DOCSLIB.ORG

City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report M.S. Hellman

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 III. HISTORIC CONTEXT AND EVALUATION ................................................................................................................... 5 A. Historic Context ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5 1. Consolidation and Growth of Santa Monica ............................................................................................................... 5 2. Subdivision and Development of the Palisades Tract ............................................................................................ 5 3. M.S. Hellman Residence Construction and Occupancy History .......................................................................... 6 4. Architecture Firm of Sumner P. Hunt & Silas R. Burns ........................................................................................... 8 5. Contractor George D. Snyder ............................................................................................................................................ 9 6. Craftsman Style (1905-1930) ........................................................................................................................................ 10 IV. EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................................................... 15 A. Previous Evaluations .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 B. Architectural Description, Integrity Analysis, and Significance Evaluation ..................................................... 15 1. Architectural Description ................................................................................................................................................ 15 2. Integrity Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 3. Evaluation of Local Significance ................................................................................................................................... 17 V. BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................................................ 21 VI. APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................................................ 23 List of Figures Page Figure 1. M.S. Hellman Property from the Sanborn Map, 1918, Sheet 6 (LAPL) ............................................................. 7 Figure 2. Swiss Chalet residence in Canton Berne, Switzerland, from Gladbach’s Der Schweizer Holzstil (Park, Rodney Douglas, The California Bungalow and the Tryolean Chalet, p. 4) ................................. 11 Figure 3. The Swiss Chalet Restaurant, 2201 Wilshire Boulevard, Santa Monica, 1955 (Ebay Postcard) ......... 13 Figure 4. Aerial View of 525 Georgina from the Northwest (Bing) .................................................................................... 15 Figure 5 (Left). Southwest or entry façade, facing north (PCR 2015) ................................................................................ 16 Figure 6 (Right). Southwest façade porch, facing northeast (PCR 2015) ......................................................................... 16 Figure 7. Northeast façade, facing southwest (PCR 2015) .................................................................................................... 16 Figure 8. Southwest façade, facing north (PCR 2015) ............................................................................................................. 17 525 Georgina Avenue City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report . 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, 4, and 5. B. LOCATION The M.S. Hellman Residence was constructed circa 1910 in the American Craftsman architectural style with Swiss Chalet architectural details. Located within the Palisades Tract on Lot 17 of Block J and identified with assessor parcel number 4293-004-150, the subject block is 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 and 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 subject residence for designation under the City of Santa Monica landmark criteria. 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 . 1 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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 32Nd Annual California Preservation Design Awards
    32ND ANNUAL CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION DESIGN AWARDS OCTOBER 2, 2015 JULIA MORGAN BALLROOM, MERCHANTS EXCHANGE BUILDING SAN FRANCISCO The Board of Trustees of the California Preservation Foundation welcomes you to the Preservation Design Awards Ceremony Friday, October 2, 2015 Julia Morgan Ballroom, Merchants Exchange Building, San Francisco 6:00 pm Cocktail Reception and Dinner 7:30 pm Welcome Kelly Sutherlin McLeod, FAIA President, Board of Trustees California Preservation Foundation Cindy L. Heitzman, Executive Director, California Preservation Foundation Awards Presentations Presentation of the President’s Award for Lifetime Acheivement John F. Merritt Presentation of the 32nd Annual Preservation Design Awards Kurt Schindler, FAIA, Jury Chair Amy Crain Jeff Greene Leo Marmol, FAIA Chuck Palley Jay Reiser, S.E. Annual Sponsors Cornerstone Spectra Company Cornice Architectural Resources Group IS Architecture Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, Inc. Kelly Sutherlin McLeod Architecture, Inc. EverGreene Architectural Arts Kitson Contracting, Inc. Garavaglia Architecture Page & Turnbull GPA Consulting Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. Historic Resources Group Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Holmes Culley/Holmes Fire 2 Preservation Design Awards 2015 Preservation Design Awards Sponsors Pillar Kelly Sutherlin McLeod Architecture, Inc. Plant Construction Marmol Radziner Plath and Company, Inc. Supporting AC Martin MATT Construction Corporation Cody | Brock Commercial Builders Rinne & Peterson Structural Engineers Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, Inc. Vallier Design Associates Leddy Maytum Stacy Architects Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Nonprofit Fort Mason Center 3 Preservation Design Awards 2015 2015 Awards Jury Kurt Schindler, FAIA, LEED AP Principal, ELS Architecture and Urban Design | Awards Chair and PDA Jury Chair Kurt Schindler is a principal at ELS and directs the firm’s historic and seismic renovation projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Hillcrest: the History and Architectural Heritage of Little Rock's Streetcar Suburb
    Hillcrest: The History and Architectural Heritage of Little Rock's Streetcar Suburb By Cheryl Griffith Nichols and Sandra Taylor Smith Butterworth House Hillcrest Historic District Little Rock, Arkansas Published by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 1500 Tower Building, 323 Center Street, Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-9880 An agency of the Department of Arkansas Heritage 1 Hillcrest: The History and Architectural Heritage of Little Rock's Streetcar Suburb A Historic Context Written and Researched By Cheryl Griffith Nichols and Sandra Taylor Smith Cover illustration by Cynthia Haas This volume is one of a series developed by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program for the identification and registration of the state's cultural resources. For more information, write the AHPP at 1500 Tower Building, 323 Center Street, Little Rock, AR 72201, call (501) 324-9880 [TDD 501-324-9811], or send e-mail to [email protected] The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program is the agency of the Department of Arkansas Heritage responsible for the identification, evaluation, registration and preservation of the state's cultural resources. Other agencies in the department are the Arkansas Arts Council, the Delta Cultural Center, the Old State House Museum, Historic Arkansas Museum, the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, and the Mosaic Templars Cultural Center. 2 Contents Hillcrest Significance ............................................................................................ 5 Origins of Pulaski Heights ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wyvernwood Garden Apartments Has Fostered a Strong Sense of Community Among Its 6,000 Residents
    Volume 33 m a r a p r 2 0 1 1 Number 2 Last Remaining Seats Turns 25! Member ticket sales start March 30 Celebrate a quarter century of classic films and live entertainment in the historic theatres of Los Angeles! The 25th Annual Last Remaining Seats series takes place May 25 through June 29. You will receive a large postcard in the mail this year in lieu of a brochure; you can find all the details and order tickets starting March 30 at laconservancy.org. We were finalizing the schedule at press time; it should be online by the time you receive this newsletter. In addition to the six Wednesday evening screenings, this special season will include a bonus Fan Favorite film (Sunset Boulevard, Despite its vast size, Wyvernwood Garden Apartments has fostered a strong sense of community among its 6,000 residents. Clockwise from top left: Historic view of the complex (Security Pacific Collection/Los Angeles Public selected by you, our members!). It will screen Library); current residents (Jesus Hermosillo); a resident sends a message (Evangelina Garza); teenager Juan twice (matinee and evening shows) at the Pal- Bucio’s depiction of what Wyvernwood means to him; young residents (Molly Mills). ace Theatre on Sunday, June 26, a hundred years to the day after it opened! We’ll be at the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments: Palace as part of a broader celebration of the centennial of several theatres on Broadway. Remember to take part in our 2011 mem- Community by Design bership drive for your chance to win VIP by Cindy Olnick and Karina Muñiz tickets to a Last Remaining Seats screening.
    [Show full text]
  • Raise a Glass to History—Before It's Too Late
    NEWS Jan/Feb 2018 • Volume 40 Number 1 Celebrate 40 Years of Preservation Happy Anniversary! This year marks forty years since the Conservancy’s founding in 1978. The staff, volunteers, and members of the Conservancy have made a significant impact in preserving the historic places that make L.A. County unique. Thank you! Anniversaries are great times for reflec- tion, and we have much to celebrate. Yet this is also a time to redouble our efforts and renew our commitment. What will Los An- geles look like forty years from now? How will we make sure that future includes the best of our past? The Conservancy won a $150,000 grant to help rehabilitate the famed Formosa Café in West Hollywood. Legacy We’ll mark this milestone throughout bars and restaurants like the Formosa are exceedingly rare, threatened by development pressure, rising rents, the year in various ways, from special events changing demographics, and other factors. Photo by Douglas Hill, courtesy National Trust for Historic Preservation. and newsletter features to new initiatives. As always, for the latest news, join us on social Raise a Glass to History—Before It’s Too Late media and subscribe to our email newsletters. by Cindy Olnick This anniversary is as much yours as If you’re one of the many people who voted for the Formosa Café in last fall’s Partners anyone’s, since your membership makes this in Preservation campaign, thank you! Created by the National Trust for Historic Preserva- work possible. If you have a personal story tion and American Express, Partners in Preservation awards preservation funding to projects to share—about the Conservancy or historic across the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Dataset Illustration
    1 Dataset Illustration The images are crawled from Wikimedia. Here we summary the names, index- ing pages and typical images for the 66-class architectural style dataset. Table 1: Summarization of the architectural style dataset. Url stands for the indexing page on Wikimedia. Name Typical images Achaemenid architecture American Foursquare architecture American craftsman style Ancient Egyptian architecture Art Deco architecture Art Nouveau architecture Baroque architecture Bauhaus architecture 1 Name Typical images Beaux-Arts architecture Byzantine architecture Chicago school architecture Colonial architecture Deconstructivism Edwardian architecture Georgian architecture Gothic architecture Greek Revival architecture International style Novelty 2 architecture Name Typical images Palladian architecture Postmodern architecture Queen Anne architecture Romanesque architecture Russian Revival architecture Tudor Revival architecture 2 Task Description 1. 10-class dataset. The ten datasets used in the classification tasks are American craftsman style, Baroque architecture, Chicago school architecture, Colonial architecture, Georgian architecture, Gothic architecture, Greek Revival architecture, Queen Anne architecture, Romanesque architecture and Russian Revival architecture. These styles have lower intra-class vari- ance and the images are mainly captured in frontal view. 2. 25-class dataset. Except for the ten datasets listed above, the other fifteen styles are Achaemenid architecture, American Foursquare architecture, Ancient Egyptian architecture,
    [Show full text]
  • Military Institutions and Activities, 1850-1980
    LOS ANGELES CITYWIDE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT Guidelines for Evaluating Resources Associated with Military Institutions and Activities, 1850-1980 Prepared for: City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning Office of Historic Resources November 2019 SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement Guidelines for Evaluating Resources Associated with Military Institutions and Activities TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE 1 CONTRIBUTORS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Related Contexts and Evaluation Considerations 1 Other Sources for Military Historic Contexts 3 MILITARY INSTITUTIONS AND ACTIVITIES HISTORIC CONTEXT 3 Historical Overview 3 Los Angeles: Mexican Era Settlement to the Civil War 3 Los Angeles Harbor and Coastal Defense Fortifications 4 The Defense Industry in Los Angeles: From World War I to the Cold War 5 World War II and Japanese Forced Removal and Incarceration 8 Recruitment Stations and Military/Veterans Support Services 16 Hollywood: 1930s to the Cold War Era 18 ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS FOR AIR RAID SIRENS 20 ATTACHMENT A: FALLOUT SHELTER LOCATIONS IN LOS ANGELES 1 SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement Guidelines for Evaluating Resources Associated with Military Institutions and Activities PREFACE These “Guidelines for Evaluating Resources Associated with Military Institutions and Activities” (Guidelines) were developed based on several factors. First, the majority of the themes and property types significant in military history in Los Angeles are covered under other contexts and themes of the citywide historic context statement as indicated in the “Introduction” below. Second, many of the city’s military resources are already designated City Historic-Cultural Monuments and/or are listed in the National Register.1 Finally, with the exception of air raid sirens, a small number of military-related resources were identified as part of SurveyLA and, as such, did not merit development of full narrative themes and eligibility standards.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin
    City of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin Architectural and Historical Intensive Survey Report of Residential Properties Phase 2 By Rowan Davidson, Associate AIA & Jennifer L. Lehrke, AIA, NCARB Legacy Architecture, Inc. 605 Erie Avenue, Suite 101 Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53081 Project Director Joseph R. DeRose, Survey & Registration Historian Wisconsin Historical Society Division of Historic Preservation – Public History 816 State Street Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Sponsoring Agency Wisconsin Historical Society Division of Historic Preservation – Public History 816 State Street Madison, Wisconsin 53706 2019-2020 Acknowledgments This program receives Federal financial assistance for identification and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability or age in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to Office of the Equal Opportunity, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. The activity that is the subject of this intensive survey report has been financed entirely with Federal Funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and administered by the Wisconsin Historical Society. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the Wisconsin Historical Society, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the Wisconsin Historical Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Architectural Styles/Types
    Architectural Findings Summary of Architectural Trends 1940‐70 National architectural trends are evident within the survey area. The breakdown of mid‐20th‐ century styles and building types in the Architectural Findings section gives more detail about the Dayton metropolitan area’s built environment and its place within national architectural developments. In American Architecture: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Cyril Harris defines Modern architecture as “A loosely applied term, used since the late 19th century, for buildings, in any of number of styles, in which emphasis in design is placed on functionalism, rationalism, and up‐to‐date methods of construction; in contrast with architectural styles based on historical precedents and traditional ways of building. Often includes Art Deco, Art Moderne, Bauhaus, Contemporary style, International Style, Organic architecture, and Streamline Moderne.” (Harris 217) The debate over traditional styles versus those without historic precedent had been occurring within the architectural community since the late 19th century when Louis Sullivan declared that form should follow function and Frank Lloyd Wright argued for a purely American expression of design that eschewed European influence. In 1940, as America was about to enter the middle decades of the 20th century, architects battled over the merits of traditional versus modern design. Both the traditional Period Revival, or conservative styles, and the early 20th‐century Modern styles lingered into the 1940s. Period revival styles, popular for decades, could still be found on commercial, governmental, institutional, and residential buildings. Among these styles were the Colonial Revival and its multiple variations, the Tudor Revival, and the Neo‐Classical Revival. As the century progressed, the Colonial Revival in particular would remain popular, used as ornament for Cape Cod and Ranch houses, apartment buildings, and commercial buildings.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.Edinburgh Bungalow Court Final.Pdf
    EDINBURGH BUNGALOW COURT 750 – 756 ½ N. Edinburgh CHC-2015-3386-HCM ENV-2015-3387-CE Agenda packet includes 1. Final Staff Recommendation Report 2. Categorical Exemption 3. Director's Initation of Nomination 4. Nomination 5. Information Submitted by Property Owner 6. Letters in Support of Designation Please click on each document to be directly taken to the corresponding page of the PDF. Los Angeles Department of City Planning RECOMMENDATION REPORT CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION CASE NO.: CHC-2015-3386-HCM ENV-2015-3387-CE HEARING DATE: November 19, 2015 Location: 750 – 756 ½ N. Edinburgh Avenue TIME: 10:00 AM Council District: 5 PLACE: City Hall, Room 1010 Community Plan Area: Hollywood 200 N. Spring Street Area Planning Commission: Central Los Angeles, CA Neighborhood Council: Mid City West 90012 Legal Description: TR 4891, Lot 101and 102 PROJECT: Historic-Cultural Monument Application for the EDINBURGH BUNGALOW COURT REQUEST: Declare the property a Historic-Cultural Monument OWNER(S): BLDG Edinburgh, LLC c/o Guy Penini 755 N. Laurel Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90046 APPLICANT: City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning 200 N. Spring Street, Room 559 Los Angeles, CA 90012 PREPARER: Katie E. Horak and Jennifer Trotoux Architectural Resources Group, Inc. 8 Mills Place, #300 Pasadena, CA 91105 RECOMMENDATION That the Cultural Heritage Commission: 1. Declare the subject property a Historic-Cultural Monument per Los Angeles Administrative Code Chapter 9, Division 22, Article 1, Section 22.171.7. 2. Adopt the staff report and findings. MICHAEL J. LOGRANDE Director of Planning [SIGNED ORIGINAL IN FILE] [SIGNED ORIGINAL IN FILE] Ken Bernstein, AICP, Manager Lambert M.
    [Show full text]
  • Teori Arsitektur 03
    •Victorian architecture 1837 and 1901 UK •Neolithic architecture 10,000 BC-3000 BC •Jacobethan 1838 •Sumerian architecture 5300 BC-2000 BC •Carpenter Gothic USA and Canada 1840s on •Soft Portuguese style 1940-1955 Portugal & colonies •Ancient Egyptian architecture 3000 BC-373 AD •Queenslander (architecture) 1840s–1960s •Ranch-style 1940s-1970s USA •Classical architecture 600 BC-323 AD Australian architectural styles •New towns 1946-1968 United Kingdom Ancient Greek architecture 776 BC-265 BC •Romanesque Revival architecture 1840–1900 USA •Mid-century modern 1950s California, etc. Roman architecture 753 BC–663 AD •Neo-Manueline 1840s-1910s Portugal & Brazil •Florida Modern 1950s or Tropical Modern •Architecture of Armenia (IVe s - XVIe s) •Neo-Grec 1848 and 1865 •Googie architecture 1950s USA •Merovingian architecture 400s-700s France and Germany •Adirondack Architecture 1850s New York, USA •Brutalist architecture 1950s–1970s •Anglo-Saxon architecture 450s-1066 England and Wales •Bristol Byzantine 1850-1880 •Structuralism 1950s-1970s •Byzantine architecture 527 (Sofia)-1520 •Second Empire 1865 and 1880 •Metabolist Movement 1959 Japan •Islamic Architecture 691-present •Queen Anne Style architecture 1870–1910s England & USA •Arcology 1970s-present •Carolingian architecture 780s-800s France and Germany Stick Style 1879-1905 New England •Repoblación architecture 880s-1000s Spain •Structural Expressionism 1980s-present Eastlake Style 1879-1905 New England •Ottonian architecture 950s-1050s Germany Shingle Style 1879-1905 New England •Postmodern architecture 1980s •Russian architecture 989-1700s •National Park Service Rustic 1872–present USA •Romanesque architecture 1050-1100 •Deconstructivism 1982–present •Chicago school (architecture) 1880s and 1890 USA •Norman architecture 1074-1250 •Memphis Group 1981-1988 •Neo-Byzantine architecture 1882–1920s American •Blobitecture 2003–present •Gothic architecture •Art Nouveau/Jugendstil c.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Preservation Guidelines Design Guidelines Revised Draft
    MEMORANDUM DATE: June 30, 2021 PROJECT: Cleveland Heights Historic Design Guidelines TO: Local Project Team FROM: Naylor Wellman, LLC, Preservation Consultant RE: Public Meeting & Project Team Meeting to Review Revised Draft: Tuesday, 7/13/21, 6pm We are excited to present the attached Cleveland Heights Historic Design Guidelines Revised Draft for your review and comment. The Revised Draft addresses feedback and comments from the Team Meeting on June 8, SHPO review and Staff follow up, with changes in yellow highlight. We have added the architectural styles pages to this draft along with graphics and photos. Sections explaining the difference between Landmark, National Register and Historic properties and the Architectural Board of Review’s role have been added. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are included in the body of the Guidelines along with a Historic Design Review Quick Reference guide. General and Architectural Resources, the Preservation Briefs, a Glossary of Architectural Terms and Bibliography are also included. The Cover Page will be added in the next draft - we are waiting to hear back from the Historical Society for an appointment to view historic images to use on the cover. Preparation for the July 13, 2021 Public Meeting & Project Team Meeting: We will present a 15-minute intro on Historic Design Guidelines and Secretary of Interior’s Standards. We will then use the remaining time together for substantive discussion, feedback and public comment. ❖ Please read through the entirety of the Revised Draft and be prepared with comments. ❖ If you have grammatical changes or typos, please scan these pages and send to Eric and BreAnna who will forward them to us.
    [Show full text]
  • America Crafts: the Contemporary Pursuit of a Handmade Material Life
    AMERICA CRAFTS: THE CONTEMPORARY PURSUIT OF A HANDMADE MATERIAL LIFE by Gina Guzzon A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of George Mason University in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts History of Decorative Arts Committee: Director . ~ Program Director Department Chairperson Dean, College of Humanities and Social Sciences Spring Semester 2014 George Mason University Fairfax, VA America Crafts: The Contemporary Pursuit of A Handmade Material Life A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts at George Mason University by Gina Guzzon Bachelor of Arts Lehigh University, 2009 Director: Jennifer Van Horn, Professor Department of History of Decorative Art Spring Semester 2014 George Mason University Fairfax, VA This work is licensed under a creative commons attribution-noderivs 3.0 unported license. ii DEDICATION This is dedicated to my family, especially my female relatives. You are an inspiration in more ways than one, keep inspiring. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Without the personal interest, dedication, and expertise of both my thesis advisors, this endeavor would never have been possible. Jennifer, your nudges both big and small have helped me become a better student, thinker, and writer. Jeff, this would not have been written without your original intrigue over a class paper or without your continued enthusiasm over the past two years. I would also like to thank the many individuals who gave me a few minutes of their time over the course of this research—the crafters, DIY-ers, and craft fair participants. Thank you for speaking with me, for sharing your objects and ideas, and of course, for crafting.
    [Show full text]