CITYWIDE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT for LGBTQ HISTORY in SAN FRANCISCO Donna J
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CITYWIDE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT FOR LGBTQ HISTORY IN SAN FRANCISCO Donna J. Graves & Shayne E. Watson © GREG DAY Prepared for the City & County of San Francisco March 2016 March 2016 | Copyright City and County of San Francisco TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2. LGBTQ HISTORY .......................................................................................... 4 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND – CALIFORNIA AND SAN FRANCISCO ..................... 5 EARLY INFLUENCES ON LGBTQ IDENTITIES AND COMMUNITIES (19TH Century TO 1950S) ...................................................................................... 13 EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF LGBTQ COMMUNITIES (Early 20TH Century TO 1960S) ........................................................................... 52 POLICING AND HARASSMENT OF LGBTQ COMMUNITIES (1933 TO 1960S) ..................................................................................................... 106 HOMOPHILE MOVEMENTS (1950S TO 1960S) .................................................... 132 EVOLUTION OF LGBTQ ENCLAVES AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW NEIGHBORHOODS (1960S TO 1980S) ........................................................ 158 Gay Liberation, PRIDE, AND POLITICS (1960S TO 1990S) .............................. 180 BUILDING LGBTQ COMMUNITIES (1960S TO 1990S) ......................................... 240 LGBTQ MEDICINE (1940S TO 1970S) ................................................................... 288 SAN FRANCISCO AND THE AIDS EPIDEMIC (1981 TO 1990S) ........................... 294 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 319 CHAPTER 4. HOW-TO-GUIDE FOR PRESERVATION ................................................... 324 CHAPTER 5. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK .................................................................... 332 CHAPTER 6. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 356 CHAPTER 7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................... 370 CHAPTER 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 376 INDEX ............................................................................................................................ 383 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION © GREG DAY I. PROJECT SUMMARY The Citywide Historic Context Statement for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) History in San Francisco (LGBTQ Historic Context Statement) was funded by a grant from the Historic Preservation Fund, administered by the City and County of San Francisco’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development. The project directors and authors of the LGBTQ Historic Context Statement are public historian Donna Graves and architectural historian Shayne Watson; both Watson and Graves meet the National Park Service’s (NPS) professional qualification standards for historic preservation. The fiscal sponsor for the grant is the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT) Historical Society in San Francisco. The LGBTQ Historic Context Statement was adopted by the San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission on November 18, 2015. A historic context statement is a historic preservation planning tool used by federal, state, and local governments to guide the identification, documentation, and evaluation of historic properties associated with a specific theme.1 Themes can range from the history of city to a style of architecture to a cultural group. Historic context statements are composed of two primary parts: a narrative discussion of the patterns, events, cultural influences, and individuals or groups relevant to the theme; and technical information that serves as a guide for future identification and analysis of historic properties associated with the theme. The overarching theme of the LGBTQ Historic Context Statement is the development of LGBTQ communities in San Francisco. Major sub-themes explored are: • Early Influences on LGBTQ Identities and Communities (19th Century to 1950s) • Development of LGBTQ Communities in San Francisco (Early 20th Century to 1960s) • Policing and Harassment of LGBTQ Communities (1933 to 1960s) • Homophile Movements (1950s to 1965) • Evolution of LGBTQ Enclaves and Development of New Neighborhoods (1960s to 1980s) • Gay Liberation, Pride, and Politics (1960s to 1990s) • Building LGBTQ Communities (1960s to 1990s) • LGBTQ Medicine (1940s to 1970s) • San Francisco and the AIDS Epidemic (1981 to 1990s) The narrative discussion documents LGBTQ history in San Francisco from the Native American period through the early 1990s. The geographical scope of the study is citywide and incorporates all neighborhoods in San Francisco that played a crucial role in the city’s LGBTQ past. 1 For the purposes of this report, “historic properties” will be used as a catchall term for buildings, structures, objects, landscapes, sites, and historic districts. LGBTQ HISTORY IN SAN FRANCISCO 1 The LGBTQ Historic Context Statement is not intended to be inclusive of all aspects of LGBTQ history or associated sites, but instead aims to provide a broad overview of the many and complex patterns, events, influences, individuals, and groups that shaped this history. The format and content of this report were developed using guidelines established by NPS and the California Office of Historic Preservation.2 The LGBTQ Historic Context Statement builds on the pioneering work of Damon Scott and Friends of 1800, a San Francisco-based advocacy organization, who, in 2004, completed the country’s first LGBTQ historic context statement: “Sexing the City: The Development of Sexual Identity Based Subcultures in San Francisco, 1933-1979.” This study expands on “Sexing the City” by researching diverse LGBTQ experiences in more depth and by lengthening the chronological scope of study. The authors extended the LGBTQ Historic Context Statement into the early 1990s to capture information about the impact of HIV/AIDS in San Francisco. Guidelines established for the National Register of Historic Places recommend using a 50-year threshold for evaluating the significance of historic properties as a way to “assure historical perspective and avoid judgments based on current or recent popular trends.”3 However, National Register criteria for evaluation allows for recognizing historic properties of the more recent past if they are of exceptional significance at the national, state, or local levels.4 Sufficient scholarship has been produced to establish that the AIDS epidemic has been among the most significant events to shape LGBTQ history in San Francisco, the nation, and the world. II. NOTES ON TERMINOLOGY As consciousness about the ways that gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, class, and other dimensions of identity affect politics, culture, history, and most aspects of United States society, our language evolves as well. Academics, demographers, journalists, and average Americans struggle to find appropriate words to describe themselves and others. Words for specific groups of people shift over time and carry new and additional meanings. For example, “queer” went from being a pejorative to an all-inclusive term meant to challenge narrow definitions of gender and sexual orientation. Just as “Hispanic,” “Latino,” “Mexican-American,” and “Chicano” may all be used to describe the same San Franciscan, “gay,” “lesbian,” or “queer” may be used to describe the same individual. Sexual identity terminology, like most identity labels, is highly political and has changed substantially over the last decades. As Elizabeth A. Armstrong wrote in her book Forging Gay Identities: Organizing Sexuality in San Francisco, 1950 to 1994 (2002): “The continually evolving and highly contested nature of this movement means that there exists no term to accurately apply to it for the entire period from 1950 to 2000.”5 Historians debate which terms to use in writing LGBTQ history (including the acronym LGBTQ), and the report authors deliberated over what approach would be most appropriate. 2 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (Washington, DC: 1983, as amended). See also California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (Sacramento, CA: 1995). 3 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (Marcella Sherfy and W. Ray Luce, authors), National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years (Washington, D.C.: 1998), ii. 4 Ibid. 5 Elizabeth A. Armstrong, Forging Gay Identities: Organizing Sexuality in San Francisco, 1950 to 1994 (Chicago and London: the University of Chicago Press, 2002), xix. 2 LGBTQ HISTORY IN SAN FRANCISCO Given the evolving nature of these terms, the authors of this report have employed a few strategies. Anachronistic terms are used when they are adequately descriptive (e.g., “homophile” for the organizations in the 1950s and 1960s that were precursors to the gay rights movements, or “gay” or “homosexual” as umbrella descriptors when discussing the 1960s and 1970s). Narrow terms such as “gay men” or “lesbians” are used to describe specific groups of participants in events or organizations; these terms are indicators of