Modern Design Historic Context Statement Case Report HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2011 Date: January 26, 2011 Case No.: 2011.0059U Staff Contact: Mary Brown – (415) 575‐9074 [email protected] Reviewed By: Tim Frye – (415) 575‐6822 [email protected] Recommendation: Adoption PROJECT DESCRIPTION Development of the San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935‐1970 Historic Context Statement (Modern context statement) was funded, in part, by a $25,000 grant from the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The San Francisco Planning Department (Department) provided the 40% match as required by the OHP. The grant period ran from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010. A draft of the Modern context statement, submitted to the OHP on September, 30 2010, was approved. The Department developed the Modern context statement in order to provide the framework for consistent, informed evaluations of San Francisco’s Modern buildings and landscapes. The Modern context statement links specific property types to identified themes, geographic patterns, and time periods. It identifies character‐defining features of Modern architectural and landscape design and documents significance, criteria considerations and integrity thresholds. This detailed information specific to property types will provide future surveyors with a consistent framework within which to contextually identify, interpret and evaluate individual properties and historic districts. The Modern context statement is intended to be used, along with past surveys such as the 1976 Department of City Planning Architectural Survey, to inform historic and cultural resource surveys and to ensure that property evaluations are consistent with local, state, and federal standards. REQUIRED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Department requests the Historic Preservation Commission to adopt, modify or disapprove the San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935‐1970 Historic Context Statement. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Historic context statements are exempt under Class 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15306, Information Collection of the CEQA Guidelines states the following: “Class 6 consists of basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environment resource. These may be strictly www.sfplanning.org Case Report 2011.0059U San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design Hearing Date: February 2, 2011 1935-1970 Historic Context Statement for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted or funded.” ISSUES AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Mary Brown, a Department preservation planner, researched and wrote the Modern context statement. Volunteers Jason Smart and Maura Martin assisted with the research and document preparation. Volunteer Alexandra Kirby led the research and writing of the biography section. The San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935‐1970 Historic Context Statement was peer reviewed by Tim Frye, Acting Department Preservation Coordinator; Andrew Wolfram, member of the Historic Preservation Commission; Christine French, director of the Modernism + Recent Past Program at the National Trust; Gretchen Hilyard, historic architecture and landscape consultant; Inge Horton, local historian; and Marie Nelson, state historian at the California Office of Historic Preservation. In announcing projects completed during the 2009/2010 CLG Grant Cycle, Marie Nelson of the OHP described the context thusly: “We also want to commend Mary Brown, planner with San Francisco, for the exemplary work she did in researching and writing the context: San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935‐1970. She provides a good discussion of the precursors to modern architectural design and the various developments and expressions of modern architecture and landscape design which other jurisdictions can build upon in understanding and developing a context for their communities.” BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION The Department recommends adoption of this project for the following reasons: That the San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935‐1970 Historic Context Statement was prepared by a qualified historian in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and State Office of Historic Preservation Recordation Manual as outlined in Resolution No. 527 of June 7, 2000, adopted by the previous San Francisco Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. That the San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935‐1970 Historic Context Statement was reviewed by Planning Department staff for accuracy and adequacy as an evaluative framework for historic and cultural resource surveys and individual property evaluations. RECOMMENDATION: Adoption Attachments: Attachment A San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935‐1970 Historic Context Statement1 1 The HPC received a copy of the Modern context statement as part of its January 19, 2011 hearing packet. 2 San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935-1970 Historic Context Statement FINAL DRAFT January 12, 2011 Prepared by Mary Brown, Preservation Planner San Francisco City and County Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 The activity which is the subject of this historic context statement has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental federally‐assisted programs on the basis of race, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity Program U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service P.O. Box 37127 Washington, D.C. 20013‐7127 Table of Contents Chapter 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 Introduction 1 Definitions 2 Period Justification 3 Background 4 Regulatory Basis for Historic Preservation 5 Objectives and Scope 8 Criteria for Evaluation 8 Integrity 9 Evaluations of Recent Past Properties 10 Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY 13 Historic and Archival Sources 13 Surveys and Evaluations 13 Designated Modern Resources 15 Field Visits 17 Quantitative and Geographic Analysis 17 Public Participation 17 Chapter 3: SAN FRANCISCO’S HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 19 Overview 19 Phases of Development 19 Chapter 4: SAN FRANCISCO DEVELOPMENT 1935‐1970 23 Residential Development 23 Urban Renewal 43 Commercial Development 52 Institutional and Recreational Development 63 Chapter 5: PRECURSORS TO SAN FRANCISCO’S MODERN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 73 Early American Modernism 73 Early Southern California Influence 75 Early European Modernists 76 Southern California International Style 80 Regional Architecture: First Bay Tradition 82 Influential Exhibitions 83 Influential Schools 85 Influential Buildings 87 Evolution of San Francisco’s Architectural Styles 88 Art Deco 89 Chapter 6: SAN FRANCISCO MODERN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 93 Introduction 93 Culture of Modernism 97 San Francisco Constraints and Opportunities 99 Materials for Modern Design 101 Pre‐War San Francisco Modern Architecture 106 Bay Region Modernism 109 Builder‐Developer Modern 117 Streamline Moderne 117 Midcentury Modernism 121 Midcentury Modern Storefront Design 125 Expressionism 132 New Formalism 134 Joseph Eichler 134 Brutalism 138 Third Bay Tradition 139 Downtown Modern 140 Decline of Modernism 143 Chapter 7: MODERN LANDSCAPE DESIGN 145 Cultural Landscape Introduction 145 Modern Landscape Architecture 145 Landscape Architecture and Planning 147 Telesis 148 Influence of Thomas Church 149 Types of Modern Landscape Architecture 152 Criteria for Evaluation 159 Integrity Considerations 160 Chapter 8: EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORKS: 163 Streamline Moderne 164 International Style 174 Second Bay Tradition 179 Midcentury Modern 189 “Miesian” International Style / Corporate Modern 197 Brutalism 201 Contractor Modern 205 Chapter 9: BIOGRAPHIES 206 Architects 209 Landscape Architects 271 Chapter 10: RECOMMENDATIONS 291 BIBLIOGRAPHY 295 APPENDICES: Appendix A: San Francisco Landscape Architects Appendix B: Additional Modern Architects Appendix C: William Wurster client list Appendix D: Docomomo Inventory San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935 – 1970 Historic Context Statement Chapter 1: Project Description Introduction The San Francisco Planning Department developed the San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935‐1970 Historic Context Statement (Modern context statement) in order to provide the framework for consistent, informed evaluations of San Francisco’s Modern design buildings and landscapes. The Modern context statement links specific property types to identified themes, geographic patterns, and time periods. It identifies character‐defining