VETERANS MEMORIAL BUILDING
Redwood City, California
______
HISTORIC RESOURCE
REPORT
______
Prepared by Diana J. Painter, PhD Painter Preservation & Planning Petaluma, California
Prepared for Redwood City Department of Parks and Recreation Redwood City, California
August 2010; rev. September 2010
August 31, 2010; September 22, 2010
Mr. Christopher Beth Redwood City Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department 1400 Roosevelt Avenue Redwood City, CA 94063
Re: Historic Resource Survey – Redwood City Veterans Memorial Building
Dear Mr. Beth:
This letter, along with the attached Historic Resource Report, provides historic and architectural documentation for the Veterans Memorial Building at 1455 Madison Avenue, which is the main building for Redwood City’s Veterans Memorial Senior Center and part of a complex of buildings at Red Morton Community Park that provide for Redwood City’s recreation and community services.
The Veterans Memorial Building is a Modern building with Ranch-style motifs and rustic details. It was designed by Palo Alto architect Birge M. Clark, based on a master plan developed by Clark and Stromquist, and constructed in 1955-56 for the City of Redwood City. First envisioned in 1943, it was developed by a committee made up of veterans and community members that continued to manage the building as the Veterans Memorial Commission until 1970. It was sited on the grounds of Community Park, a property purchased with a bond passed in 1944, but the building itself was paid for through a city tax. When opened, the building was fully paid for.
At this time, the city would like to replace or renovate the Veterans Memorial Building and replace the adjacent Senior Resource Center (constructed in 1982) and the ‘49ers building, swim center, and adjunct buildings across Nevada Street to construct a new senior center and pool. This report, along with attached Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms, provides the information necessary to evaluate the historic significance of the Veterans Building for environmental compliance purposes.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
Diana J. Painter, PhD Principal/Architectural Historian
Attachments: • Historic Resource Report – 1455 Madison Avenue
HISTORIC RESOURCE REPORT VETERANS MEMORIAL BUILDING Redwood City, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
1. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………..9 Purpose of Report Property Location and Setting Project Description Research Design and Methods Evaluator Qualifications
2. HISTORIC CONTEXT ……………………………………………………..11 History of the Building Living Memorials
3. ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT ……………………………………………..17 Architectural Description Architectural Style Profile of Birge M. Clark Architectural Context
4. REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………..30
FIGURES
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION (DPR) FORMS 523
HISTORIC RESOURCE REPORT VETERANS MEMORIAL BUILDING Redwood City, California
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional location map Figure 2: Site map Figure 3: Floor plan diagram Figure 4: Artist’s rendering of proposed building Figure 5: Photograph of new building Figure 6: Interior view on opening day Figure 7: Dedication day ceremonies Figure 8: Dedication day program Figure 9: Photograph of Birge Clark Figure 10: Cover of “Memorials that Live” brochure Figure 11: Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover house Figure 12: Medico-Dental Building Figure 13: Sunset Magazine Headquarters Figure 14: Western ranch house by Cliff May Figure 15: Veterans Memorial Building Figure 16: Senior Resource Center Figure 17: San Francisco ‘49ers Building Figure 18: Herkel Memorial Swim Center Figure 19: NFL Alumni Center
HISTORIC RESOURCE REPORT VETERANS MEMORIAL BUILDING Redwood City, California
SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
The Veterans Memorial Building at 1455 Madison Avenue is a Modern building with Ranch- style motifs and rustic details. It was designed by Palo Alto architect Birge M. Clark based on a master plan developed by Clark and Stromquist, and constructed in 1955-56 for the City of Redwood City. Its design and construction was funded by a tax levied on the citizens of Redwood City. It took twelve years to accumulate the funds to building the memorial building, and it was totally paid for when it opened.
There are four ‘tests’ for the historic significance of a property or site in the State of California. These Criteria for Evaluation are modeled after the National Criteria for Evaluation. They are used by the State of California and local agencies to determine whether, under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), impacts to a historic site as a result of a project proposal has the potential to create a substantial adverse change to the resource. Even if the local agency does not specifically adopt the criteria, the criteria still apply if the proposal is subject to the California Environmental Policy Act:
. . . a resource does not need to have been identified previously either through listing or survey to be considered significant under CEQA. In addition to assessing whether historical resources potentially impacted by a proposed project are listed or have been identified in a survey process, lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate them against the California Register criteria prior to making a finding as to the proposed project’s impacts to historical resource (PRC 21084.1, 14 CCR 15064.5(3)).
If a building or other potential resource in the State of California is deemed a historic resource for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), proposed alteration or demolition of the building can be considered a significant adverse effect. A substantial adverse change includes demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of a resource, such that the resource "materially impaired". The significance of a historic resource is "materially impaired" when a project demolishes or materially alters the physical characteristics that justify the determination of a historic resource's significance (CEQA guidelines section 15064.5 [b], 14 CCR 15064.5(b)(1)). Resources eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources are generally considered historic resources, and may include buildings, sites, structures, objects, or historic districts.
The following is an evaluation of the historic significance of this building, according to the four criteria utilized by the State of California and local agencies for this purpose. In order to be considered a historic resource for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a property must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building Summary and Determination of Historic Significance 6
United States; or
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, a property must also retain integrity in order to be considered a historic resource under CEQA. Integrity is defined as a function of a property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Typically a building or other resource must maintain most of the aspects of integrity to be considered a resource, typically those most relevant to the building’s significance. It must retain enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and convey the reasons for its significance.
Evaluation
Criterion 1: Association with events The Veterans Memorial Building is significant with respect to patterns of local history. It was constructed as a World War II memorial, consistent with the national movement at this time to design “living memorials” to commemorate those who served in World War II. In addition, it was a wholly home-grown effort to commemorate Redwood City’s veterans. It was conceived by, approved by, funded and developed by the people of Redwood City, in a sustained effort that took thirteen years to realize. It has continued to serve both veterans and the community in the way it was envisioned to this day.
Criterion 2: Association with people There are no known associations between people important to local history in Redwood City and this building, although a number of prominent citizens took part in its development over time.
Criterion 3: Architectural association The Veterans Memorial Building is significant for its association with Birge Clark, a prominent Palo Alto architect who is generally credited with creating the ‘look’ of downtown Palo Alto and many of its neighborhoods. While this building is not typical of his early work, he had a long career that ranged from his earlier Spanish Colonial Revival style work to his later corporate modern look. This building is not typical of either. It reflects the Ranch style influences seen in the Sunset Magazine Headquarters building, for which his firm - with Cliff May - designed the second phase. The Veterans Memorial Building reflects Clark’s emphasis on good planning and creating comfortable, functional indoor-outdoor spaces.
Criterion 4: Information value This criterion is typically associated with archaeological resources. The property is unlikely to yield additional information important to the history of the area.
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building Summary and Determination of Historic Significance 7
The building is historically significant for its association with Criteria 1 and 3. The following is a discussion of its architectural integrity.
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The building is in its original location.
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
The design of the building is intact, including its form, plan, spatial characteristics, structural design, and stylistic details.
Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
The setting of the building is intact. Community Park started developing as a multi-use community facility prior to the construction of the Veterans Memorial Building. It has continued to serve in this capacity to this day. Similarly, the neighborhoods surrounding the park started developing in suburban residential uses prior to the development of the Veterans Memorial Building and have continued to develop with similar development patterns to this day.
The setting of the building has been somewhat marred by the addition of the Senior Resource Center and particularly the addition to the Center, which obscures the side façade of the northeast wing of this building.
Since construction of the building, the landscaping – specifically the site’s many trees – has matured, altering the setting of the building. Landscaping was planned from the beginning however, and this does not detract from the building.
Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
The materials of the building are intact.
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
The workmanship of the building is intact.
Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
The aesthetic expression and historical sense of this building is intact,
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building Summary and Determination of Historic Significance 8
The association between the impetus for developing this building, its use over time, and its meaning to the community now is intact.
The building meets Criteria 1 and 3, and meets all the aspects of integrity. It is therefore considered a historic resource for purposes of CEQA.
Findings
The Veterans Memorial Building, as a result of the above analysis, is considered a historic resource for purposes of CEQA. It is a significant local resource for its association with patterns of local history and as the work of a master, the prominent Palo Alto architect Birge Clark. This building is not an example of the work for which Birge Clark is best known, which is his early work in the Spanish Colonial Style. Neither is it typical of his later, postwar work, which often consisted of large scale institutional, commercial, and industrial buildings in the Modern style. It appears to be a unique building in his oeuvre. It nonetheless displays Clark’s characteristic concern with good planning and the development of indoor-outdoor spaces, which is typical of his work regardless of building style.
HISTORIC RESOURCE REPORT VETERANS MEMORIAL BUILDING Redwood City, California
1. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of Report
The purpose of this Historic Resource Report for 1455 Madison Avenue, the Veterans Memorial Building in Redwood City, San Mateo County, is to establish this building’s historic and architectural significance and, as relevant, its integrity. The City of Redwood City, which owns the building, would like to replace or renovate it and replace other nearby buildings with a new senior center and pool. As the Veterans Memorial Building structure is over 50 years of age, it is being evaluated here for its potential as a historic resource with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This report is to be used in conjunction with environmental review for this building.
Note that the name of the complex today is the Veterans Memorial Senior Center. This is made up of the Veterans Memorial Building and the Senior Resource Center. The Veterans Memorial Building is the only structure evaluated here; the Senior Resource Center was constructed in 1982 and is not a historic resource for purposes of CEQA. The other buildings on the original ten-acre site of the Veterans Memorial Building include the old San Francisco ‘49ers Building (the Morabito Memorial Field House) (1956; 1965; 1968); the Herkner Memorial Swim Center (1951; 1980); and the NFL Alumni Center (1962). None of these structures retain sufficient age and/or integrity at this time to be considered historic resources for purposes of CEQA.
B. Property Description and Setting
The Veterans Memorial Senior Center is part of a complex of public buildings within Red Morton Community Park in Redwood City. The Veterans Memorial Senior Center is made up of the Veterans Memorial Building and the Senior Resource Center. These two buildings are within a block bounded by Madison Avenue on the northwest; Nevada Street on the northeast; Vera Avenue on the southeast; and St. Francis Avenue on the southwest. The Center is oriented toward the northwest and Madison Avenue. The surrounding area is primarily residential. Jefferson Avenue is a major arterial that runs from southwest-northeast on the northwest side of the complex.
C. Project Description
The City would like to replace or renovate the Veterans Memorial Building and replace the adjacent Senior Resource Center (constructed in 1982) and the ‘49ers building, swim center, and adjunct buildings across Nevada Street to construct a new recreation and community center. This project is in the early planning stages.
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 1 – Introduction 10 ______
D. Research Methodology
Preparation of this report involved consultation with the staff of the Redwood City Planning and Parks and Recreation departments; the University of California at Berkeley Environmental Design Archives; the Stanford University Special Collections and University Archives; and the Redwood City Public Library. Special thanks to Molly Spore-Alhadef at the Redwood City Archives for her assistance on this project.
Original research and on-site survey work included the following: • Two site visits were conducted in May and August 2010, and photographs taken to document the property as it exists today. • Primary source material on the building(s) was obtained from the architectural drawings for the building. Primary source material on the development of the building(s) was obtained from newspaper clipping files, mostly from the Redwood City Tribune . Information on the architect Birge Clark and his work was obtained from the AIA Historical Directory of American Architects, previous surveys, newspaper articles, drawing archives, and secondary sources. Information on living memorials was informed by Berkeley professor Andrew Shanken’s 2002 article entitled “Planning Memory: Living Memorials in the Unites States during World War II.”
The site has not been previously surveyed.
E. Evaluator Qualifications
Diana J. Painter of Painter Preservation & Planning undertook the evaluation of historic and architectural resources for this report. Ms. Painter is a qualified architectural historian as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61. She holds a PhD in Architecture and a Masters Degree in Urban Planning, and has 25 years of professional experience in historic preservation and urban design. She is listed as an architectural historian on the roster of consultants on file with the State of California Office of Historic Preservation’s Eastern Information Center.
HISTORIC RESOURCE REPORT VETERANS MEMORIAL BUILDING Redwood City, California
2. HISTORIC CONTEXT
A. History of the Building
1, The Veterans Memorial Building The Veterans Memorial Building is a unique building, in that the citizens of Redwood City taxed themselves for twelve years before sufficient funds had accumulated to build the building, so when it was built it was already paid for. It was sited on a property that had been purchased for Community Park as part of a 1944 bond. Ten acres of this site was identified as a good location for the building as early as 1944; the location never changed. The building was planned, designed, constructed, and managed beginning in 1954 as originally envisioned, by many of the people who were part of the project from the beginning stages in 1943. Finally, with the exception of the addition of the Senior Resource Center, the building has continued to serve the purposes and functions set out for it in 1943, and has much the same appearance as well. An article published shortly before the building dedication declared:
Many will feel the pride of accomplishment as they consider the soundness of its beauteous redwood beams and brick facades that have been put together to form the foundation of even greater additions to come. Dedication of Redwood City’s Veterans’ Memorial Building will mark the victorious attainment of a primary waypoint in an undeviating march toward a decided objective. For all, it will be fitting evidence of what a community can achieve when its citizens agree to share a common goal and work in willing co-operation to reach it.1
The War Memorial Citizens Committee recommended the Community Park site (Red Morton Community Park today), but no further planning took place, as funds were not available. Community Park came about as the result of a $998,000 bond passed in 1944 in Redwood City to fund post-war improvements, including infrastructure, a branch library, and improved recreation facilities.2 The city used the bond funds to purchase the 30-acre property. The area bounded by Madison and Vera Avenues and Myrtle and St. Francis Streets was the original ten-acre site identified for the Veterans Memorial Building.
In 1944-45 the city began levying a 7.5% tax, lowered to 4 cents in 1947-48, to save for the building. 3 The “Redwood City War Memorial Fund” grew at a rate of about $20,000 a year in
1 “’Pipe Dream; Comes True As Memorial Building Opens Here,” Redwood City Tribune, May 25, 1956. 2 “Archives Committee . . .,” 2007:229. 3 In 1946 San Mateo County put an initiative on the ballot to fund over one million dollars of veterans’ facilities, including $750,000 for six war memorials that would be used as community centers. $125,000 was earmarked for the Redwood City building. Passage of the bond proposal would have allowed the relevant communities to apply for state matching funds. The bond did not pass (Vet Groups to Back County Bond Proposals, San Mateo Times, October 15, 1946).
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 2 – Historic Context 12 ______early years.4 In 1954 the Committee, which had accumulated over $210,000 in funds, hired Palo Alto architects Birge Clark and Walter Stromquist to prepare a phased master plan for the ten- acre site. The center was envisioned as a place that could be used by the entire community. Accordingly, the building was to include a “social hall, kitchen, meeting rooms, committee rooms, and a little theater.” A larger civic auditorium was to be a part of long term plans for the center, and taxation continued beyond the construction of the Veterans Memorial Building for this purpose (this project, however, did not go forward).
Planning for and collecting taxes to fund the building project took twelve years.5 By 1953-54 the Committee, anticipating a fund of $245,386, hired Birge Clark as the architect with Coddington Company consulting engineers to design the first phase (the current building) of the Veterans Memorial Building complex. As planning developed, the facility was envisioned as having an “assembly room with 300 seating capacity, a 40 by 70 foot social room, two 30 by 40 foot meeting rooms, a committee meeting room, kitchen and facilities, three offices, and the necessary storage and locker rooms.”6 The vision was described as a “rambling, country style” structure.7 As originally planned, it was going to be wood frame construction with a stucco exterior and redwood shake roof, but these plans were modified over time.8 Contractor James A. Hutzler, who was the lower bidder on the project at $210,485, was selected to build the structure. Ground- breaking took place in August 1955.
The building was dedicated on May 25, 1956, and opened on May 27th. An article published a year after its opening stated, “It had long been a dream of local residents to erect a War Memorial Building for the use of local clubs and for community affairs.”9 On completion it was declared “one of the nicest pieces of architecture in this community” and “a graceful structure.” 10
One thousand people attended the dedication ceremony on May 25, 1956. Major General Walter J. Muller, a World War II veteran and post-war military government director in Bavaria was the principal speaker. His speech emphasized the danger of Communism to world peace and the hard work that went into building the memorial: “It is, therefore, fitting that this building be a culture center, dedicated as a living memorial to the veterans of your community – a memorial made possible by your toil and their blood.” 11
The original Committee (minus three members who had changed residency) was revived in July 1954 after being on hiatus for about ten years. The members of the War Memorial Citizens Committee who are named on the building plaque are: Ferris Miles, chair; T. N. Thompson, secretary; Otis M. Carrington; Frank L. Hannig; James D. Hedge; Arthur N. Inman; and Clifton H. Woodhams Sr. The city council members named are: Sidney D. Herkner, mayor;12 Carl A.
4 “Vet Bldg. Serves as Community Center,” Redwood City Tribune, November 8, 1957. 5 “Vet Bldg. Serves as Community Center,” Redwood City Tribune, November 8, 1957. 6 “ First Phase Of Memorial Approved,” June 28, 1955. 7 “Veterans Memorial Plans Set,” Redwood City Tribune, June 25, 1955. 8 “RC Memorial Plans Win Councils OK,” Redwood City Tribune, March 15, 1955. 9 “Vet Bldgs. Serves as Community Center,” Redwood City Tribune, November 8, 1957. 10 “Memorial Building Is Good Planning,” Redwood City Tribune, May 26, 1956. 11 “1,000 See Memorial Building Dedication,” Redwood City Tribune, May 28, 1956. 12 The Herkner Memorial Pool was later named for him. He served as mayor from 1966 to 1968.
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 2 – Historic Context 13 ______
Britschgi; 13 Floyd L. Granger;14 Paul Jones; William M. Royer; 15 Robert Spillers; and Hiram S. Stout. Red Morton was instrumental in much of the facilities planning at Community Park.16
Most of the Committee continued to serve as the new Veterans Memorial Commission, chaired by Ferris Miles. Their mission was to establish priorities for rentals (veterans groups had priority), set rental rates, and develop rules and regulations for the use of the building. They also managed the facility’s budget, although the building continued to be owned by the City of Redwood City.17
There was some disagreement about the make-up of the Commission. Veterans groups felt that it should be manned only by veterans, whereas at least some of the community felt that the building belonged to everyone, as all the citizens had been taxed in order to build it. There was also a feeling that the people who served on the earlier committee – not all of them veterans - should continue to serve as the Commission, in part to recognize their service.
Plans, which never went forward, were drawn up by Clark and Stromquist in 1962 to add another three rooms and 4,400 square feet to the building. The Veterans’ Memorial Commission was disbanded in 1970 after many of its functions were removed, and management of the building was taken over by the Redwood City Parks and Recreation Commission.
2. The Senior Resources Center As time went on, demand grew for improved services for the senior citizens of Redwood City. A Senior Citizen Advisory Committee was assembled in 1978. One of their goals was to identify funding for future facilities. In 1978-79 it was proposed to switch $210,000 allocated for Community Development Block Grant-funded street improvement project to remodel the Veterans’ Memorial Building for use as a Senior Center.18 They needed about twice that much as this, however, for the remodel as it was envisioned.
When the plans were presented to the public in March of 1980, it was decided to build a new building or addition, rather than remodeling the Veterans Memorial Building. Veterans groups and some senior groups did not support the renovation, particularly the plan to divide the larger rooms into smaller spaces.19 It was also decided that remodeling the Veterans building would “displace or restrict” the activities of some of the groups using the building.20
By May 1980 a 16,000 square foot addition, costing between $427,000 and $477,000, was planned.21 This proposal also did not to go forward.
13 Britschgi served as mayor from 1950 to 1952. 14 This project was described as a favorite of his (“Veterans Memorial Plans Set,” Redwood City Tribune, June 25, 1955). He served as chair of the council veterans committee and as mayor from 1942 to 1944 and 1952 to 1954, key points in time for the development of the Veterans Memorial Building. 15 Royer served as mayor from 1956 to 1960. 16 He also founded the “Fun-After-Fifty” group, a community group that used the Veterans Memorial Building from the beginning. 17 Redwood City War Memorial Heads Chosen, San Mateo Times, May 1, 1956. 18 “Funds go to seniors, not streets,” Redwood City Tribune, Jun 29, 1979. 19 “Protest forces plan to be redesigned,” Redwood City Tribune, March 24, 1980. 20 “Seniors center gets approved.” Redwood City Tribune, June 19, 1980. 21 “’Practical solution’ on new quarters for senior citizens,” Redwood City Tribune, May 9, 1980.
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 2 – Historic Context 14 ______
Finally, ground was broken in February of 1982 for the new senior center adjacent to, but separate from, the Veterans Memorial Building. This separate building is 1,860 square foot in size. The cost of the building was $477,000, which included some remodeling of the Veterans building. The source of the funding was $210,000 in Community Block Grant Funds, $100,000 from HUD, and the balance from the city’s general fund. It was designed by architect Kingsford Jones and Associates of Menlo Park and constructed by Botieff Construction Co. It was dedicated on October 27, 1982.
Remodeling that took place in the Veterans Memorial Building at the same time included new suspended lighting. The walls were painted white, new tile flooring was installed, and new carpeting added to the lobby. Bathrooms were made handicapped-accessible and a drop-in center created, and new stoves and ovens were added to the kitchen. The Veterans Memorial Building was re-dedicated on December 2, 1982 and re-named the Veterans Memorial Senior Center, in recognition of the combined functions of the two-building complex.
3. Other buildings on the site The other buildings within the original ten-acre site include the following. The first phase of the San Francisco ‘49ers Building was constructed in 1956. Additions were constructed in 1965 and 1968. The team left the facility in the late 1980s.22 It is now used by the city Parks and Recreation program. The Herkner Memorial Pool was constructed in 1951 and expanded in 1980.23 The NFL Alumni Building was constructed in 1962 and dedicated in 1999. The Senior Resource Center was constructed in 1982 and later expanded.
Within the larger Red Morton Community Park are the Red Morton Community Center (1948); the Armory (n.d.); and the Community Activities Building (1967).
B. Living Memorials
The Veterans Memorial Building in Redwood City is what is known as a “living memorial.” After World War I and particularly after World War II, there was extensive debate about whether to remember the war and those who served in it with living or traditional memorials. Traditional memorials include such things as statuary, plaques and other commemoratory structures. Living memorials include auditoriums and civic centers, recreation centers, libraries, parks, highways and even plans. There was a feeling during and after World War II that it better served postwar society to build something that would be used to further democracy and contribute to communities rather than create static objects. Critics of traditional memorials felt that spending money for statuary and the like was wasteful and indulgent. Those who opposed the living memorials felt that a memorial should be dedicated solely to remembering those who served; their purpose should not be diluted by also providing for other uses.
The debates took place in art and architecture magazines, the popular press, and trade and scholarly journals.24 The concept was also promoted through other publications. A pamphlet published in 1945 by American City described the range of living memorials. The recreation arm
22 Archives Committee . . . 2007:242. 23 Archives Committee . . . 2007:234. 24 Shanken, 2002:130.
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 2 – Historic Context 15 ______of the Federal Security Agency, a New Deal agency, sponsored the American Commission for Living War Memorials (ACLWM), which published a widely used pamphlet called “Memorials That Live.”25 John Dinwiddie, a Bay Area architect, wrote a pamphlet for Revere Copper and Brass, which sponsored much postwar development, called “A Monument the Living Can Use.”26
Several reasons have been offered for why living memorials had so much support. One is that Americans had begun looking forward to the day when they might move on with their lives, including building postwar communities, almost since the U.S. entered World War II. San Mateo County led the Bay Area in postwar planning by requesting the assistance of the National Resources Planning Board to prepare a report entitled “A Planned Program for Public Works” as early as 1942.27
Living memorials also supported and reinforced urban planning efforts. Postwar planning placed an emphasis on creating homes and neighborhoods and providing for jobs and economic growth. Creating a memorial civic center or auditorium supported these goals. In Redwood City, planning began for the Veterans Memorial Building in 1943. Living memorials represented a way to fold the memorial process into forward-looking actions that supported “the American way of life.”
Several aesthetic reasons have been given for why traditional memorials fell out of favor. One is that they posed a challenge in terms of representation. The traditional means of memorializing wars, in terms of classical or monumental architectural expressions, did not reflect the times. It was felt that traditional memorials were monumental and authoritarian. Modern architecture and art, both of which were much more abstract than traditional forms, posed challenges in conveying traditional meanings. And, in contrast to past wars, the horrors of the holocaust and dropping the atomic bomb were in many ways beyond representation.
The architectural press made their support of living memorials clear. Pencil Points , the forerunner of Progressive Architecture , advocated for living memorials because they were the best way of remembering the common man and the common good: “Let there be memorial parks and playgrounds and schools and community buildings . . . Let whatever we do have a truly social purpose and a practical society result.”28
Living memorials also supported other abstract ideals. A living memorial was promoted as something that could foster physical and intellectual fitness (as in the case of a recreation center or library), which was framed as patriotic. Many believed that “the living memorial would carry the communal spirit of the home front into peacetime.”29 Facilities like veterans centers - auditoriums, civic centers and the like – were also places where veterans could meet and where veterans and homefront community members could interact.
Arguments for living memorials included the concept that the best form for a memorial should come from and serve the people in a community, that building a living memorial was a form of
25 Shanken, 2002:133. 26 Shanken, 2002:146, note 37. 27 Scott,1985: 259. 28 Quoted in Shanken, 2002:134. 29 Shanken, 2002:132.
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 2 – Historic Context 16 ______participatory democracy. It was felt that living memorials had the potential to create positive associations, celebrate democracy and community, and support “the pursuit of better living.” In essence, living memorials were for the living, rather than the dead. In the words of one artist, “Why should there be War Memorials when most people wish to forget the tragedies of war and turn to the more hopeful occupation of peace and prosperity.”30
Most communities favored living memorials, to which they often ‘appended’ more traditional memorials, like having a wall or hall in a new building where memorials were located. Alternatively a community might add a commemoration of World War II veterans to existing war memorial sites. These solutions attempted to satisfy all. As an example, the Redwood City Veterans Memorial Building has commemorative materials in the building, but there is also a commemoration at City Hall.
No evidence was found that this debate about whether to build a living or traditional memorial even took place in Redwood City or even in San Mateo County.31 The consortium of veterans groups in San Mateo County, led by T. Louis Chess, stated the following when that group proposed a $1.4 million bond for veterans’ facilities, including six veterans memorial buildings, in San Mateo County in 1946: “These community centers are primarily to advance the cultural, educational and recreational needs of the community. They are not for the veterans alone; they are for community betterment, making available all facilities for advancement of cultural, educational and recreational needs of the communities.” 32
Redwood City appeared to decide very early that a center with a theater and meeting rooms was an appropriate memorial to the city’s veterans. All veterans groups were accommodated except the American Legion, which had decided to construct their own building before the city was ready to build the Veterans Memorial Building. From the beginning the building was envisioned as a place for both veterans and the community, which was how it was managed from the time it opened. Catering to both veterans and the community was ensured by forming a War Memorial Citizens Committee made up of both veterans and community members. This organization continued in the subsequent Veterans Memorial Commission, even though there was fierce debate around the topic. The uses for the building and the way they were accommodated appeared to have broad support, however, from the beginning.
30 Quoted in Shanken, 2002:14. 31 It has been suggested by historian Andrew Shanken that California may have been ahead of other parts of the country in this debate, assuming that community centers were appropriate as war memorials and that the community should have access to veterans memorial buildings (personal communication, Andrew Shanken, August 30, 2010). 32 “Vet Groups to Back County Bond Proposals,” San Mateo Times, October 15, 1946:2 . The bond did not pass
HISTORIC RESOURCE REPORT VETERANS MEMORIAL BUILDING Redwood City, California
3. ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT
A. Architectural description
The Veterans Memorial Senior Center consists of two buildings, the Veterans Memorial Building and the Senior Resource Center. The Veterans Memorial Building, which was constructed in 1956, is the subject of this evaluation. The Senior Resource Center, which was constructed in 1982, is not evaluated here.
Summary. The Veterans Memorial Building is a Modern building with Ranch-style motifs and rustic details. It was designed by Palo Alto architect Birge M. Clark based on a master plan developed by Clark and Stromquist, and constructed in 1955-56 for the City of Redwood City.
Location, setting and orientation. The Veterans Memorial Senior Center is part of a complex of public buildings within Red Morton Community Park in Redwood City. The complex is roughly bounded by Madison Avenue on the northwest side; Myrtle and King Streets on the northeast side; Roosevelt Avenue on the southeast side; and Valota Road on the southwest side (there are also private residences within this area). Among the facilities within the complex are the Community Activities Building (1400 Roosevelt Ave.) and Red Morton Community Center (1120 Roosevelt Ave.) on the southeast side.
On the northwest side are Herkner Memorial Pool (1315 Madison Ave.) ; the NFL Alumni Center (1311 Madison Avenue) ; the “49ers Building,” and the Veterans Memorial Senior Center (1455 Madison Ave.), consisting of the Veterans Memorial Building and the Senior Resource Center. These latter two buildings are within a smaller block in the complex, bounded by Madison Avenue on the northwest; Nevada Street on the northeast; Vera Avenue on the southeast; and St. Francis Avenue on the southwest (note that the latter three streets are also parking streets for the Center). Additionally the area contains softball fields, soccer fields, tennis courts, open and landscaped areas, and parking lots.
The surrounding area is primarily residential, although the John Gill Elementary School is located northwest of the Red Morton Community Park. Jefferson Avenue is a major arterial that runs southwest-northeast on the northwest side of the complex.
The Veterans Memorial Building is largely centered within its lot, but set back from Madison Avenue. It is surrounded by lawn, mature trees, and beyond that, parking areas. The former ‘49ers Building is northeast of the building. The building is oriented northwest, toward Madison Avenue.
The Senior Resource Center, a gabled building with a rectangular footprint, is so close to the Veterans Memorial Building that it is difficult to talk about one without talking about the other.
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 3 – Architectural Context 18 ______
The building is located within the “L” formed by the northwest and northeast wings of the building. It is located on the immediate left as one proceeds down the main walkway toward the Veterans Memorial Building. The view of this building as one approaches the Veterans Memorial Building is of the side façade and the patio that is adjacent to the entry to the Veterans Memorial Building.
Materials and construction. The Veterans Memorial Building is a brick masonry building with a concrete foundation and a wood shake roof. The theater wing is finished in stucco. The building has wood-frame windows, most located within full-height window walls. These openings are variously finished in fixed, single-light windows, jalousie windows, plywood panels, or louvered wood vents. Most of the doors are wood. Additional materials include open wood framing at the covered walkways and tile cladding on the sills at the base of the building. The building has aluminum gutters that are integral with the wood fascia and aluminum downspouts.
Massing and details. The Veterans Memorial Building is a one-story, cross-shaped building with shallow-pitched gable roofs that face out on all four wings of the building (northwest, northeast, southeast, and southwest), with deep eaves. Three of the wings are similar in width, although each varies in length; these three wings also display the same design motifs and proportions. Each is characterized by open, exterior walkways that are covered by an extension of the roof. The wing that faces southeast, which houses the theater, is narrower. The northeast wing contains the main entry, which is accessed from a covered walkway and sidewalk that extends to Madison Avenue. The other wings, with the exception of the theater wing, are entered from parking areas.
For each of the four wings on the building, the gable end will be described first, followed by a description of the side gable walls, beginning with the left side gable as viewed from the gable end, followed by the right side gable.
Northwest wing . The main façade of the Veterans Memorial Building is parallel to Madison Avenue. The most visible portion of the building is the gable end of the northwest wing (which contains the Goldstar Room). It is typical of the gable ends on the building, in that it displays the same proportions, design features, materials and finishes that are seen throughout the building. To each side of the gable end are covered walkways leading to entries. Visible beyond the walkways are the side gables of opposing wings.
The window wall on this wing is centrally placed under the gable. It extends from the tile-clad sill of the building, at the concrete walkway, to a deep frieze board under the eaves. Six mullions rise the full height of this facade, dividing the wall into five tall, narrow bays. The horizontal muntins for the window bays are staggered, creating a regular pattern of openings that are just slightly wider than they are tall (51 ½” high by 54” or 56” wide). Historical photographs and drawings show that these window bays are intact as designed and constructed, but for a horizontal muntin in the center of this window wall.
Mullions and muntins are relatively narrow and deep. Two triangular openings under the eaves feature louvered vents. The upper panels are infilled with plywood (part of the original features of the building). The lower openings feature paired jalousie windows or single fixed lights. Flanking the window wall are solid panels of oversized brick (3 ½” by 11 ½”) in a running bond
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 3 – Architectural Context 19 ______pattern, with a combed finish. The open eaves are deep. They are faced with a plain raked fascia with an integral gutter.
The main entry to the building is to the left of this projecting gable end. It is at the end of a wide walkway that parallels the projecting gable end, on the side façade of the opposing wing. The walkway is covered by an extension of the main roof, which is supported by posts that consist of two 3”x12” boards that are separated by 4x4s (4” by 4”) at the top and bottom, which are in turn bolted to the upper beam and pier block base. This allows the vertical supports to visually float above the pier blocks. These supports are typical throughout, and lend a rustic appearance to the building. The downspouts are located within the space created by the 4x4s. There are four posts supporting the extended roof in this location.
The ceiling of this and all covered walkways on the building features exposed rafters. The eaves extend far beyond the vertical supports, and terminate with a plain raked fascia and integral gutter. Suspended globe lights create a regular rhythm down the walkway. The main entry is at the end. It features a door and window ensemble of three vertical bays, a wide bay that contains the entry door flanked by two narrower bays to each side that rise the full height of the wall in this location. The door is wood with two large lights. A two-light sidelight is located to its left. It is surmounted by a paired, two-light transom window with a vertical orientation. The narrow, full height window bays to each side have two tall lights, topped by one square light. The sills at the building base are clad in square, terra cotta-colored ceramic tiles. The remainder of the walls are finished in the over-size brick typical of the building.
To the right of this entry is the side façade of the northwest gable end. This features a window wall that is perpendicular to the main entry. It consists of five bays, three window bays, a door, and another window bay. Windows are typically fixed and slightly wider than they are tall. They are also staggered, the lower muntin of one window located at the halfway point of the adjacent window. Above the doors, which are narrow (28 ½”), solid, double doors, are paired, vertically- oriented jalousie windows. These patterns and materials are typical of those found throughout the building. To the right of the window wall and secondary entry is a solid brick wall.
Two additional secondary entries are located on the right façade of the northwest gable end, one adjacent to the southwest wing and one closer to Madison Avenue. The roofline here extends over a wide, concrete walkway, as it does on the left side. There are five wide window bays on the larger entry, one with narrow double doors with paired jalousie windows above. A second vertical bay has paired jalousie windows as well. Otherwise, windows on this entry are of the same proportions and staggered like the windows on other window walls. A number of the ‘square’ windows have horizontal boards on the interior at the halfway point, which is also typical of the other window walls on the building. Where they occur at the lower level, they protect the windows. Where they occur higher on the window wall, they allow curtains to be hung on the interior. Adjacent to the southwest wing is another secondary entry of the same design as the first one. There are four vertical supports along this exterior walkway, including the corner support, which is turned at a forty-five degree angle.
Southwest wing. The gable end on the southwest wing repeats most of the same patterns seen on the northwest wing, except that the window wall is slightly offset to the south. There are five vertical window bays under the gable end. The upper windows are infilled with plywood panels, as they are on the northwest wing. Every other bay in the center has paired, vertically-oriented,
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 3 – Architectural Context 20 ______jalousie windows. The lower windows are fixed glass with a horizontal board at the center on the interior. To either side of the window wall is a solid brick wall. There are several mechanical enclosures at the base of this façade.
To the left is a narrower walkway leading to the secondary entry on the northwest wing described above. The extended roof has four supports here, including the corner support. This wall consists of five vertical bays, the second bay from the right having a narrow double door of solid, wood with a transom. Other details are similar to those found throughout the building.
The side gable on the right side of this projecting gable end is solid brick. Visible at the end of the walkway here, under an extension of the roof, is one of the three primary entries to the building. It is all glass, with a broad, two-light door with a sidelight to the left. It consists of five bays, three broad bays (one with the door) and two narrow bays. The four bays with windows that rise the full height of the wall have three lights each.
Southeast wing. This wing, which contains the theater and is finished in stucco, is longer and narrower than the other wings and has few openings. The gable end has a broad double door on the left side. One side is inoperable and the other has two narrow (28 1/2”) leafs. Above each door are square, paired, transom windows with both fixed and jalousie lights. There are no other openings on this façade.
The left side façade of this wing has a stepped façade, reflecting the walls on the interior of the theater. A broad, double door is located toward the gable end, surmounted by a horizontally- oriented, transom window.
The right side façade of this wing has a single pedestrian door within a recessed area about the center. There are two mechanical areas along this façade enclosed with cyclone fences with slats. The third primary entry on the building is located at the far end of this façade, under an extension of the gable roof of the northeast wing. It is directly across from the primary entry described above, and is a mirror image of it.
Northeast wing. At the east corner of the northeast façade is a freestanding gazebo that appears to be new. The gable end of the northeast wing has three window bays offset to the right. They consist of fixed and jalousie lights. The rest of the gable end wall is brick.
The side gable wall on the left side is largely transparent, but for brick walls at either end and near the center, which is the fireplace wall. The broad, brick chimney is located at about the center of the roof here. The window walls consist of fixed and paired, jalousie windows, as seen elsewhere on the building. Where the individual bays consist of fixed glass, there are three lights. There are four sets of double doors on this façade, each with three square lights (These are the original doors; they have been replaced at the three primary entries).
The side gable wall on the right side is partially obscured from public view by the Senior Resource Center. This wall is finished in brick on the left side, and contains a long window wall with fixed and paired jalousie windows. On the right side is the main entry, described earlier.
Changes over time. Only minor changes have occurred to the building. One horizontal muntin has been added to the northwest gable end. ADA-accessible doors have been added to the three
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 3 – Architectural Context 21 ______primary entries, but have been done in a sensitive way. Mechanical installations, most within cyclone fences, are located near the gable ends throughout the building. Interior finishes have been altered, but this does not effect the historic status of the building.
Interior spaces and finishes. The interior plan of the building and most of the finishes are intact. The building displays an open floor plan in the public spaces. The interior public spaces are all visible from each other and the entries, which increases the building’s safety and the ability of those in charge to monitor what is occurring in the building. The wings of the building contain meeting rooms and a theater, all accessible from the main interior spaces and the exterior. The interior of the building is configured such that each room has its own lobby area, which supports pedestrian flow during events. All of the meeting rooms also have one or more protected outdoor spaces that are accessible from the room, a hallmark of buildings at the time.
Each interior multi-use space has its own character. The 300-seat theater, in the southeast wing, is finished in plywood, a popular finish material at the time. The walls are designed to improve acoustics. It has raked seating and a raised stage, and a full range of spaces and features to support theatrical productions.
The largest meeting room in the northeast wing, has an open ceiling with exposed trusses. A commercial-grade kitchen is located to the rear of the room. It is a separate room, but has a pass- through counter. It also features a broad fireplace wall, a popular feature at the time, finished in brick and ceramic tile with a bold, geometric pattern. Most of the exterior wall of this room is transparent and looks out toward a gazebo and landscaped area. Lastly, a movable stage is located in this room for events.
The two smaller meeting rooms are identical in size and located in the northwest and southwest wings. They have dropped ceilings and are functional in character. Adjunct rooms are located within the interior of these rooms. Storage rooms and other spaces that serve the building as a whole are located between the public spaces and these rooms, but accessed from the main public spaces.
Changes over time. Building interiors are generally not considered part of the historic fabric of a building, except under certain circumstances. Nonetheless, changes in the interiors are discussed here as part of the documentation.
The building retains its original configuration and uses. It maintains its original central open floor plan. The wings are used for meeting rooms and a theater, as they were originally. Accessible doors and bathrooms (that is, doors and bathroom which meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards) were added in the 1982 remodel. Some interior finishes were altered in 1982 as well. The floors were refinished. Photographs from the building opening show that the original linoleum had a bold, geometric pattern that complemented the building design (the existing tile on the fireplace wall has similar geometric motifs). At this time, the walls were painted white (original interior colors are unknown) and brown carpeting was added in the lobby.
Landscaping and site features. Site features include mechanical enclosures, a gazebo, an outdoor barbeque, and signage. Early photographs from the building’s opening show that there was no landscaping on the grounds at that time, but for street trees set in the lawn near Nevada Street. Today the grounds display many mature trees, both specimen trees and natives such as
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 3 – Architectural Context 22 ______
Redwoods. Many have been planted for special occasions and in honor of particular people, and have plaques naming the person, date and occasion. The trees will be the subject of a separate survey and arborist’s report.
There are also mature shrubs on the grounds, but most of the trees are set within open lawn. There are covered concrete walkways around the perimeter of the building, and concrete sidewalks that lead to parking areas and crosswalks on three sides of the building. Diagonal parking is located adjacent to the sidewalks on St. Francis and Nevada Streets and Vera Avenue. There is parallel parking on Madison Avenue. The site is planned to be especially convenient for seniors and the handicapped, with handicap parking around the perimeter leading to the ADA- accessible entrances.
Building condition. The building, while generally in good condition, appears to be suffering from some deferred maintenance. This is seen primarily in surfaces that need to be painted and gutters that need to be repaired.
B. Architectural Style
The Veterans Memorial Building is a good example of a Modern building, incorporating many of the hallmarks of modern planning and design, as well as Ranch style details. It includes features for which Birge Clark’s work was known over time, primarily the functional layout of the building and its strong relationship to the outdoors.33 Its stylistic features appear to be unique in his oeuvre however. Within Clark’s work, it is most closely related to the Sunset Magazine Headquarters in Menlo Park, for which Clark & Stromquist designed the second phase in 1966 with Cliff May.
The features of the building that characterize it as a Modern structure include the following.
• Emphasis on plan and form. The building form is functional and expresses its internal uses. Each wing features a different meeting room and adjunct spaces, and has a slightly different footprint as a result. The entire building form is unified, however, by the large, shallow-sloped gable roof, another popular feature of post-war development, particularly residential development. The building echoes the residential character of the neighborhood but, because of its large-scale uses, the building’s features are over-scaled but proportionate to each other. The residential character of the building is also displayed with a residential-style chimney wall, typical of the times.
• Relationship to the outdoors. A relationship to the outdoors was important in post-war development, particularly in California. This was achieved by siting buildings at grade, where the flow from indoors to outdoors was easily achieved; the use of window walls, which framed views to the outdoors; and functional exterior spaces. The latter was achieved in the Veterans Memorial Building through covered, widened walkways accessible both physically and visually from each main room of the building. Door-and- window walls are in alignment with each other, which increases the transparency of the building and its relationship to the outdoors as well.
33 “Fontana Steel Mill, Fontana,Calif.” Architectural Forum, May 1944:66.
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 3 – Architectural Context 23 ______
• Use of natural systems. Buildings in the early modern era were not built to be dependent on artificial heating and cooling, as characterized later buildings. This was likely due to the fact that air conditioners were not as heavily used at that time; early modern design still reflected some of the cost concerns that began in the Depression; and land was less expensive (the suburbs were often developed on raw, and therefore cheaper, land) and thus buildings could be more optimally sited. They were also less dependent on artificial lighting than earlier buildings, a development that was related to advancements in the glass manufacturing.34
Ways in which the Veterans Memorial Building used natural systems include the deep overhangs that shield the window walls from the sun, and the use of operable jalousie windows in the window walls. The fact that the individual meeting rooms have operable windows on each side also increases interior air flow. Window walls lessen dependence on artificial lighting. Finally, louvered vents may also help ventilate the building interiors.
• Use of natural materials. Modern buildings are characterized by a lack of decorative detail. In its place, natural materials and finishes were often used to ‘embellish’ a building. This is definitely the case in the Veterans Memorial Building, which makes use of combed brick, tile, and wood shakes for pattern and texture, in contrast to the smooth finishes of the wood-frame window wall and plywood panels. When finished in a stain rather than painted (as seen in the original architectural drawings for this building), the texture of the plywood was also a common decorative device in a building.35
• Use of pattern and composition. Modern buildings also often incorporate a carefully proportioned composition as a decorative feature of a building. This is also the case with the Veterans Memorial Building. The window walls on each gable face feature a composition of fixed and jalousie windows, alternating with solid plywood panels. While this appears to be a simple device, the windows are actually carefully proportioned, with a slight horizontal emphasis that offsets the overall vertical emphasis of the window walls. Lights are separated by narrow, projecting muntins. These features are designed in proportion to the oversized brick, rustic wood supports, and other wood detailing on the building.
The emphasis on bold geometry as a decorative feature is echoed in this building in the tile face of the fireplace and the original linoleum, which was designed to compliment the architectural design of the building.
• Expression of structure. Expression of structure was another common device in modern buildings. In the case of this structure, the wood framing details at the covered walkways, which are extensions of the roofs, visually exaggerate the way the elements are joined together and the way that the wood framing adjoins the building face and other features.
34 Jester, 1995:185. 35 Jester, 1995:132.
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 3 – Architectural Context 24 ______
• Rustic details. The rustic detailing of the Veterans Memorial Building was also a popular aspect of traditional Ranch houses, as exemplified in the work of developer and designer Cliff May (and in contrast to the contemporary ranch houses of developer Joseph Eichler). This is seen in the Veterans Memorial Building in the use of wood shakes for the roof and in the wood framing and detailing at the walkways.
C. Profile of Birge M. Clark
1. Early years Architect Birge Malcolm Clark was born on April 16, 1893 in Palo Alto, California. He attended Palo Alto High School, from which he graduated in 1910. He received his bachelor’s degree from Stanford in 1914 and was awarded a bachelor’s degree in architecture from Columbia University in 1917. He worked for Ralph Adam Cram as a draftsman in 1916 and for Clinton A. Russell in the same position in 1917.36 In World War I Clark served as an observation balloon pilot in the Army Air Corps and won the Silver Star after being shot down by a German pilot.
When Birge Clark returned from his service in World War I, he worked on the Stanford campus as a “clerk of the works.” In this capacity he assisted his father and Herbert Hoover’s wife, Lou Henry Hoover, with the design of the Herbert Hoover house, which is a National Historic Landmark and is used as a residence for Stanford University professors today.37 He was associated with his father’s firm from 1920 to 1922. Clark’s father, Arthur B. Clark, was a professor of art and architecture at Stanford and Mayfield’s first mayor (Mayfield was later part of Palo Alto). He also designed homes in the Stanford area and was a personal friend of the Hoover family.
Clark became licensed in 1921 and founded his own firm, the first architecture firm in Palo Alto, in 1922. Clark worked on his own until about 1928 (accounts vary), when he formed a partnership with his brother David B. Clark. They remained in practice together until his brother’s death in 1944. About this time he and Walter S. Stromquist, who had worked for Birge and David Clark as a draftsman from 1937 to 1942, became partners.38 He and Stromquist were partners when the Veterans Memorial Building was designed.
2. Work before WWII Clark has been described as “Palo Alto’s best-loved architect” and “eminent Palo Alto architect.” According to a number of sources, he designed nearly 100 homes and nearly 400 buildings in Palo Alto alone during his long career.39 The Palo Alto Stanford Heritage site lists the addresses of 38 commercial buildings designed by Clark, 86 residential sites in Palo Alto, and 31 residences in Stanford.40
Prior to World War II, Clark was known for his Spanish Colonial Revival buildings (which he called “Early California Style”), as well as buildings in other revival styles. The 1919 Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover house was described as “Zuni Pueblo style” by Clark himself, although he
36 Questionnaire for Architects’ Roster . . ., 1946. 37 McKinnon, 2005:9. 38 Questionnaire for Architects’ Roster . . ., 194). 39 Stanford Historical Society, 2005:9. 40 “Birge M. Clark,” http://www.pastheritage.org/Birge.html.
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 3 – Architectural Context 25 ______also attributed its stylistic features to the Hoovers’ travels in North Africa. Architectural historian David Gebhard described it as having a very modern appearance, comparing it to the early modern work of Irving Gill.41
Clark also appeared to be a practical person. In the 1931 design of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic, he first explored designing the building in the new Moderne style, at the urging of his client. According to his memoirs, he felt that, “the ‘moderne’ was still in its infancy at best and would probably change a good deal as time went on, while the California Colonial was a developed, mature style with its tile roofs, thick walls, wrought iron, balconies [and] arches.”42 This commercial building, constructed in 1932, incorporated residential qualities that allowed the building to both blend in with its residential surroundings and provide a comfortable space for the medical clinic’s clients.43 This strategy would be utilized again in the headquarters of Sunset Magazine and the Veterans Memorial Building.
Some of Clark’s best-known works of the 1920s and 1930s are as follows. • The 400 block of University Avenue in Palo Alto, 1927;44 • The Medico-Dental Building in Palo Alto, ca 1928; • The 500 block of Ramona Street in Palo Alto,1929, with de Lemos and others, listed on the National Register of Historic Places (the Courtyard Building at 533-39 Ramona Street was the subject of a HABS survey); • Home of authors Charles and Kathleen Norris, 1929 (listed on the National Register); • Home of Mr. and Mrs. John A. Dunker, 1929 (listed on the National Register); • The Hotel President, 1929-30; • The homes of Lucie and Ruth Stern, 1930; • The Palo Alto Community Center Theater, 1930; • The Palo Alto Post Office, 1932 (listed on the National Register); • The Palo Alto Medical Clinic, 1932 (nominated to the National Register); and • The Stern Community Center, 1935.45
3. Work during and after WWII Clark’s office did very well during World War II. The value of the jobs in his office from 1930 to 1940, which included the years of the Great Depression, was $3.0 million. In the five years from 1941 to 1946, his office undertook work valued at $3.7 million.46 During World War II his firm designed an Army Hospital in Modesto; the Permanente Foundation Hospital in Oakland; various buildings at the Hunters Point Navy Yards; an administration building for Henry J. Kaiser’s Fontana Steel Mill, and the Permanente Magnesium Plant in Santa Clara County.
Clark’s World War II-era work also became known through the architectural press. The 1939 Ruth Lucie Stern Research Laboratory on the Stanford University campus was published in
41 Gebhard, 1985:16. 42 Palo Alto History Museum, 2009, Section 8, Page 7, quoting Clark’s memoirs, “An Architect Grows up in Palo Alto: Memoirs of Birge Malcom Clark, FAIA, manu. 1982:69. 43 Palo Alto History Museum, 2009, Section 8, Page 7. 44 Cerny, 2007:176. 45 Gebhard, 1985. 46 Questionnaire for Architects’ Roster . . ,, 1946.
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 3 – Architectural Context 26 ______
Architectural Record in July 1941 and in Architect and Engineer in May 1940. The Fontana Steel Mill Administration Building was published in Architectural Forum , one of the era’s most progressive architectural magazines, in May 1944. The Kaiser Permanente foundation hospital was published in Architect and Engineer in May 1945. The Kaiser Permanente hospital in Oakland and the Fontana Steel Mill, were published in Architect and Engineer in March 1944.
In 1946 Birge described the scope of his architectural practice as follows:
Practice has embraced a very broad type of work, including not only a great many residences, but a large number of schools, both public and private, office buildings, industrial and commercial buildings, warehouses, and at the present moment, we are working on two hospitals. During the last three years we have served as consultants on the Kaiser Iron and Steel Mill, Magnesium Plant, and specifically designed various administration buildings, cafeterias, dormitories, etc. for these projects. At Hunters Pt. Navy Yards, of which we were the architects of an A and E contract with Walter L. Huber and Edward M. Knapik, we designed large shop buildings. 47
After the war, the firm took on many large-scale and complex commissions, including: • The Palo Alto newspaper plant, Palo Alto, 1948; • California Maritime Academy, Vallejo, 1949; • Syntax Administration Building and Labs, Stanford, 1960; • The Sunset Magazine Headquarters, Menlo Park, 1966 (with Cliff May); • Hewlett-Packard Co., Palo Alto, 1960, and Hewlitt-Packard Corporate Headquarters, 1970; • The John Stauffer Laboratories, Stanford campus, 1960s; • Shell Oil Co. Accounting Center, Menlo Park, 1961 and Shell Oil Data Center, 1962 and 1968; • The Palo Alto Medical Clinic addition, Palo Alto, 1961; • The White Office Building (Shockley Transister), Stanford, 1961; • Wells Fargo Bank, Palo Alto, 1961; • Reynold C. Johnson Company building (Volkswagen distributor), Burlingame, 1961; • Palo Alto Savings & Loan Co., Palo Alto, 1963; • Corbin Farnsworth Inc. building (medical electronics), Palo Alto, 1966; • Sunset Park (residential), Sunnyvale, 1970; • The Seeley G. Mudd Chemistry Building, Stanford Campus, 1977; and • Many schools throughout the Peninsula.
4. Other partnerships Clark worked with a number of partners over the years, although he and Walter Stromquist probably worked together the longest. Clark’s partner Walter S. Stromquist was born in Laramie, Wyoming in 1912, but graduated from Palo Alto High school in 1929. He attended the University of California at Berkeley, from which he graduated with a bachelor’s degree in 1937. Stromquist worked as a draftsman for the U.S. Park Service in 1936, and then as a draftsman for Birge M. Clark and David B. Clark from 1937 to 1942. He worked as a draftsman for Blanchard
47 Questionnaire for Architects’ Roster . . ., 1946.
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 3 – Architectural Context 27 ______and Maher from 1942 to 1944. He became a partner in Clark & Stromquist in 1946, and was with the firm until at least 1970.48
When Paul Wesley Sandstrom joined the firm in 1956 Clark’s firm became Clark, Stromquist & Sandstrom. It became Clark, Stromquist, Potter & Ehrlich in 1957, which lasted until 1967. In 1970 it became Clark, Stromquist & Potter.49 Other partners over time included Jonathan Gifford and Ernie Ericson.
5. Summary Clark is credited with designing or contributing to the design of 450 buildings in the Palo Alto area alone, including 30 on the city’s inventory of historic buildings and three on the National Register of Historic Places.50 Among Clark’s architectural awards were an Honor Award from the Northern California chapter of the AIA for the Norris residence and Awards of Merit from the Northern California, East Bay, and Coast Valley Chapters of the AIA.51
Clark’s additional activities and professional associations are as follows. He was director of the San Francisco chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) from 1930 to 1933 and chaired the membership committee for a number of years in the 1930s.52 He was a founder of the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the AIA. He taught in Stanford’s architecture program from 1950 to 1972. He was also active in the Kiwanis Club and Chamber of Commerce in Palo Alto. He married Lucile Townley, the daughter of a Stanford mathematics and astronomy professor, in 1922. Together they raised four children. Lucile Clark died in 1986. Clark worked until his death in 1989 at the age of 96.53
C. Architectural Context
There is more continuity between Birge Clark’s pre-World War II architectural work and his war time and postwar work than one might expect. Birge Clark was known for his Spanish Colonial Revival or Spanish Eclectic style, but he designed a wide variety of building types and in the Ranch style, the Streamline Moderne style, and in Modern commercial styles. 54 Many of his early homes, while incorporating Spanish motifs, such as the use of tile and wrought iron, are modern in their layout and relationship between the indoors and outdoors, something that was a primary consideration of early modern architects in California. Clark was not the only architect addressing these concerns however. Both the Spanish Colonial Revival and Spanish Eclectic styles popular between World War I and World War II and the post-war Ranch style as seen in the work of Cliff May, William Wurster and others represented the search for an architectural style and vocabulary appropriate to California and the southwest. And both drew upon Spanish influences.
48 Bowker, 1970. 49 Bowker, 1970. 50 McKinnon, 2005:9. 51 Bowker, 1956, 1962. 52 “Guide to the American Institute of Architects Santa Clara Valley Collection”. 53 McKinnon, 2005:10. 54 Weinstein, 2006:71.
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 3 – Architectural Context 28 ______
The Spanish Colonial style followed on the Mission Revival style in the first part of the twentieth century. As such it was the second of two Mediterranean-inspired styles popular in California. Both styles were part of architects’ attempts to develop a regionally-based expression with roots appropriate to California’s heritage. The Mission Revival style was inspired by a ‘return to roots,’ to capture the purported beginnings of European-influenced architecture in California. The first buildings in California with roots in European styles were the missions, and there was great interest in them at this time because many were being documented and/or rehabilitated. The style gained in popularity after being chosen as the official architectural style of the 1915 San Diego Fair and enjoyed continued use throughout the 1920s.
Architectural historian Harold Kirker describes Spanish Colonial Revival as “the final development in California’s search for a romantic past.”55 While there was no actual precedent for Spanish Colonial architecture in California, Mediterranean references were sought from Spanish and Italian sources as well as the New Mexican pueblo in the attempt to forge a regional style appropriate to the landscape and climate of California. The resulting invention of a new Spanish tradition was portrayed as an appropriate architectural response to the “spirit” of Spanish or Mediterranean architecture. In addition to the appeal of tile roofs, arched entries and wrought iron and tile detailing, the other features of Spanish-influenced architecture made sense in California. This included incorporating a long, low profile that guaranteed protection from the sun, adequate ventilation, and a positive relationship to the outdoors.56
The Ranch style, as seen in the work of Cliff May and others, also drew on native California influences. Although architectural details were different, there were many plan considerations that the style had in common with the Spanish Colonial and related styles. There was an emphasis on the relationship of the building to the outdoors. This was seen in courtyard, U- shaped, and ‘rambling’ buildings from this era in which a covered walkway – “corredor”- linked rooms on the building exterior and also made usable outdoor spaces where they broadened to function as an outdoor room. The prototype for this plan was the hacienda. Cliff May very deliberately drew on this romanticized past when he developed his design concepts, expressed in “Beginnings of the Ranch House” in Western Ranch Houses by Cliff May, a 1958 Sunset publication, which was preceded by “History of the Ranch House” in the Sunset Western Ranch Houses , published in 1946.
A commercial example of the Ranch house is the Menlo Park headquarters of Sunset Magazine, a project that Clark did with architectural designer Cliff May, as well as the Veterans Memorial Building. The Veterans Memorial Building was described as a “rambling country style structure” before the design was completed. The building shares a number of features with the 1951/1966 Menlo Park headquarters of Sunset Magazine, which was designed by Cliff May. The first phase, which is a Ranch house ‘writ large,’ was designed by May with Higgins & Root of San Jose. 57 Clark & Stromquist worked with May on the second phase of the building, which was designed about eight years after the Veterans Memorial Building. 58
55 Kirker, 1986:126. 56 Weitz, 1984:102. 57 Bowker, 1956. Note that Cliff May was not a registered architect; he would have had to work with a licensed architect to get permits for the building. He did not want to design the building at first, but was convinced to undertake the work by his friend and publisher Larry Lane (Gregory, 2008:104). 58 Gebhard, 1985:157.
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 3 – Architectural Context 29 ______
The Sunset Magazine Headquarters echoes the primary features for which Cliff May’s ranch houses were known, including the overarching gable roof, the low “rambling” form, a strong relationship to the outdoors, an expression of the building’s structure, and rustic details. All these features were designed to market Sunset’s ‘brand’ and its appeal as the “The Magazine of Western Living.” The concept of an over-scaled Ranch house was a deliberate design strategy on the part of Larry Lane, the owner of Sunset : “Mel Lane explained that the important thing was to keep every major elements over-scaled – building, lawn, paths, patios – so that no sudden disparity between scales would give an institutional look, or make the complex resemble a city park.”59
This quality is seen in the Veterans Memorial Building as well. While the Veterans building does not display the same western motifs as seen in the Sunset Magazine Headquarters, it shares the low, overarching roof form that creates outdoor spaces and shields the indoors; the overscaled but proportionate features; use of building materials to create texture and visual interest; and a plan that creates different types of usable indoor-outdoor spaces. The latter is one of Birge Clark’s strengths and can be seen throughout his work. It supports this building’s status as a good example of his work.
59 Gregory, 1985:108.
HISTORIC RESOURCE REPORT VETERANS MEMORIAL BUILDING Redwood City, California
4. REFERENCES
Books and Periodicals
Archives Committee of the Redwood City Public Library, Redwood City: A Hometown History. Redwood City, CA: Star Publishing Company, Inc., 2007.
“California Is Designing Its Homes to Suit Its Own Tastes,” San Antonio Express, December 31, 1933.
Cerny, Susan Dinkelspiel, An Architectural Guidebook to San Francisco and the Bay Area. Gibbs Smith, Publisher, 2007.
Editorial Staff of Sunset Magazine and Books, Sunset Western Ranch Houses. Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 1999 (reprint of 1946 publication by Lane Publishing Company).
_____, Western Ranch Houses by Cliff May. Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 1997 (reprint of 1958 publication by Lane Publishing Company).
“Fontana Steel Mill, Fontana, Calif.,” Architectural Forum, Vol. 80, May 1944, pp. 61-68.
Gebhard, David, et. al., The Guide to Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California. Salt Lake City: Gibbs-Smith Publisher, 1985 (1973).
Gregory, Daniel P., Cliff May and the Modern Ranch House. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 2008.
Hess, Alan, The Ranch House. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers, 2004.
“Hoover Home Homey House,” The Charleston Gazette, June 17, 1928, p. 13.
Jester, Thomas C., Twentieth-Century Building Materials, History and Conservation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.
Kirker, Harold, California’s Architectural Frontier . Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc., 1960.
Roberts, John N., “Gardens of an Historic Cowper Street Residence,” Places 17.1, 2005, pp. 72- 80.
Scott, Mel, The San Francisco Bay Area, A Metropolis in Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985 (1959).
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 4 - References 31 ______
Shanken, Andrew M., “Planning Memory: Living Memorials in the Unites States during World War II,” The Art Bulletin, Vol. 84, No. 1, March 2002, pp. 130-147.
Weinstein, Dave, Signature Architects of the San Francisco Bay Area. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, Publisher, 2006.
Weitze, Karen J., California’s Mission Revival. Los Angeles: Hennessey & Ingalls, Inc., 1984.
Winslow, Ward and the Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo Alto: Palo Alto Historical Association, 1993.
Woodbridge, Sally B., California Architecture of the Historic American Building Survey. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1988.
Drawings, Maps and Photographs
Birge M. Clark Architectural Drawings. On file, Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Library, August 2010.
“Veteran’s Memorial Building,” Birge Clark Walter Stromquist, Architects, 6-26-55 (architectural drawings).
Government and other Documents
McKinnon, Margaret Learmonth, editor, “Historic Houses III, San Juan Neighborhood, Stanford University.” Stanford, CA: Stanford Historical Society, 2005.
National Register of Historic Places Registration Form – Palo Alto Medical Clinic (Draft). Palo Alto History Museum, with Sarah Hahn and Becky Urbano, November 11, 2009.
“Redwood City Veterans Memorial Building,” (brochure). On file, Redwood City Library, August 2010.
“Birge Clark,” Historic Houses III, San Juan Neighborhood, Stanford University (brochure). Stanford: Stanford Historical Society, 2005.
“Veterans Memorial Senior Center.” Clipping files. On file, Redwood City Library, August 2010.
Websites
The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects, http://communities.aia.org/sites/hdoaa/wiki/Wiki%20Pages/ahd4001020.aspx , accessed August 23, 2010 (First edition of “American Architects Directory” by R. R. Bowker, LLC, 1956; second edition, 1962; third edition, 1970).
Historic Resource Report 1455 Madison Avenue Veterans Memorial Building 4 - References 32 ______
“Birge M. Clark,” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, http://www.pastheritage.org/Birge.html , accessed July 2010.
Bowling, Matt, “Birge Clark: An Architectural Legacy,” Palo Alto History Project, http://www.paloaltohistory.com/birgeclark.html , accessed July 2010.
“Questionnaire for Architects’ Roster and/or Register of Architects Qualified for Federal Public Works, Birge M. Clark and Walter S. Stromquist, Partnership,” May 10, 1946. http://communities.aia.org/sites/hdoaa/wiki/AIA%20scans/Rosters/ClarkStromq_roster.pdf, accessed August 23, 2010.
“Santa Clara County: California’s historic Silicon Valley, A National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary,” National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/hr/travel/santaclara/ram.htm, accessed July 2010.
Courtyard Building, 533-539 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, CA HABS collection as part of the Library of Congress “American Memory” project. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query August 23, 2010.
“Guide to the American Institute of Architects Santa Clara Valley Collection,” Online Archive of California, http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt2199r5w6 /, accessed August 26, 2010.
Source: Dedication brochure
Figure 1: Regional location map
Senior NFL Alumni Resource Building Center
Veterans Herkner Memorial Swimming Pool Building Red Morton Community ‘49ers Bui ldin g Center
Red M orto n Community Park
Ar mory
Community Activities Building
North
Figure 2: Site map
Figure 3: Floor plan diagram
Figure 4: Artist’s rendering of proposed building
Figure 5: Photograph of new building
Figure 6: Interior view on opening day
Figure 7: Dedication day ceremonies
Figure 8: Dedication day program
Source: Palo Alto Stanford Historical Society
Figure 9: Photograph of Birge Clark
Figure 10: Cover of “Memorials that Live” brochure
Figure 11: Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover house, Birge Clark, constructed 1919
Source: Palo Alto Historical Association
Figure 12: Medico-Dental Building, Birge Clark, 1928
Source: Cliff May and the Modern Ranch House
Source: Western Ranch Houses by Cliff May
Figure 13: Sunset Magazine Headquarters, 1951, Cliff May with Higgins & Root
Source: Western Ranch Houses by Cliff May
Figure 14: Western ranch house by Cliff May; Veterans Memorial Building
Figure 15: Veterans Memorial Building
Figure 16: Senior Resource Center
Figure 17: San Francisco ‘49ers Building
Figure 18: Herkel Memorial Swim Center
Figure 19: NFL Alumni Center