DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix C Cultural Resources Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix C Cultural Resources Study Appendix C Cultural Resources Study City of Long Beach Civic Center Project Cultural Resources Study U.S.G.S. Long Beach, CA quadrangle Prepared for: City of Long Beach 333 W. Ocean Boulevard, 7th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 Prepared by: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 N. Ashwood Avenue Ventura, CA 93003 Authors: Shannon Carmack, B.A., and Kevin Hunt, B.A. October 2015 Keywords: USGS Long Beach, CA quadrangle; Los Angeles County; Intensive pedestrian survey; Civic Center, eligible, CRHR, historic district Carmack, S., and Hunt, K. 2015 Cultural Resources Study for the Civic Center Project, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. Rincon Consultants Project No. 15-01260. Report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Civic Center Project Cultural Resources Study Civic Center Project Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Personnel ................................................................................................................................... 10 2.0 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................ 10 2.1 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................................................. 10 2.1.1 50 Year Threshold for the CRHR ................................................................................... 11 2.2 City of Long Beach ................................................................................................................... 11 2.2.1 Historic Preservation Element ........................................................................................ 11 2.2.2 Local Designation ............................................................................................................. 12 3.0 Setting ............................................................................................................................................ 14 3.1 Prehistory .................................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.1 Early Man Horizon (ca. 10,000 – 6,000 B.C.) ................................................................. 14 3.1.2 Milling Stone Horizon (6000–3000 B.C.) ....................................................................... 14 3.1.3 Intermediate Horizon (3000 B.C. – A.D. 500) ............................................................... 15 3.1.4 Late Prehistoric Horizon (A.D. 500–Historic Contact)................................................ 15 3.2 Ethnography ............................................................................................................................. 16 3.3 History ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3.3.1 Spanish Period (1769–1822) ............................................................................................ 17 3.3.2 Mexican Period (1822–1848) ........................................................................................... 18 3.3.3 American Period (1848–Present) .................................................................................... 18 3.3.4 Long Beach ........................................................................................................................ 19 3.3.5 Civic Center History ........................................................................................................ 20 4.0 Background Research .................................................................................................................. 22 4.1 California Historical Resources Information System .......................................................... 22 4.1.1 Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies ...................................................... 22 4.1.2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 23 4.1.3 Historic Maps.................................................................................................................... 24 4.1.4 Previous Studies within Project Site .............................................................................. 24 4.1.4 Archival Research ............................................................................................................ 25 City of Long Beach i Civic Center Project Cultural Resources Study 4.2 Native American Heritage Commission ............................................................................... 25 5.0 Survey Methods ........................................................................................................................... 26 6.0 Results ............................................................................................................................................ 27 6.1 Long Beach Civic center .......................................................................................................... 27 6.1.1 City Hall-Library Complex ............................................................................................. 29 6.1.2 Courthouse ........................................................................................................................ 34 6.1.3 Public Safety Building ..................................................................................................... 37 6.1.4 Lincoln Park ...................................................................................................................... 38 6.1.5 Parking Garage ................................................................................................................. 40 6.2. Property History ...................................................................................................................... 40 6.3 Evaluations ................................................................................................................................ 51 6.3.1 City Hall-Library Complex ............................................................................................. 53 6.3.2 Courthouse ........................................................................................................................ 54 6.2.4 Public Safety Building ..................................................................................................... 54 6.2.5 Lincoln Park ...................................................................................................................... 55 6.2.6 Parking Garage ................................................................................................................. 55 7.0 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................................ 56 7.1 Archaeological Resources ....................................................................................................... 56 7.1.1 Archaeological Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 56 7.2 Built Environment/Historic Resources ................................................................................ 57 7.2.1 Built Environment Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... 57 7.3 Level of Significance after Mitigation ................................................................................... 57 8.0 References ..................................................................................................................................... 59 Figures Figure 1. Project Vicinity .......................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Project Location ......................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Project Area ............................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4. Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5. Resources Surveyed ............................................................................................................... 28 Figure 6. Design Rendering of Public Safety Building. ...................................................................... 41 Figure 7. Proposed Master Plan, 1958. ................................................................................................. 43 Figure 8. View southeast of Public Safety Building, north and west elevations, 1961. ................. 44 Figure 9. View north of south elevation, Public Safety Building, ca. 1960...................................... 44 Figure 10. View northeast of Courthouse and Public Safety Building, 1960. ................................. 45 City of Long Beach ii Civic Center Project Cultural Resources Study Figure 11. View northwest of Courthouse and Public Safety Buildings, 1960. .............................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • STAFF REPORT for CALENDAR ITEM NO.: 9 for the MEETING OF: September 14, 2017
    STAFF REPORT FOR CALENDAR ITEM NO.: 9 FOR THE MEETING OF: September 14, 2017 TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Adopt rules and regulations for the TJPA’s park on the roof of the transit center, and authorize staff to proceed with requesting proposed amendments to the San Francisco Municipal Code to make TJPA’s park a “park” subject to certain rules and regulations under the Municipal Code. EXPLANATION: The 5.4-acre park and botanical garden on the roof of the Salesforce Transit Center (named “Salesforce Park” and referred to herein as “TJPA’s park”) will be a unique open space and amenity in an area of the City with few parks. TJPA’s park is expected to be a destination for visitors that will include area residents, workers, transit riders and tourists, with programs and events (activation) designed to ensure that the open space is populated throughout the daytime and evening hours of operation. The TJPA is developing a park security program that will support the following goals: • Create an exceptional visitor experience • Preserve the park’s unique ecosystem • Enable full activation of the park • Provide a safe and secure park for all users Most San Francisco parks are owned by the City and County of San Francisco; are under the control, management, and direction of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission and the Recreation and Parks Department staff; and are subject to the rules and regulations in the San Francisco Park Code and other provisions of the Municipal Code. The TJPA’s park, like all other San Francisco parks, requires rules and regulations to ensure the enjoyment and safety of all visitors and preservation of the public resource.
    [Show full text]
  • Esther Mccoy Research Papers, Circa 1940-1989 0000103
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8d21wm4 No online items Finding Aid for the Esther McCoy research papers, circa 1940-1989 0000103 Finding aid prepared by Jillian O'Connor,Chris Marino and Jocelyne Lopez The processing of this collection was made possible through generous funding from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, administered through the Council on Library and Information Resources “Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives” Project. Architecture and Design Collection, Art, Design & Architecture Museum Arts Building Room 1434 University of California Santa Barbara, California, 93106-7130 805-893-2724 [email protected] Finding Aid for the Esther McCoy 0000103 1 research papers, circa 1940-1989 0000103 Title: Esther McCoy research papers Identifier/Call Number: 0000103 Contributing Institution: Architecture and Design Collection, Art, Design & Architecture Museum Language of Material: English Physical Description: 4.0 Linear feet(2 boxes, 1 oversize box and 1 flat file drawer) Date (inclusive): circa 1940-circa 1984 Location note: Boxes 1-2/ADC - regular Box 3/ADC - oversize** 1 Flat File Drawer/ADC - flat files creator: Abell, Thornton M., (Thornton Montaigne), 1906-1984 creator: Bernardi, Theodore C., 1903- creator: Davidson, Julius Ralph, 1889-1977 creator: Killingsworth, Brady, Smith and Associates. creator: McCoy, Esther, 1920-1989 creator: Neutra, Richard Joseph, 1892-1970 creator: Rapson, Ralph, 1914-2008 creator: Rex, John L. creator: Schindler, R. M., (Rudolph M. ), 1887-1953 creator: Smith, Whitney Rowland, 1911-2002 creator: Soriano, Raphael, 1904-1988 creator: Spaulding, Sumner, 1892/3-1952 creator: Walker, Rodney creator: Wurster, William Wilson Access Open for use by qualified researchers. Custodial History note Gift of Esther McCoy, 1984.
    [Show full text]
  • SAN FRANCISCO 2Nd Quarter 2014 Office Market Report
    SAN FRANCISCO 2nd Quarter 2014 Office Market Report Historical Asking Rental Rates (Direct, FSG) SF MARKET OVERVIEW $60.00 $57.00 $55.00 $53.50 $52.50 $53.00 $52.00 $50.50 $52.00 Prepared by Kathryn Driver, Market Researcher $49.00 $49.00 $50.00 $50.00 $47.50 $48.50 $48.50 $47.00 $46.00 $44.50 $43.00 Approaching the second half of 2014, the job market in San Francisco is $40.00 continuing to grow. With over 465,000 city residents employed, the San $30.00 Francisco unemployment rate dropped to 4.4%, the lowest the county has witnessed since 2008 and the third-lowest in California. The two counties with $20.00 lower unemployment rates are neighboring San Mateo and Marin counties, $10.00 a mark of the success of the region. The technology sector has been and continues to be a large contributor to this success, accounting for 30% of job $0.00 growth since 2010 and accounting for over 1.5 million sf of leased office space Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 this quarter. Class A Class B Pre-leasing large blocks of space remains a prime option for large tech Historical Vacancy Rates companies looking to grow within the city. Three of the top 5 deals involved 16.0% pre-leasing, including Salesforce who took over half of the Transbay Tower 14.0% (delivering Q1 2017) with a 713,727 sf lease. Other pre-leases included two 12.0% full buildings: LinkedIn signed a deal for all 450,000 sf at 222 2nd Street as well 10.0% as Splunk, who grabbed all 182,000 sf at 270 Brannan Street.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco
    SAN FRANCISCO Click below to navigate our services EXCITING ACTIVITIES UNIQUE VENUES PRIVATE D I N I N G INSPIRING DÉCOR ENTERTAINMENT LOGISTICS SAN FRANCISCO Local Highlights Food and Wine San Francisco offer endless opportunities of epicurean delights: wine tasting at urban wineries, chocolate factories, cheese and wine experiences, customized culinary and cooking classes and our famous Ferry Building Farmers Market to name a few. Culture and Art As a diverse safe-haven, San Francisco’s culture has become an influence across the globe. It’s distinctive flavors of art, music, cuisine and architecture cross all cultural boundaries creating a unique atmosphere native to San Francisco. Adventure From horseback riding to sailing on the Bay, the Bay Area has something for every adventurer. Across the Golden Gate Bridge you’ll find yourself among the rolling hills of Marin County where beaches and hikes are plentiful. An escape from the hustle and bustle of the city is just minutes away. SAN FRANCISCO Destination Map Getting Here Airport San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Oakland International Airport (OAK) Sacramento International Airport (SMF) Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC) Monterey Peninsula Airport Napa County Airport Sonoma County Airport Climate San Francisco has a moderate climate year-round, averaging 50°F - 65°F. Our warmest months are typically September – October, known as our Indian Summer. SAN FRANCISCO Sample Program Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Airport Group Activity Optional Daytime Airport Arrivals Activities Departures CSR Program – Meet and Greet SoulCycle Charity • Sailing the Bay Manifest coordination Ride by PRA Staff Scenic VIP Transfer • Bike the Bay with Beverages Guests ride for a cause • Alcatraz Tour during a private SoulCycle Suggested Hotel class – San Francisco's • Muir Woods & Departure Times Welcome favorite fitness craze.
    [Show full text]
  • Monthly Capital Report October 2018
    San Francisco Recreation and Parks Capital & Planning Division Monthly Report September 30, 2018 Toks Ajike Director of Planning and Capital Management Prepared by: Antonio Guerra, Capital Finance Manager The City and County of San Francisco launched the PeopleSoft financial and procurement system on July 3, 2017. This new financial system replaces the over 20-year old FAMIS system and completely changes the way the department processes and reports on financial transactions and procurement. As such, there have been some changes in the standard monthly capital report. This report contains the following: Active project balances and non-reconciled closed projects Unlike previous monthly reports, this report does not show FY 2018-19 actuals due to changes in the People Soft BI reporting syastem. The Department hopes to have this data in time for the November 2018 monthly report. Recreation and Parks Monthly Capital Report ‐ September 30, 2018 Project Description Budget Actuals Encumbered Balance PW Mansell St Strtscp 1,718,517.08 1,668,345.86 3,777.25 46,393.97 PW TGHill Rockslide Rsp 3,111.05 2,526.45 0.00 584.60 RP 11th & Natoma Acquistion 9,866,104.26 9,830,256.41 0.00 35,847.85 RP 11th Street And Natoma Park 210,000.00 9.30 9,620.00 200,370.70 RP 1268p‐marina Harbor Bioswal 780,177.00 56,377.81 0.00 723,799.19 RP 1290P‐Shoreview Park 3,932.00 53,183.82 0.00 ‐49,251.82 RP 1291P‐Ggp Senior Center 48,538.16 27,875.12 13,051.20 7,611.84 RP 17th & Folsom Park Acq 3,190.00 0.00 0.00 3,190.00 RP 17Th And Folsom 4,976,560.11 4,921,987.49 88,978.69
    [Show full text]
  • Elmer C. Aldrich
    PLANNING MILESTONES FOR THE PARK UNITS AND MAJOR PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS SYSTEM July 1, 2010 Planning Division California State Parks P. O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 PLANNING MILESTONES FOR THE PARK UNITS AND MAJOR PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE PARK SYSTEM July 1, 2010 OVERVIEW This document is a compendium providing selected information on the classified units and major unclassified properties which currently are or have in the past been associated with the California State Park System. The main purposes of this compendium are to provide, in a single source: 1. a record of the major milestones and achievements in unit-level land use and management planning which have been accomplished through the years by the Department, with the major accomplishments of the last year summarized in Chapter II; 2. a variety of other information useful to understanding the past history or current status of these units and properties, and of the evolution of unit-level land use and resource management planning in the Department; and 3. The definitive number and the specific identity of those basic classified units and major unclassified properties which constitute the official State Park System as of the date of this report’s publication. As of July 1, 2010, the California State Park System consists of 278 basic classified units and major unclassified properties. These are identified on Lists 1 and 2 in Chapter III. To have data current to July 1, 2010, this total will be the Department’s official figure until the next edition of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 PEIR, Draft December 2015
    3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES This section of the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) describes cultural resources in the SCAG region, discusses the potential impacts of the proposed 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“2016 RTP/SCS,” “Plan,” or “Project”) on cultural resources, identifies mitigation measures for the impacts, and evaluates the residual impacts. Cultural resources were evaluated in accordance with Appendix G of the 2015 State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Cultural resources within the SCAG region were evaluated at a programmatic level of detail, in relation to the general plans of the six counties and 191 cities within the SCAG region; review of general information characterizing the paleontological resources that have been reported from the SCAG region and review of Dibblee maps of geology and soils; general information characterizing prehistoric and historic human occupation within the SCAG region; general sensitivity of the SCAG region with respect to Native American Sacred sites and tribal cultural resources available through coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and direct outreach to tribal governments within the SCAG region, including two Native American consultation workshops hosted by SCAG during preparation of the 2016 RTP/SCS and related PEIR; and review of known cemeteries in the SCAG region; a review of related literature germane to the SCAG region; as well as a review of SCAG’s 2012 RTP/SCS PEIR.1 Cultural resources within the SCAG region are recorded in the paleontological fossils; archeological sites and artifacts, historic sites, artifacts, structures and buildings; and the built environment. There is a rich record of archived fossils that are estimated to represent over 500 million years.2 The archaeological record provides evidence of over thousands of years of human occupation.
    [Show full text]
  • Mid-Century Modernism Historic Context
    mid-century Modernism Historic Context September 2008 Prepared for the City of Fresno Planning & Development Department 2600 Fresno Street Fresno, CA 93721 Prepared by Planning Resource Associates, Inc. 1416 N. Broadway Fresno, CA 93721 City of Fresno mid-century Modernism Historic Context mid-century Modernism, Fresno Historical Context Prepared For City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department Prepared By Planning Resource Associates, Inc. 1416 N. Broadway Fresno CA, 93721 Project Team Planning Resource Associates, Inc. 1416 Broadway Street Fresno, CA 93721 Lauren MacDonald, Architectural Historian Lauren MacDonald meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications in Architectural History and History Acknowledgements Research efforts were aided by contributions of the following individuals and organizations: City of Fresno Planning and Development Department Karana Hattersley-Drayton, Historic Preservation Project Manager Fresno County Public Library, California History and Genealogy Room William Secrest, Librarian Fresno Historical Society Maria Ortiz, Archivist / Librarian Jill Moffat, Executive Director John Edward Powell Eldon Daitweiler, Fresno Modern American Institute of Architects, San Joaquin Chapter William Stevens, AIA Les Traeger, AIA Bob Dyer, AIA Robin Gay McCline, AIA Jim Oakes, AIA Martin Temple, AIA Edwin S. Darden, FAIA William Patnaude, AIA Hal Tokmakian Steve Weil 1 City of Fresno mid-century Modernism Historic Context TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………….3
    [Show full text]
  • The San Francisco Civic Center
    - THE SAN FRANCISCO CIVIC CENTER: A STUDY IN URBAN FORM OCTOBER 1987 URBAN DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SAN FRANCISCO'S CIVIC CENTER UNDERTAKEN BY THE URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS SAN FRANCISCO CHAPTER DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING & THE CIVIC DESIGN COMMITTEE SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION SPONSORED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PREFACE/ACKNOWLEGEMENTS. The report presented herein is the culmination of a design charrette undertaken to reawaken public interest/civic spirit in the Civic Center Area. The goal of this study is to facilitate the completion of a world-class civic center begun in the early 20th century. The vision of this special urban place and the current physical form is the combined efforts and talents of many individuals. With sensitive reinforcement we believe the vision of civic leaders, nearly 80 years ago, can be fully realized. It is our hope that this study can act as a catalyst in evolving this vision and that the continued completion of this great civic composition is accomplished. The charrette study took place on the 13, 14 , 22 and 23 of July 1987. We wish to accnowledge the valued participation of the following individuals: Clark Manus, Chairperson Alex Bonutti, Steering Committee F. Lee Moulton, Steering Commitee Bruce Race, Group Leader Philip Enquist, Group Leader Michael Stanton, Group Leader Erin Bell, Camilo Carrillo, Marien Coss, Norman Davis, Mary Dooley, Lester Gerstman, Rob Gibson, Maria Gray, Ricka Hale,
    [Show full text]
  • Downloadable Pdfs, Visit Ing
    Journal of the California Garden & Landscape History Society Eden Fall 2016 • Vol. 19, No. 4 EdenJournal of the California Garden & Landscape History Society Eden Editorial Board Editor: Virginia Kean Editorial Board: Kelly Comras (Chair), Phoebe Cutler, Steven Keylon, Ann Scheid, Libby Simon Consulting Editors: Marlea Graham, Barbara Marinacci Regional Correspondents: Bay Area: Phoebe Cutler San Diego: Vonn Marie May Graphic Design: designSimple.com Submissions: Send scholarly papers, articles, and book reviews to the editor: Virginia Kean at [email protected] or [email protected] Memberships/Subscriptions: Join the CGLHS and receive a subscription to Eden. Individual $40 • Family $60 Sustaining $100 and above Student $20 Nonprofit/Library $50 Visit www.cglhs.org to join or renew your membership. Or mail your check to Steven Keylon, CGLHS Treasurer, P.O. Box 220237, Newhall, CA 91322-0237. Questions or Address Changes: [email protected] Contents CGLHS Board of Directors Garden History of the President: Kelly Comras Monterey Peninsula, Redux Vice President: Nancy Carol Carter David A. Laws 3 Recording Secretary: Ann Scheid Membership Officer: Brandy Kuhl Treasurer: Steven Keylon Emerson Knight: Landscape Artist Directors at large: Carolyn Bennett, Cecily Harris, Brandy Kuhl, with a Public Career Libby Simon Staff of the Environmental Design Archives, UC Berkeley 10 Past President: Judy Horton Honorary Life Members CGLHS Member News 13 Virginia Gardner Marlea Graham, Editor emerita The Impacts of Public Access at Yosemite William A. Grant (Founder)
    [Show full text]
  • EAMES HOUSE Page 1 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK NOMINATION NFS Form 10-900 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) OMB No. 1024-0018 EAMES HOUSE Page 1 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 1. NAME OF PROPERTY Historic Name: Eames House Other Name/Site Number: Case Study House #8 2. LOCATION Street & Number: 203 N Chautauqua Boulevard Not for publication: N/A City/Town: Pacific Palisades Vicinity: N/A State: California County: Los Angeles Code: 037 Zip Code: 90272 3. CLASSIFICATION Ownership of Property Category of Property Private: x Building(s): x Public-Local: _ District: Public-State: _ Site: Public-Federal: Structure: Object: Number of Resources within Property Contributing: Noncontributing: 2 buildings sites structures objects Total Number of Contributing Resources Previously Listed in the National Register: None Name of Related Multiple Property Listing: N/A NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK NOMINATION NFS Form 10-900 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) OMB No. 1024-0018 EAMES HOUSE Page 2 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 4. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this __ nomination __ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property __ meets __ does not meet the National Register Criteria. Signature of Certifying Official Date State or Federal Agency and Bureau In my opinion, the property __ meets __ does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Prefabrication and the Post-War House
    142 WITHOUT A HITCH: NEW DIRECTIONS IN PREFABRICATED ARCHITECTURE haps the most important, because it is the principal and most intimately connected with Prefabrication and the environmental conditioning of human beings, is everything we mean when we say the word Postwar House: the “HOUSE.” It is here that we come closest to California manifesto the heart of man’s existence; it is here that he hopes for the satisfaction of his most human needs; it is here that he strikes the firmest roots into the ground; it is here that he achieves his strongest sense of reality not only in terms of things but also in terms of fellow human beings. It is first then to “the house of man” that we must bring the abundant gifts of this age of science in the service of mankind, Matthew W. Fisher realizing that in the word “HOUSE” we encom- Iowa State University pass the full range of those activities and aspi- rations that make one man know all men as himself.”1 In July 1944, a year prior to the cessation of World War II, the California-based journal Arts and Architecture published what was in es- sence a manifesto on the “post-war house” and the opportunities and necessity for prefabrica- tion. This was largely the work of John En- tenza, publisher and editor of Arts and Archi- tecture since the late-Thirties, and his editorial assistants, Charles and Ray Eames, with sig- nificant contributions from Eero Saarinen and Buckminster Fuller, among others. Entenza and his editors were fully aware at the time of the pent-up demand for new housing that awaited the end of the war.
    [Show full text]