DOCSLIB.ORG

Argonaut #2 2019 Cover.Indd 1 1/23/20 1:18 PM the Argonaut Journal of the San Francisco Historical Society Publisher and Editor-In-Chief Charles A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Argonaut #2 2019 Cover.Indd 1 1/23/20 1:18 PM the Argonaut Journal of the San Francisco Historical Society Publisher and Editor-In-Chief Charles A 1/23/20 1:18 PM Winter 2020 Winter Volume 30 No. 2 Volume JOURNAL OF THE SAN FRANCISCO HISTORICAL SOCIETY VOL. 30 NO. 2 Argonaut #2_2019_cover.indd 1 THE ARGONAUT Journal of the San Francisco Historical Society PUBLISHER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Charles A. Fracchia EDITOR Lana Costantini PHOTO AND COPY EDITOR Lorri Ungaretti GRapHIC DESIGNER Romney Lange PUBLIcatIONS COMMIttEE Hudson Bell Lee Bruno Lana Costantini Charles Fracchia John Freeman Chris O’Sullivan David Parry Ken Sproul Lorri Ungaretti BOARD OF DIREctORS John Briscoe, President Tom Owens, 1st Vice President Mike Fitzgerald, 2nd Vice President Kevin Pursglove, Secretary Jack Lapidos,Treasurer Rodger Birt Edith L. Piness, Ph.D. Mary Duffy Darlene Plumtree Nolte Noah Griffin Chris O’Sullivan Richard S. E. Johns David Parry Brent Johnson Christopher Patz Robyn Lipsky Ken Sproul Bruce M. Lubarsky Paul J. Su James Marchetti John Tregenza Talbot Moore Diana Whitehead Charles A. Fracchia, Founder & President Emeritus of SFHS EXECUTIVE DIREctOR Lana Costantini The Argonaut is published by the San Francisco Historical Society, P.O. Box 420470, San Francisco, CA 94142-0470. Changes of address should be sent to the above address. Or, for more information call us at 415.537.1105. TABLE OF CONTENTS A SECOND TUNNEL FOR THE SUNSET by Vincent Ring .....................................................................................................................................6 THE LAST BASTION OF SAN FRANCISCO’S CALIFORNIOS: The Mission Dolores Settlement, 1834–1848 by Hudson Bell .....................................................................................................................................22 A TENDERLOIN DISTRIct HISTORY The Pioneers of St. Ann’s Valley: 1847–1860 by Peter M. Field ..................................................................................................................................42 Cover photo: On October 21, 1928, the Sunset Tunnel opened for the first time. Mayor James Rolph drove the first N Judah streetcar through the tunnel and out to Ocean Beach. Department of Public Works photo, courtesy of Open SF History/wnp27.0493. A SECOND TUNNEL FOR THE SUNSET by Vincent Ring ith the completion of the Twin It is expected that the new trackage . will Peaks Tunnel in July of 1917 and the bring an immense indirect benefit by further inauguration of streetcar service on a opening the beautiful Sunset District with regular basis in June of the following its rolling acres of incomparable home sites. Wyear, one of the main recommendations of the report These wide tracts, a whole section of the of Bion J. Arnold had been fulfilled.1 However, the City, are but sparsely populated because in Twin Peaks tunnel provided rapid transportation the past they have lacked transportation to only for those residents in close proximity to the the heart of the city. This now supplied, it streetcar using the tunnel. The northern section is believed that 50,000 inhabitants is not a of the Sunset District, near Golden Gate Park, still large estimate of the probable Sunset popu- lacked a direct route to the downtown area. lation within the next few years.4 In his report, Arnold had recommended another However, not much more then a year later, the tunnel, the Mission-Sunset tunnel, in conjunction Central Sunset Improvement Association released with the tunnel through Twin Peaks.2 Although he a report claiming that because of the failure of the had given first priority to the Twin Peaks tunnel, he city to provide adequate transportation between felt that both tunnels would be necessary for the full Irving Street and Ortega Street in the northern development of the West of Twin Peaks and Sunset Sunset was failing to develop to its potential. The Districts. The main function of the Mission-Sunset report concluded: tunnel would be to link the Mission District with the northern Sunset District and provide a more The City of San Francisco is losing revenue direct means of transportation between the northern annually in real estate and personal taxes Sunset and the downtown area.3 alone in the Sunset District between Irving During the years of construction of the Twin Street and the Parkside of at least $1,000,000 Peaks tunnel, no serious consideration seems to on account of not having proper streetcar have been given to the proposed Mission-Sunset transportation. tunnel. Even at the time of inauguration of regular Three-fourths of the Sunset District has an streetcar service through the Twin Peaks tunnel in ocean or marine view and is one of the most June of 1918, the president of the Sunset Federation healthy districts in San Francisco, thus mak- of Improvement Clubs, Daniel S. O’Brien, said: ing that District for homes one of the best in the city.5 THE ARGONAUT, VOL. 30 NO. 2 WINTER 2020 6 The Sunset/Duboce tunnel under construction, looking west from the eastern portal. Department of Public Works photo, taken September 29, 1926. Concern for the development of the district was districts for new residents.7 not limited to merely local self-interest groups in the Although the report of the Chamber of Sunset. In early 1921, the San Francisco Chamber Commerce did not specifically mention a tunnel, of Commerce published a report written by Dr. B. serious consideration was given to such a project. M. Rastall. He contended that several districts Aside from Arnold’s proposed Mission-Sunset remained isolated because of the “lack of direct tunnel, consideration was given to a Duboce tunnel, through route streets connecting with the center of from Duboce Avenue and Noe Street, under Buena the city and streetcar transportation.”6 He also stated Vista Hill, to the area of Carl and Cole Streets. The that these districts needed re-planning to break up advocates of this route felt that it would serve the their checkerboard plan and increase the size of double purpose of providing for the residents of their consistent twenty-five-foot lots. With adequate the Pope Tract, in the vicinity of Carl and Cole transportation and re-planning for modern home Streets, as well as providing rapid transportation development, he felt that these isolated districts, for the northern Sunset District to the downtown especially the Sunset, could compete with other and business section.8 7 In September of 1921, the Board of Supervisors 4. The Duboce Avenue route, which had been appropriated $500,000 tor the extension of street submitted in 1918.10 railway service to the Sunset District. It fell to the Of these four routes, O’Shaughnessy personally Office of the City Engineer Michael O’Shaughnessy favored the Duboce Avenue alignment. He said: to suggest the best possible route for the new transit line9. O’Shaughnessy considered four possible This route would be the most direct and alternatives: quickest to the Sunset District. It would 1. Along Grove Street to Masonic, south on also be of material advantage to the region Masonic to Waller Street, west on Waller to Cole along Duboce Avenue from Market Street to Street, south on Cole to Carl Street and them Buena Vista Park and the congested district west on Carl to Irving Street. (Pope Tract) between Buena Vista Park and Golden Gate Park. Duboce Avenue presents 2. A Eureka Valley tunnel, from the Eureka Valley the most favorable opportunity for develop- station of the Twin Peaks tunnel northwest to ment of a permanent solution of the rapid the intersection of Carl and Cole Streets. transit problem for the Sunset District.11 3. A Laguna Honda route, which would use the Twin Peaks tunnel to travel to Laguna Honda By the beginning of 1922, everything seemed to Station and then proceed from there down be proceeding well for the Duboce Avenue route. Seventh Avenue. Not only had this route received the support of O’Shaughnessy and his office, but it also had the This 1853 map described the western part of San Francisco as the “Great Sand Bank.” These areas were later developed and became the Richmond and Sunset Districts, and Golden Gate Park. Courtesy of Richard Brandi. THE ARGONAUT, VOL. 30 NO. 2 WINTER 2020 8 By the late 1800s a few hardy people were grading northern Sunset District land for vegetable gardens and rustic homes. Courtesy of a private collector. support of the Sunset Transportation Committee.12 That it is the intention of the Board of Super- On February 1, 1922, the public utilities committee visors to order the construction of a tunnel of the board of supervisors gave its approval and with appurtenances under the elevation in passed the matter on to the full board.13 During said City and County of San Francisco, State the next few months the office of the city engineer of California, whereon is situated Buena Vista prepared the assessment district for the proposed Park.15 tunnel in accordance with the procedures set down The signing of the Resolution of Intention by the Tunnel Procedure Ordinance of 1912. Finally, brought much satisfaction to those who saw the on May 31, the supervisors passed a Resolution tunnel as a necessity to the future development of of Intention, Resolution No. 20,003 to build the the Sunset. A few weeks before the supervisors had tunnel.14 This resolution, which was signed by Mayor approved the resolution, Theodore J. Savage, the Rolph on June 3, 1922, stated: lawyer for the set Transportation and Development Resolved, That the Board of Supervisors of Association, had written to Mayor Rolph: “A few the City and County of San Francisco deems words from you to the Board of Supervisors referring that the public interest and convenience re- to the necessities of the case, the patience of the quires the construction for public use of the Sunset people who have been waiting and hoping tunnel hereinafter described within the City through many disappointments for this relief, vital and County of San Francisco. to the future of the Sunset District.”16 9 This 1875 Langley map shows the Sunset and some of the central part of the city.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hclassifi Cation
    Form No. 10-306 (Rev. 10-74) WEES UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM FOR FEDERAL PROPERTIES SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOWTO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS I NAME Bateria San Josej Punta Medanos; Battery Yerba Buena^ Point San Jose: HISTORIC Black Point; Post of Point San Jose; Fort Mason ,AND/OR COMMON =; — '"-''" Fort Mason LOCATION STREET&NUMBER ,,Qn the water*s edge, Northern San Francisco, bounded by Van Ness- Avenue, Bay -Sfea?e@*% and Laguna Streets,* _NOTFOR PUBLICATION / CITY. TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT San Francisco _ VICINITY OF Fifth STATE CODE COUNTY CODE California 06 San Francisco 075 HCLASSIFI CATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE X_DISTRICT X_PUBLIC .^OCCUPIED _AGRICULTURE X-MUSEUM _BUILDING(S) _PRIVATE —UNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL X_PARK —STRUCTURE _BOTH —WORK IN PROGRESS X_EDUCATIONAL X_PRIVATE RESIDENCE —SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS —OBJECT _JN PROCESS —YES: RESTRICTED ^.GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED .XYES: UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION —NO X-MILITARY —OTHER: AGENCY REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS. (Itapplicable) National Park Service, Western Regional Office STREET & NUMBER 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36063 CITY. TOWN STATE San Francisco VICINITY OF California COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC. San Francisco City Hall STREET & NUMBER Polk and McAllister Streets CITY. TOWN STATE San Francisco California REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE Historic American Buildings Survey, GAL-1119 and CAL 1877-1880 DATE Late 1930 f s and January, 1959 .XFEDERAL —STATE —COUNTY —LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS Library of Congress CITY. TOWN STATE Washington District of Columbia DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE —DETERIORATED —UNALTERED —RUINS -^ALTERED —FAIR _UNEXPOSED (1 moved, 1877) DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Yaxuedong Feb20141.Pdf
    ABSTRACT The Water Vapor and Dust Plumes of Enceladus by Yaxue Dong Enceladus is the most active moon of Saturn. Its south polar plume, composed mostly of water vapor and ice grains, is one of the groundbreaking discoveries made by the Cassini spacecraft. During Cassini’s E2, E3, E5 and E7 encounters with Enceladus, the Ion and Neutral Mass Spectrometer (INMS) measured high neutral water vapor densities up to ~109 cm-3 (Waite et al., 2006; Teolis et al., 2010; Dong et al., 2011). We have constructed a physical model for the expected water vapor density in the plumes, based on supersonic radial outflow from one or more of the surface vents. We apply this model to possible surface sources of water vapor associated with the dust jets (Spitale and Porco, 2007; Hansen et al., 2008). Our model fits well with the E3, E5, and E7 INMS data. The fit is optimized by the 28 outflow velocity of ~ 550 – 750 m/s and the total source rate of ~ 1.5 − 3.5×10 H2O molecules/s (~ 450 – 1050 kg/s). The dust (ice grain) plumes of Enceladus have been observed by multiple Cassini instruments. We propose a composite ice grain size distribution covering a continuous size range from nanometer to micrometers, by combining the CAPS (Cassini Plasma Spectrometer), CDA (Cosmic Dust Analyzer), and RPWS (Radio and Plasma Wave Science) data (Hill et al., 2012; Kempf et al., 2008; Ye et al., 2012, 2013). We also study the grain charging process using the RPWS-LP (Langmuir Probe) data (Morooka et al., 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Name______: ______Historic Buena Vista Vineyards/Buena Vista Vinicultural Society______And/Or Common Buena Vista Winery ______„____M______2
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 Exp. 10-31-84 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS us. only National Register of Historic Places received JUN 2 5 1986 Inventory—Nomination Form date entered See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries—complete applicable sections_________________________________ 1. Name___________________: ______ historic Buena Vista Vineyards/Buena Vista Vinicultural Society_______ and/or common Buena Vista Winery _____________________„____m_________ 2. Location street & number 18000 Old Winery Road N/A not for publication city, town Sonoma . vicinity of state California code 06 code 097 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use district public _ x_ occupied agriculture museum x building(s) _JL_ private unoccupied X commercial _ _ park structure both work in progress educational private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment religious object in process yes: restricted government scientific being considered x yes: unrestricted _„ industrial transportation x N/A no military other: 4. Owner of Property name--" Buena Vista Winery, Inc. street & number P.O. Box 182- city, town Sonoma vicinity of state California 95476 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Recorder's Office Sonoma County street & number 585 Fiscal Drive city, town Santa Rosa state California 95406 6. Representation in Existing Surveys _______ Haraszthy's Champagne Cellars and Press House #392 title Calif. St.at.P Higt.nn'r I anHmark_____has this property been determined eligible? —_yes _X_ no date November 6, 1947 federal state county local depository for survey records N/A city, town Sacramento state California 7.
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo Countywide Transportation Plan 2040 SMCTP 2040
    February 9, 2017 San Mateo Countywide Transportation Plan 2040 SMCTP 2040 Prepared by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Adopted February 9, 2017 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Acknowledgements A special thanks to the following individuals for their vital participation throughout the planning and implementing process for the San Mateo Countywide Transportation Plan 2040. C/CAG Board of Directors Elizabeth Lewis, Atherton Doug Kim, Belmont Cliff Lentz, Brisbane Ricardo Ortiz, Burlingame Diana Colvin, Colma Judith Christensen, Daly City Lisa Gauthier, East Palo Alto Herb Perez, Foster City Debbie Ruddock, Half Moon Bay Larry May, Hillsborough Catherine Carlton, Menlo Park Gina Papan, Millbrae Mike O’Neill, Pacifica Maryann Moise Derwin, Portola Valley - Vice Chair Alicia Aguirre, Redwood City - Chair Irene O’Connell, San Bruno Mark Olbert, San Carlos Diane Papan, City of San Mateo David Canepa, San Mateo County Karyl Matsumoto, South San Francisco and San Mateo County Transportation Authority Deborah Gordon, Woodside C/CAG Congestion Management and Environmental Quality / Policy Advisory Committee Alicia Aguirre, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Emily Beach, Burlingame Charles Stone, Belmont Elizabeth Lewis, Atherton Irene O’Connell, San Bruno Linda Koelling, Business Community John Keener, Pacifica Lennie Roberts, Environmental Community Mike O’Neill, Pacifica -Vice Chair Adina Levin, Agencies with Transportation Interests Richard Garbarino, South San Francisco -Chair Rick Bonilla,
    [Show full text]
  • Historic and Conservation Districts in San Francisco
    SAN FRANCISCO PRESERVATION BULLETIN NO. 10 HISTORIC AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS IN SAN FRANCISCO HISTORIC DISTRICTS -- INTRODUCTION Over the past thirty-five years, the City and County of San Francisco has designated eleven historic districts and six conservation districts and has recognized approximately 30 districts included in the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, or named as National Historic Landmark districts. These districts encompass nationally significant areas such as Civic Center and the Presidio National Park; the City’s first commercial center in Jackson Square; warehouse districts such as the Northeast Waterfront and the South End; and residential areas such as Telegraph Hill, Liberty Hill, Alamo Square, Bush Street-Cottage Row and Webster Street. In general, an historic district is a collection of resources (buildings, structures, sites or objects) that are historically, architecturally and/or culturally significant. As an ensemble, resources in an historic district are worthy of protection because of what they collectively tell us about the past. Often, a limited number of architectural styles and types are represented because an historic district is typically developed around a central theme or period of significance. For instance, the theme for a proposed historic district might be “Late 19th century Victorian housing, designed in the Queen Anne style.” Period of significance refers to the span of time during which significant events and activities occurred within the historic district. Events and associations with historic properties are finite; most resources within an historic district have a clearly definable period of significance. A high percentage of buildings located within districts contribute to the understanding of a neighborhood’s or area’s evolution and development through integrity.
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Fill in San Francisco: a History of Change
    SDMS DOCID# 1137835 BAY FILL IN SAN FRANCISCO: A HISTORY OF CHANGE A thesis submitted to the faculty of California State University, San Francisco in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Arts By Gerald Robert Dow Department of Geography July 1973 Permission is granted for the material in this thesis to be reproduced in part or whole for the purpose of education and/or research. It may not be edited, altered, or otherwise modified, except with the express permission of the author. - ii - - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Maps . vi INTRODUCTION . .1 CHAPTER I: JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF SAN FRANCISCO’S TIDELANDS . .4 Definition of Tidelands . .5 Evolution of Tideland Ownership . .5 Federal Land . .5 State Land . .6 City Land . .6 Sale of State Owned Tidelands . .9 Tideland Grants to Railroads . 12 Settlement of Water Lot Claims . 13 San Francisco Loses Jurisdiction over Its Waterfront . 14 San Francisco Regains Jurisdiction over Its Waterfront . 15 The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Port of San Francisco . 18 CHAPTER II: YERBA BUENA COVE . 22 Introduction . 22 Yerba Buena, the Beginning of San Francisco . 22 Yerba Buena Cove in 1846 . 26 San Francisco’s First Waterfront . 26 Filling of Yerba Buena Cove Begins . 29 The Board of State Harbor Commissioners and the First Seawall . 33 The New Seawall . 37 The Northward Expansion of San Francisco’s Waterfront . 40 North Beach . 41 Fisherman’s Wharf . 43 Aquatic Park . 45 - iii - Pier 45 . 47 Fort Mason . 48 South Beach . 49 The Southward Extension of the Great Seawall .
    [Show full text]
  • Ágoston Haraszthy: “Father of California Viticulture”? Debates in the Mirror of Recent Revisionist Literature
    Hungarian Studies Review, Vol. XL, No. 1 (Spring, 2013) Ágoston Haraszthy: “Father of California Viticulture”? Debates in the Mirror of Recent Revisionist Literature Csaba Lévai Ágoston Haraszthy (1812-1869) is a well-known figure of the history of Hungarian-American relations. He authored the second travelogue written by a Hungarian author about the United States, which was published under the title Utazás Éjszak-Amerikában [Travels in North America] in 1844 in Pest.1 In this paper it is not my aim to analyze Haraszthy’s book or to compare it to the famous 1834 work of Sándor Bölöni Farkas (1795-1842), Journey in North America, as this has already been done by other scholars.2 Instead, I propose to focus on the role he played in the founding of California viticulture. It is not easy to reconstruct Haraszthy’s activities in California, since the story of his career is surrounded by myths: some of these were self-created others were invented by people who wrote about him. The main aim of this paper is to examine these myths in the light of the “revisionist” Haraszthy literature of the last two decades produced by American scholars. I will con- centrate on three works. Haraszthy is not in the main focus of two of them, since they examine the history of wine culture in California from a wider perspective. Two decades ago Thomas Pinney published a two-volume history of wine-making in the United States in which he devoted a whole chapter to Haraszthy’s California activities. In 2003 Charles Lewis Sullivan, who is a well-known expert of the history of wine-making in California, published a book about the origins of the famous California grape, the Zinfandel.
    [Show full text]
  • DOCUMENT RESUME Immigration and Ethnic Communities
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 413 156 RC 021 296 AUTHOR Rochin, Refugio I., Ed. TITLE Immigration and Ethnic Communities: A Focus on Latinos. INSTITUTION Michigan State Univ., East Lansing. Julian Samora Research Inst. ISBN ISBN-0-9650557-0-1 PUB DATE 1996-03-00 NOTE 139p.; Based on a conference held at the Julian Samora Research Institute (East Lansing, MI, April 28, 1995). For selected individual papers, see RC 021 297-301. PUB TYPE Books (010)-- Collected Works General (020) -- Information Analyses (070) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC06 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Demography; Elementary Secondary Education; Employment; Ethnic Bias; Hispanic Americans; *Immigrants; Immigration; *Labor Force; Mexican American Education; *Mexican Americans; Mexicans; Migrant Workers; Politics of Education; *Socioeconomic Status; Undocumented Immigrants IDENTIFIERS California; *Latinos; *Proposition 187 (California 1994); United States (Midwest) ABSTRACT For over a decade, Latino immigrants, especially those of Mexican origin, have been at the heart of the immigration debate and have borne the brunt of conservative populism. Contributing factors to the public reaction to immigrants in general and Latinos specifically include the sheer size of recent immigration, the increasing prevalence of Latinos in the work force, and the geographic concentration of Latinos in certain areas of the country. Based on a conference held at the Julian Samora Institute(Michigan) in April 1995, this book is organized around two main themes. The first discusses patterns of immigration and describes several immigrant communities in the United States; the second looks in depth at immigration issues, including economic impacts, employment, and provision of education and other services to immigrants. Papers and commentaries are: (1) "Introductory Statement" (Steven J.
    [Show full text]
  • SAN DIEGO COUNTY NATIVE PLANTS in the 1830S
    SAN DIEGO COUNTY NATIVE PLANTS IN THE 1830s The Collections of Thomas Coulter, Thomas Nuttall, and H.M.S. Sulphur with George Barclay and Richard Hinds James Lightner San Diego Flora San Diego, California 2013 SAN DIEGO COUNTY NATIVE PLANTS IN THE 1830s Preface The Collections of Thomas Coulter, Thomas Nuttall, and Our knowledge of the natural environment of the San Diego region H.M.S. Sulphur with George Barclay and Richard Hinds in the first half of the 19th century is understandably vague. Referenc- es in historical sources are limited and anecdotal. As prosperity peaked Copyright © 2013 James Lightner around 1830, probably no more than 200 inhabitants in the region could read and write. At most one or two were trained in natural sciences or All rights reserved medicine. The best insights we have into the landscape come from nar- No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form ratives of travelers and the periodic reports of the missions’ lands. They without permission in writing from the publisher. provide some idea of the extent of agriculture and the general vegeta- tion covering surrounding land. ISBN: 978-0-9749981-4-5 The stories of the visits of United Kingdom naturalists who came in Library of Congress Control Number: 2013907489 the 1830s illuminate the subject. They were educated men who came to the territory intentionally to examine the flora. They took notes and col- Cover photograph: lected specimens as botanists do today. Reviewing their contributions Matilija Poppy (Romneya trichocalyx), Barrett Lake, San Diego County now, we can imagine what they saw as they discovered plants we know.
    [Show full text]
  • Bvwinebible 2019R7final.Pdf
    of BUENA VISTA WINERY BRINGING 1830 TRADITION to 1840 california 1846 1849 1852 any kinds of grapes have existed in 1857 significant contribution to California’s LINEAGE AN ANCIENT MCalifornia since the late 18th century. viticulture... but was nothing compared 1861 1863 The first vineyards dotting the California to what Buena Vista and its colorful 1873 landscape were of grapes brought by missionaries founder would do. 1878 from Mexico, becoming known as the “mission grape.” And as early as 1812, Russian immigrants on the Sonoma Coast planted Palomino grapes imported from Peru. These grapes grew well, but did not produce the extraordinary wine we 1920 associate with California today. This changed with the arrival of the exceptional 1949 grapevines from ancient vineyards in Europe. Many noteworthy men, such as Frenchman 1976 Jean-Louis Vignes, saw the need for delicious quality-producing grapes, thus bringing the first 2007 vitis vinifera to California. Certainly this was a 2011 2 3 PIONEER 1830 OF THE CALIFORNIA WINE 1840 INDUSTRY 1846 1849 1852 the elf proclaimed “The Count of Buena 1857 1861 COUNT S Vista,” Agoston Haraszthy de Mokesa 1863 was a vivacious pioneer whose love affair with 1873 grape-growing started in his homeland of 1878 Hungary. Born into nobility, The Count grew up amidst famed vineyards and orchards that had of been in his family for centuries. BUENA VISTA BUENA Like other intriguing tales that surround him, 1920 exactly why The Count emigrated from Europe is unknown. Some say wanderlust, some say political 1949 exile. Regardless, in 1840 Agoston Haraszthy set sail for America, where he chose to settle with his family in Wisconsin.
    [Show full text]
  • Download a History of the Sacramento Viticultural District
    A HISTORY OF THE SACRAMENTO VITICULTURAL DISTRICT Comprising the counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sacramento, Shasta, Sutter, Tehama and Yolo WITH GRAPE ACREAGE ST ATISTICS AND DIRECTORIES OF GRAPE GROWERS An Unpublished Manuscript by Ernest P. Peninou ©1965, 1995, 2000 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NOW PRESENTED BY NOMISPRESS FOR THE WINE LIBRARIANS ASSOCIATION 2004 All history is made up from the statements and records of others; there can be no originality in the facts of history. Dedicated to all those who shared their memories and answered my questions the past forty years .. LI. CONTENTS A HISTORY OF THE SACRAMENTO VITICULTURAL DISTRICT Beginnings I Sacramento County............................................................................... 1 Butte County ............................................................................................................ 22 Colusa County........................................................................................................... 23 Sutter County ........................................................................................................... 24 Tehama County......................................................................................................... 25 Yolo County .............................................................................................................. 37 GRAPE ACREAGE STATISTICS, 1856 - 1992 ............................................................ 58 DIRECTORIES OF THE GRAPE GROWERS AND WINE MAKERS,1860-1900 ....... 97 1860 (Peninou
    [Show full text]
  • 2.Archaeological Inventory-Hammer Project
    AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY FOR THE PROPOSED HAMMER DIVERSION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, TEHAMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By David E. DeMar Western Shasta Resource Conservation District Redding, California For Tehama Environmental Services, Inc Red Bluff, California February 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................3 Proposed Undertaking and Area of Potential Effects ........................................................................................3 Environmental Setting .......................................................................................................................................6 Local Environment ............................................................................................................................................6 Prehistory...........................................................................................................................................................6 Ethnography ......................................................................................................................................................7 History...............................................................................................................................................................8 Literature Review ..............................................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]