The Spanish Colonial Revival in Southern California (1895-1930) Author(S): David Gebhard Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Spanish Colonial Revival in Southern California (1895-1930) Author(s): David Gebhard Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 26, No. 2 (May, 1967), pp. 131-147 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural Historians Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/988417 . Accessed: 07/09/2011 18:02 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of California Press and Society of Architectural Historians are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. http://www.jstor.org The Spanish Colonial Revival in Southern California (1895-1930) DAVID GEBHARD University of California, Santa Barbara BY the end of the I920s the SpanishColonial Revival had tectural forms which in any way could be thought of as become thearchitecture of SouthernCalifornia. Block upon indigenous to California, it was the stucco-sheathedstruc- block of Los Angeles and other smallercities of the South- ture-with its broad areasof uninterruptedsurfaces-which land abounded with builders' versions of America's His- in fact and in myth have come to typify the buildings of panic heritage. In communities such as SantaBarbara, Ojai, Southern California. Unquestionably, one of the unique Palos Verdes, San Clemente, and Rancho Santa Fe, legal qualities of this regional architectureis that it had little, if and other indirect pressureswere leading to the erection of any, real roots in the historic past of the area. The Spanish complete "Spanish"towns and cities. The intellectualjusti- Colonial Revival, from its Mission phase on, was almost fication for this revival was admittedly a bit thin, but it totally a myth created by newcomers to the area.2 Few would be difficultto deny that the visual resultswere often artificially created architecturalmyths have succeeded in impressive. retaininga firm hold for so long and at the same time have What is often overlooked in any discussionof the Spanish been able to maintaina consistentlyhigh quality of design. Colonial Revival in California is that this movement pro- Historically, the Spanish Colonial Revival divides itself duced not only a wide array of purely eclectic buildings into two phases,although it should be pointed out that the ranging from the wildly bizarre and flamboyant to the division between them is not precise. The first of these highly creative, but also that throughout its existence it phases was that of the Mission Revival, which saw its in- served as a continual source of inspiration for the several ception in the I88os and reached its fullest development avantgardemovements which developed on the West Coast. during the first decade of the twentieth century. As will be The first phase, that of the Mission Revival, became pointed out later, the buildings which were labelled as closely interwoven with the American Arts and Crafts "Mission"even in their own day often had very little to do movement, with the influenceof Sullivan and Wright, and with the early Spanish ecclesiasticalarchitecture of Cali- with the work of the early twentieth-century Rationalists, fornia. In fact, these Revival buildings were equally in- especially that of Irving Gill.1 Again during the I920S, the spired by the simple Spanishdomestic buildings of adobe, second phase of the SpanishColonial Revival sharedmany which had been built in California in the late eighteenth points in common with the West Coast work of Frank and throughout the nineteenth centuries.3Also occurring Lloyd Wright, of R. M. Schindler, and of Lloyd Wright. Finally, it can be convincingly argued that there was a meaningful give-and-take between the early "Modern" 2. HaroldKirker discusses the creationof the Missionand Spanish Colonial Revival in his Architectural San work of the I930s-of Richard Neutra, of Ain- myths California's Frontier, Gregory Marino, I960, pp. I20-I30. For a defense of the Revival see: Arthur and the late aspect of the SpanishColonial Revival. B. Benton, "The CaliforniaMission and Its InfluenceUpon Pacific While it can well be demonstratedthat the shingle and Coast Architecture," Architectand Engineer, xxrv, Feb. 19II, pp. 35- the redwood board and batten houses were the first archi- 75; George C. Baum, "The Mission Type," in Henry H. Saylor, ArchitecturalStylesfor Country Houses, New York, 1919, pp. 67-74; George WhartonJames, In andOut of the Old Missionsof California, Boston, I905; and G. StanleyTaylor, "MediterraneanArchitecture i. The close relationshipbetween avantgarde architects and the for the American Home," Arts and Decoration, xxv, Aug. I926, pp. architectureof the MissionRevival style was accuratelypointed out 34-39, 72. as early as I910 in F. Rud. Vogel's Das AmerikanischeHaus, Berlin, 3. Herbert D. Croly, "The CaliforniaCountry House," Sunset, 910o,pp. 264-267. xvim, Nov. 1906, pp. 50-65. I3I 132 within the first phase of the SpanishColonial Revival was the Pueblo or Santa Fe Revival style, inspiredby the pro- vincial SpanishColonial buildings found in and around the Rio GrandeRiver Valley of New Mexico. As far as longev- ity is concerned,this SantaFe style has enjoyed an extreme- ly long life.4 Having been initiated in the late nineteenth century, it reached its heyday during the decade of the I920s, experienced a second renaissanceduring the late I930s, and is still going strong in its native habitat. The second phase of the HispanicRevival could be prop- erly called Mediterranean,for it assembled architectural elements not only from Spain and Mexico, but from Italy and from the Islamicworld of North Africa. It spawned off such local offshoots as the Monterey style. It is this second phase, dating from ca. I9Io through the early I930s, which most people have come to think of as the SpanishColonial Revival. As the subsequentdiscussion will indicate, one can understandthese seemingly divergent architecturalforms by seeing all of its phasesas representinga single and coher- I. Burnhamand Bliesner.Riverside Public ent statement-an architecturalstatement which Fig. Library,Riverside, strongly 1903 (photo: author). influencedthe various avantgarde movements which devel- oped in Californiabetween I890 and I940. artificialcreation than was the Neo-Classicism of McKim, For the design of a house, a multistoried hotel, or an Mead and White or the Neo-Gothicism of Ralph Adams automobile salesroomto be based upon the architectureof Cram. Neither the essentialforms nor the structureof the the SpanishColonial Mission buildings of Californiaseems Mission Revival buildings had anything to do with their at best ratherforced, or at worst ratherludicrous. Yet such supposedprototypes. Instead, the MissionRevival architects reliance on precedent is obviously no different from that conjured up the vision of the Mission by relying on a few which made Roman Imperialbaths an inspirationfor the suggestive details: simple arcades; parapeted, scalloped design of a railroadstation or that which causedthe design- gable ends (often with a quatrefoil window); tiled roofs; ers of a twentieth-centurytire-manufacturing plant to seek bell towers (composed of a series of receding squares, sourcesin Assyrianand Babylonian architecture.The Mis- normally topped by a low dome); and finally (and most sion Revival in California was neither more nor less an important), broad, unbroken exterior surfaces of rough cement stucco (Fig. I). Occasionally, even in residences, one will come acrossa complete MissionfaCade (a centered, 4. The Pueblo Revival saw its inceptionin the first decadeof the parapetedgable flankedby two bell towers), but this more a few scattered had been built in Cali- century,although examples strict relianceon historical was by no means the fornia and New Mexico in the I89os. An use of this in precedent early style norm. Since the Mission had been some- Californiawas A. C. Schweinfort's"Country Hotel Near Montal- original buildings vo," ill. in California Architectand Building News, xv, Apr. 1894, p. what stark in ornamental detail, the Revivals borrowed 39. One of the firstmajor attempts to utilizethis style was a group of ornament from the Islamic traditions, from the Richard- buildings at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque(see sonian and and indirectly from the "Adoptionof Pueblo Architecturein Universityof New Mexico," Romanesque, directly Architect'sand Builder'sMagazine, XLI,Apr. I909, pp. 282-285). For design of Louis Sullivanand George GrantElmslie (Fig. 2). the I920Sand I930s, see the work of the firm of H. Rapp, W. M. As one would expect, the plans and much of the interior and A. C. Hendrickson,who such Pueblo Revival Rapp, designed detailing of these Mission Revival buildings were identical buildingsin Santa Fe as: the Museum of New Mexico, the State School for the Deaf and Dumb, Sun Mount Sanitarium,and so on, with those found elsewhere in the country. The typical ill. in WesternArchitect, xxxmi, Jan. 1924. Also, Rose Henderson, early Mission Revival houses employed an open plan, with "A PrimitiveBasis for Modern Architectural Architecture,"