DOCSLIB.ORG

Multi-Family Residences Dating from 1905 to 1930 Are Associated with the Architectural Styles and Culture of Early 20Th Century Residential Architecture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Multi-Family Residences Dating from 1905 to 1930 Are Associated with the Architectural Styles and Culture of Early 20Th Century Residential Architecture City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report M.S. Hellman Residence 525 Georgina Avenue Santa Monica, California Prepared for City of Santa Monica Planning Division Prepared by Margarita Jerabek, Ph.D. Amanda Kainer, M.S. Nicole Nietzel, M.A. PCR Services Corporation Santa Monica, California February 2015 Table of Contents A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ ii B. LOCATION ............................................................................................................................ ii C. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... ii A. CITY OF SANTA MONICA .................................................................................................... iii A. HISTORIC CONTEXT ......................................................................................................... vi 1. Santa Monica .................................................................................................................. vi 2. The Subdivision and Development of the Palisades Tract ........................................... vi 3. MS Hellman House Construction History ..................................................................... vii 4. Maurice S. Hellman ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5. Sumner P. Hunt & Stiles Burns ........................................................................................ x 6. Craftsman Style (1905-1930) .......................................................................................... xi A. PREVIOUS EVALUATION .................................................................................................. xvi B. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION, INTEGRITY ANALYSIS, AND SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................................ xvi a. Architectural Description ........................................................................................... xvi b. Integrity Analysis ........................................................................................................ xix c. Evaluation of Local Significance ................................................................................ xix C. CONCLUSION .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 525 Georgina Avenue City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report page i I. INTRODUCTION A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PCR evaluated the M.S. Hellman Residence at 525 Georgina Avenue against the Landmark Criteria for the City of Santa Monica. Following an intensive pedestrian site survey and historical research, PCR concluded that the subject property was eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark under criteria 1 and 4. B. LOCATION The M.S. Hellman Residence was constructed circa 1910 in the American Craftsman architectural style. Located within the Palisades Tract on lot 17 of block J on assessor parcel number 4293-004-150, the subject block bounded by Georgina Avenue to the south, San Vicente Boulevard to the north, 7th Street to the east, and 4th Street to the west. Palisades Park is approximately two blocks to the west of the subject property. The Pacific Ocean is approximately one-quarter mile to the west. The subject property lies within a residential neighborhood comprised primarily of one- and two-story single family residences set-back from the street with large front-lawns. C. METHODOLOGY PCR conducted this assessment to evaluate the existing conditions of the subject property in order to determine its eligibility for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark. A multi-step methodology was utilized to evaluate the property. An intensive pedestrian site survey was conducted to identify and record physical conditions through digital photography and manuscript notes. The physical inspection included examination of the materials and construction techniques, as well as analysis of the construction chronology as evidenced in the existing built fabric. Historical background research included review of available building permits, historic maps, photographs, newspaper articles, and published secondary sources on the history of Santa Monica. PCR contacted the Santa Monica History Museum for additional information on the property and researcher Michael J. Burton was unable to find information about the property in their database. The information collected from these sources was used to assist in the architectural analysis and the evaluation of the building for designation. Ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation, designation assessment processes and related programs were reviewed and analyzed. The evaluation criteria of the National Register, the California Register, and the City of Santa Monica were utilized to evaluate the current historical and architectural significance of the property. The evaluation was conducted by PCR’s historical resources staff Margarita Jerabek, Ph.D., Director/Principal Architectural Historian, Amanda Kainer, M.S., Senior Architectural Historian, and Nicole Nietzel, M.A., Historic Resources Intern, whose qualifications meet the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications standards in architectural history. Professional qualifications are provided in Appendix H. 525 Georgina Avenue City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report page ii II. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK A. CITY OF SANTA MONICA The City of Santa Monica formally initiated a historic preservation program with its 1976 adoption of the Landmark and Historic Preservation Ordinance. Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance was amended in 1987 and again in 1991, to create a more comprehensive preservation program. This ordinance established the Landmarks Commission whose powers include designation of Structures of Merit and Landmarks, and recommendation to the City Council for the designation of historic districts. Furthermore, it identified both obligations required of historic property ownership and a broad range of incentives available to owners of historic properties. In 2002, the City adopted the Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan. This element includes information about the history and historical development of Santa Monica, establishes a long-range vision for the protection of historic resources in the City of Santa Monica, and provides implementation strategies to achieve that vision. In 2010, the City adopted the updated General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), which includes a chapter on Historic Preservation (Chapter 2.3). The LUCE supplements the City’s existing Historic Preservation Element by actively integrating the preservation of historic resources into planning efforts throughout the City. Chapter 2.3 of the LUCE includes policies to ensure that the City continues to protect what is unique and valued on a citywide and neighborhood level, including Palisades Park and the bluffs; Santa Monica Pier; and neighborhood streetscapes, architecture, and building scale. Section 9.36.100 of the City of Santa Monica Landmark and Historic Preservation Ordinance authorizes the Landmarks Commission to designate Landmarks or Historic Districts. A geographic area or a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties may be designated a Historic District by the City Council. An individually significant property may be designated a Landmark. Such designations may be made provided that the subject property(ies) meet one or more of the following criteria: 1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. 2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. 3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. 4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. 525 Georgina Avenue City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report page iii 5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. 6. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City. An historic district is defined by the City of Santa Monica as “any geographic area or noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties that the City Council has designated as and determined to be appropriate for historical preservation pursuant to the provisions of this [ordinance].” In order to be designated an historic district, an area must meet one of the following criteria, outlined in the Santa Monica Municipal Code [§9.36.100(b)]: 1. Any of the criteria identified in Section 9.36.100(a)(1) through (6). 2. It is a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties or a definable area possessing a concentration of historic, scenic or thematic sites, which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan, physical development or architectural quality. 3. It reflects
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 17 on Mathematics in Finland
    3 Preface The second volume of this little history traces events in and to some extent around mathematics in the period starting with the giants Newton and Leibniz. The selection among the multitude of possible topics is rather standard, with the exception of mathematics in Finland, which is exposed in much more detail than its relative importance would require. The reader may regard the treatment of Finland here as a case study of a small nation in the periphery of the scientific world. As in the first volume, I do not indicate my sources, nor do I list the literature which I have consulted. In defence of this omission I can refer to the general expository level of the presentation. Those willing to gain a deeper and more detailed insight in the various aspects of the history of mathematics will easily find a multitude of literary and internet sources to consult. Oulu, Finland, April 2009 Matti Lehtinen 4 CONTENTS About the LAIMA series ........................ 7 8 Newton and Leibniz ........................... 9 8.1 The binomial series ........................... 9 8.2 Newton’s differential and integral calculus ... 11 8.3 Leibniz ....................................... 15 9 The 18th century: rapid development of analysis .......................................... 21 9.1 The Bernoullis .............................. 21 9.2 18th century mathematics in Britain ......... 25 9.3 Euler .......................................... 27 9.4 Enlightenment mathematics in Italy and France 34 9.5 Lagrange .................................... 37 10 Mathematics at the time of the French Revolu- tion ................................................ 40 10.1 Monge and Ecole´ Polytechnique ............ 40 10.2 Fourier ....................................... 42 10.3 Laplace and Legendre ........................ 44 10.4 Gauss ....................................... 47 11 Analysis becomes rigorous in the 19th century 52 11.1 Cauchy and Bolzano .......................
    [Show full text]
  • Regular Covering Surfaces of Riemann Surfaces
    Pacific Journal of Mathematics REGULAR COVERING SURFACES OF RIEMANN SURFACES SIDNEY MORRIS HARMON Vol. 10, No. 4 December 1960 REGULAR COVERING SURFACES OF RIEMANN SURFACES SIDNEY M. HARMON Introduction. The homotopy and homology groups of a given arc- wise connected surface are topological invariants. A smooth covering surface F* is a locally-topological equivalent of its base surface F. Con- sequently, it is natural that the fundamental and homology groups of F*, T(F*) and H{F*) respectively, should be related to those of F, T(F) and H(F) respectively. In this paper the term homology is always used for the 1-dimensional case. The cover transformations of a covering surface F* are topological self-mappings such that corresponding points have the same projection on F. These cover transformations form a group which we will denote by Γ(F*). The homology properties of F should influence Γ(F*) by means of the composition of the self-topologi- cal mapping and the locally-topological mapping F* —> F. Section 1 considers the general class of smooth covering surfaces on which there exists a continuation along every arc of the base surface. We refer to such a covering surface as a regular covering surface F*. A number of results are collected and put into the form in which they are needed to derive the main theorems. The class {F*} is shown to form a complete lattice. Next there is shown a one to one correspondence between all subgroups Nt c T(F), such that Nt contains the commutator subgroup Nc of T(F), and the set of all subgroups Ht c H(F).
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics People
    Mathematics People Machinery (ACM-SIGACT). This award is presented an- Arora and Mitchell Awarded nually, with the presentation taking place alternately at Gödel Prize the International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP) and the ACM Symposium on Sanjeev Arora of Princeton University and Joseph Theory of Computing (STOC). The prize is named in honor S. B. Mitchell of the State University of New York at of Kurt Gödel in recognition of his major contributions Stony Brook were named recipients of the Gödel Prize of to mathematical logic and of his interest, discovered in the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) at the a letter he wrote to John von Neumann shortly before International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and von Neumann’s death, in what has become the famous “P Programming (ICALP 2010), held July 5–10 in Bordeaux, versus NP” question. France. The prize carries a cash award of US$5,000. Arora and Mitchell were honored for their concurrent —From an EATCS announcement discovery of a polynomial-time approximation scheme (PTAS) for the Euclidean Traveling Salesman Problem (ETSP). Mitchell was chosen for his 1999 paper, “Guillo- Mathematical Sciences Awards tine subdivisions approximate polygonal subdivisions: A simple polynomial-time approximation scheme for geo- at the 2010 ISEF metric TSP, k-MST, and related problems”, published in the The 2010 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair SIAM Journal of Computing 28(4), 1298–1309. Arora was (ISEF) was held in May 2010 in San Jose, California. Fifteen selected for his 1998 paper, “Polynomial-time approxima- hundred students in grades 9 through 12 from more tion schemes for Euclidean TSP and other geometric prob- than fifty countries participated in the fair.
    [Show full text]
  • Proquest Dissertations
    THE FIFTIES IN FINLAND Finnish society in the 1950s from the perspective of the cultural and industrial-banking elites. Alice Hudlerova University College London School of Slavonic and East European Studies Submitted for PhD degree in History April 2002 ProQuest Number: U643425 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest U643425 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ABSTRACT THE FIFTIES IN FINLAND Finnish society in the 1950s from the perspective of the cultural and industrial-banking elites The main topic of the dissertation is the 1950s in Finland, analysed from the perspective of the cultural and industrial-banking elites. During the first post-war decade, Finland witnessed an immense political reorientation in terms of both foreign and domestic politics occurring as a result of the war. Such circumstances were a salient influence on the position and role of the cultural and industrial-banking ehte who, like the rest of the Finnish society, were required to adjust to the post-war circumstances. The process of their adaptability is of particular significance for this study.
    [Show full text]
  • City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report M.S. Hellman
    City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report M.S. Hellman Residence 525 Georgina Avenue Santa Monica, California Prepared for City of Santa Monica Planning Division Prepared by Margarita Jerabek, Ph.D. Amanda Kainer, M.S. Nicole Nietzel, M.A. PCR Services Corporation Santa Monica, California February 2015 List of Tables Page Table 1 Building Permits for 525 Georgina Avenue .................................................................................................................... 8 525 Georgina Avenue City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report . ii Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 A. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 B. Location ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 C. Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 II. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................................................................... 3 A. City of Santa Monica ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]