Californians for Preservation Action

CALIFORNIANS FOR PRESERVATION ACTION Volume II, Number 2 April, 1977 NEWSLETTER City of Paris: Whose on First? After National Register acceptance, the is sue seemed dormant, as no further action was The City of Paris building graces the southeast taken by Neiman-Marcus for more than two years. corner of Union Square in the retail heart of 1977, 1850 But in February, S.F. Chronicle columnist San Francisco. The company was started in Herb Caen reported that Warnecke had been re by the Verdier brothers, Parisian immigrants placed by Philip Johnson, designer of the Sea who began their merchandising busines� by �ell gram building in New York City. Johnson re ing French goods from the deck of their ship, 1896, cently met with Citizens' Committee representa "La Ville de Paris." By the "City of tives and expressed interest in retaining the Paris" company had moved into the Union Square rotunda in the new store. building, originally de�igned by architect In a subsequent letter to the Committee, Clinton Day for the Spring Valley Water Company. Johnson wrote: "Input from San Franciscans is the Art in America writer Martha Hutson called most important step we can take." He asked for the structure "the esthetic cornerstone of letters and clippings with ideas about why and Union Square... a beautiful example of the how the building can be preserved. Californians French department store designed in la belle for Preservation Action and the Citizens' Coill epo ue." Its four-story rotunda is toppe<rl)y mittee urge all Californians, not only City 55 x 36 a foot art glass dome, which depicts residents, tO"'respond quickly. Send your sugges "La Ville de Paris", a ship with billowing 375 64 tions to Philip Johnson, Johnson/Burgee, sails. For years, the rotunda hosted an Park Avenue, New York City 10022. Please send a enormous decorated Christmas tree, delighting copy to the Citizens' Committee to Save the City generations of children. 1735 1972, of Paris Building, c/o Hal Major, Pacific In the building was bought by the Avenue, San Francisco 94109. Carter-Hawley-Hale conglomerate. Soon after the last Christmas tree appeared in 1973, San Franciscans learned that the building was sche Federal Funding Flap duled for demolition, to make way for another C-H-H subsidiary, Neiman-Marcus, in a store de In October of 1976 preservationists were pleased signed by John Carl Warnecke. to hear that Congress had created a new approach The Citizens' Committee to Save the City of to funding, the Historic Preservation Fund (P.L. Paris Building organized quickly and tried 94-422) with an authorized appropriation of $100 through petition campaigns to show Neiman million. However, when the Ford administration Marcus the depth and intensity of community released its budget in January the recormnended affection for the structure. After the San appropriation was only $35 million. Francisco Board of Supervisors refused to desig Earlier, December 2 and 3, 1976, in Austin, nate it a local landmark, the Committee initi Texas, a series of meetings of an apportionment ated listing on the National Register of His subcommittee of the Executive Cormnittee of the toric Places. The building was accepted and National Conference of State Historical Pre acknowledged by Register officials as having servation Officers (SHPO) adopted for recommen "national significance." dation an apportionment formula based on the Through several lengthy public hearings, $100 million figure. Population - California's Neiman-Marcus representatives maintained that forte or burden - was not taken into account the building was not earthquake-proof, despite except at a high level of appropriation. Cali photograghs which show its facade intact fol fornia was penalized again for late entry into 1906 lowing the temblor. They also stated that the National Register program;· if a State's the store would not be appropriate for their grants record was low in the past, its future "high quality" merchandise, although one pro share is low. Further, our state had been ponent said it could become the "architectural limited to 4% of federal funding up to fiscal jewel in the collection" of art connoisseur year 1976 and had been cut to 3% in 1977. The Stanley Marcus. formula recommended in Austin would have locked California into a formula based not on true need but prior arbitrary limitations. In addition, there was no balancing incentive to states such as California that had gone heavily into funding planning and survey, the first program priority developed by the National Register office as national policy and a pri mary goal. This formula was challenged at a February 17 meeting of the Apportionment Formula Committee in Ann Arbor. (CPA submitted a strong objection and individuals followed suit.) The result was a recognition of the population factor in appor tionment, not the most equitable, but at least a recognition. For California this was crucial to the state program, especially at the much re duced $35 million budget level; our share would have been well below $1 million and now has a possible $1.3 million allocation. The new formula was affirmed at the February 28 annual The City of Paris building rotunda with the meeting of the National Conference of SHPO's in last Christmas tree, December, 1973. (continued, page 2) FLAP (continued) torical lands and facilities. The loans would Washington,D.C. Credit is due our State Office, be low interest loans administered by the State particularly Bill Padgett who flew at his own Department of Parks and Recreation and an advi expense to attend this meeting in the effort to sory committee. Assigned to Assembly Water insist that California obtain a fair share. Committee, Assemblyman Eugene T. Gualco, Chair The SHPO National Conference also adopted a man, to be heard on April 12. resolution at this meeting calling for the full $100 million appropriation as authorized by Con Senate Constitutional Amendment 29 Marks gress in the October Historic Preservation Fund P . is measure wi assure t e consti- action. The budget matter is now in House com tionality of a bill to allow an increased home mittee; hearings began on March 24. Californians owner' s tax exemption for five years for any for Preservation Action has written members of increase in assessed valuation due to rehabili that committee and Senators Cranston and Hayakawa tation. It must also be passed by the voters urging that the $100 million (taken from off in a statewide election. If passed, people will shore oil revenues not general funds) be appro not be afraid that rehabilitating their homes priated as intended by Congress. will lead to increased property taxes. Assigned to the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee, WRITE: Congressional members of the House budget Senator John W. Holmdahl, Chairman; no date set. committee Robert Leggett, Norman Mineta,Clair Burgener, John Rousselot, House of Representa Senate Bill 514 (Marks) - SUPPORT. This bill is tives, House Post Office, Washington, D.C. 20515. enacting legislation to accompany SCA 29. It will grant an increased homeowner's tax exemp WRITE: Senators Alan Cranston and S.I. Hayakawa, tion for five years for any increase in assessed United States Senate, Senate Post Office, valuation due to rehabilitation. The bill Washington, D.C. 20510. applies the tax exemption to homes in areas de signated as historical districts or neighborhood CONTACT their local offices and explain our past preservation areas designated by the local gov sufferance, present level of activity and ernment or the California Housing Finance Agency. growing need. Although this bill does not apply as broadly as we would like, applying the tax exemption This fiscal year the State Office of Historic only to these certain areas makes the cost of Preservation had only $40 ,000 budgeted for local the bill identifiable (tax losses to local survey (as explained in another article); local governments must be paid by the state general planning grants will benefit most from increased fund); therefore, it becomes much more feas appropriations and this is the greatest need if ible to get this bill through the legislative we are to have a comprehensive preservation ap process successfully. If it passes, it may be proach in California. Your letter or phone call possible to strengthen it next year. Assigned can educate our representatives to this need. to Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation, Senator John W. Holmdahl, Chairman; no date set. Legislative Review Assembl Constitutional Amendment 27 Youn 9, Since the Legislature convened in Sacramento P . is measure is very simi ar to in December, several bills of historic pre but is broader. It applies the tax exemption to servation interest have been introduced. any increase due to improvements rather than re Please write to the authors and committee habilitation and it applies the tax exemption chairmen expressing your support. Addresses until the property transfers ownership rather of all Assembly members and Senators during than for five years. Though broader than SCA 29, session is State Capitol, Sacramento, 95814. it is also more expensive and is less like For more information about the bills, call ly to get through the legislative process. If the district office of your Assemblyperson passed by the Legislature and the voters, it or Senator, listed in the white pages of the will encourage people to make improvements to phone book under "California, State of," their homes. Assigned to Assembly Committee on "Assembly" or "Senate" Revenue and Taxation, Assemblyman Willie Brown, Chairman; no date set. 380 Senate Bill Mills) - SUPPORT. This bill Assembl Bill 291 Chacon - SUPPORT. This f 7 is the enacting egislation for Proposition measure is t e same as ropos tion One which which was passed by the voters last June.

Load more