.1 Landscape Summary .................................................................................................................47 6.2 Conceptual Planting Plans ........................................................................................................48 6.3 Exterior Objects ........................................................................................................................49 7. Recommendations for Stabilization, Security Measures, and Further Study ..........................................49 7.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................................49 7.2 Visitor Access Plan ...................................................................................................................49 7.3 Recommendations for Further Study ........................................................................................50 8. Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................51 9. Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................................52 10. Appendices ............................................................................................................................................53 Appendix A. Conditions Assessment and Treatment Recommendations Appendix B. Landscape, Hardscape and Visitor Access Plan 1 ROCKHAVEN SANITARIUM Historic Resource and Conditions Assessment - DRAFT 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Executive Summary Architectural Resources Group, Inc. (ARG), in collaboration with Korn Randolph, Landscape Architects, has prepared the following report at the request of the City of Glendale. The focus of this report is the Rockhaven Sanitarium property, located at 2713 Honolulu Avenue. The property, which is approximately three-and-a-half acres in size, comprises 15 buildings situated in a rich and fully integrated landscape. Today, Rockhaven Sanitarium remains a rare surviving example of an institutional typology that once fl ourished in the Crescenta Valley. With its clean air and drinking water and mountainous views, the Crescenta Valley provided an apt setting for health-seekers migrating westward in the early decades of the twentieth century. By 1928, there were as many as 25 sanitariums (mainly sheltering those suffering from lung ailments) in the Valley. With massive suburban development in the area in the postwar years and the replacement of the clean air with smog, most health facilities closed down and were demolished. Rockhaven, however, continued to operate at its original location, providing geriatrics care in the latter part of the twentieth century. The facility closed in 2005; it is currently vacant and owned by the City of Glendale. This report focuses on building and landscape conditions and treatment recommendations, but also includes a statement of signifi cance; identifi cation of a period of signifi cance; site, building and landscape descriptions; an integrity evaluation; a landscape analysis and conceptual planting plan; and recommendations for security measures, stabilization, and future study. Further, ARG and Korn Randolph have developed an interim Visitor Access Plan, which will allow for access to a limited portion of the Rockhaven property while measures are taken to make the entire property accessible to the public. 1.2 Methodology The methodological approach for this report was based on available documentary research and a number of site visits in March and April, 2009. The buildings’ interiors and exteriors, as well as the landscape, were photographed and surveyed at the time of the site visits. For historical background, ARG has relied on primary and secondary research from the following sources: Archives of the Los Angeles Public Library Los Angeles Times historical archive Glendale Public Library, Special Collections Crescenta Valley Historical Society Various online repositories Oral histories, provided by Mike Lawler of the Crescenta Valley Historical Society Research gathered by City of Glendale staff ARG’s in-house library Building permits from the City of Glendale, Building and Safety Division (Dept. of Public Works) 2 ROCKHAVEN SANITARIUM Historic Resource and Conditions Assessment - DRAFT For the conditions assessment and treatment recommendations, only a visual analysis was conducted. This study did not include a full structural analysis. For guidance in conducting the survey of the property and the evaluation of integrity, the following National Register Bulletins were consulted: National Register Bulletin # 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation National Register Bulletin # 24, Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning A historic context statement and integrity evaluation were completed as part of this study in order to provide background and context for recommended treatment of the site, buildings and landscape. However, a full evaluation of the property against National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or local (City of Glendale) criteria was not conducted. In order to be eligible for the National or California Registers, a property must meet at least one of the eligibility criteria and retain suffi cient integrity. ARG recommends that the Rockhaven property appears eligible for listing on the National and California Registers; the City of Glendale may decide to proceed with the nomination process in the future. 3 ROCKHAVEN SANITARIUM Historic Resource and Conditions Assessment - DRAFT 1.3 Previous Designations and Surveys Although the Rockhaven property has been recognized as signifi cant and is appreciated by the local community, it has not