MUNI = POMO?

It’s been a while, I know.  Work has taken me away from our fair city and wrung out all my energy.  But thanks to the intrepid email of an anonymous tipster, I have a new building for you to consider:  Riverside Municipal Airport.

Designed in 1968 by Clinton Marr, Riverside Municipal Airport (nicknamed Muni by airplane types) references the Mediterranean/Spanish Colonial Revival style of the early 20th century with its large vigas, red-tile roof, and wide eaves, but also uses a more modern aesthetic in the window placement and shaping, stucco texture, and grid-like wall trim.  I didn’t delve into permit history as much as I usually do, so some of the look might be the product of later changes to the facade.

This mixture of historical references through a modern lens suggests that we could most accurately call Muni an early example of Postmodern architecture.  I need to do more reading about Postmodernism because I don’t know whether the transition between Mid-Century Modernism and Postmodernism has been worked out.  It seems to me that one could argue that New Formalism is really an early expression of Postmodernism because of its conscious reliance on references to classical architecture.

At any rate, I’m sure the people who work there appreciate all the floor-to-ceiling windows looking out over the airfield.  Hopefully I’ll get out there for some photos in the near future.

Posted in institutional | No Comments »

Fire Station No. 1 (aka Central Fire Station) placed on the California Register

On November 7, I watched the State Historic Resources Commission approve the nomination of our downtown fire station for the California Register of Historical Resources.  It was a proud moment for me, since it was the first nomination I have prepared.  The decision was unanimous.  The Press-Enterprise wrote about it last week. LINK

So what does this mean?

It does not mean that the Fire Station is now safe, unfortunately.  Even a building on the National Register is not protected from demolition.  What it means is that the Fire Station is officially a “historical resource” for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  The City can’t just decide it isn’t historic and demolish it.  They must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), in which they have to argue effectively that it is not feasible to incorporate and reuse the fire station in their project.  After they prepared their argument in a Draft EIR, the public gets the chance to read it and submit comments, which the City must address before it goes to the City Council for certification.  That’s a bit simplistic, but it’ll do for our purposes here.

So don’t you think they’ll just do the EIR now and demolish it anyway?

It’s possible.  I think it is more difficult this time than simply making the motions through the process because the City actually requested and received a project proposal that incorporated the Fire Station, demonstrating that reuse is feasible enough to have been considered even without being forced to by the CEQA process.  Sadly, they didn’t select that proposal, instead they picked one that would destroy the Fire Station, and have already approved an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with the developer of that proposed project.

How on earth would the City reuse that Fire Station?

Actually, I think that is the most exciting part of the equation.  It is sitting in a prime spot along our main cultural corridor across from an Art Museum that desperately needs to expand their visibility as a contemporary art museum.  The engine house is a dramatic 65-foot wide expanse of space unhindered by visible supports.  The building has fireman’s sliding poles that ignite the imagination and the exterior of the building has a unique look that draws the eye to it.   The station is already neatly partitioned into office space and the dormitory could be converted to studio space.  Anyone who has been to Artswalk on first Thursdays knows that there is a growing artistic community in Riverside that needs space.  The Riverside Art Museum has physical expansion in their strategic plan, and nobody wants to see them mar the beauty of their existing building with an insensitive addition.  Instead, let’s show off the museum’s sleek modern exhibitions with a sleek modern building.

Conversely, there could be an opportunity there to make a truly unique restaurant space that would be a destination for people all around the IE.  Imagine transforming the engine house into a huge dining room with kitchen and banquet space available in the rest of the building.

If you think creatively about it, there are all sorts of interesting ways to transform the Fire Station into a social landmark.   It is a singular public investment that we should all be interested in retaining.  There’s nothing a developer could put in that space that has more character than the Fire Station already has.

Sorry, but I just don’t see it.  Do you have any other reasons why we should keep the Fire Station?

Yes!  Two compelling reasons I would argue against demolishing any well-constructed building are 1.)good old fashioned thrift and 2.)helping the environment.

1.)Our predecessors in this City went into debt to build the Fire Station. They passed a bond measure because they agreed that the Fire Station was an important investment in our civic infrastructure.  The City hired a skilled architect to create a building that resonated with the forward-looking values of the era.  When it opened, they celebrated it for the modern landmark it was and sent their children there on tours so they could experience and internalize pride in their city.  To destroy such an important public investment just smacks of needless waste and mismanagement of Riverside’s civic inheritance.

2.)The Fire Station represents an investment of materials and energy (read: fossil fuels) that is currently put to good use.  If it were demolished, all that energy would be wasted.  The materials that made it would largely wind up in a landfill, the energy to build it would be gone.  Plus, the energy needed to destroy it would increase our carbon emissions here.  Once I run down the approximate square footage of the Fire Station I’ll put some more solid calculations here, but suffice to say there is an environmental cost to demolishing the Fire Station.  Reusing it, conversely, would mean that you could save all that embodied energy and also save the materials and energy it would have taken to build something new in its place.

Well, what can I do anyway?  I’m just a person.

A person can do a whole lot in their local government.  It’s the most accessible level of government we have, and the City relies on people like us to make it function well.  They will only be responsive and forthright if we collectively demand it of them, and also do our part by contributing solutions and providing assistance.

I received some really wonderful emails after each time my work was featured in the Press-Enterprise, and many of them were wondering how they could get involved.  I am really glad to get these kinds of emails because they remind me that I’m not just some weirdo who is nuts about funny-looking buildings in a town that acts like they would rather forget about them.  My advice to you, gentle reader:

• Join the Old Riverside Foundation. This organization represents buildings all over the City, and they have extended their interest to Mid-Century Modern buildings.  The Fire Station is on their list of endangered buildings and they’ve pledged to advocate for its preservation.  Plus, they put their money where their mouth is.  They were very visible during the public process for the Fox Plaza project, and filed a lawsuit against the City to force them to address inadequacies in the EIR.  Only time will tell whether they prevail, but they have at least proven that they will not take the demolition of historic buildings lying down.
• Write/Call/Visit/Harangue Your Councilperson.  The City Council has the power to direct staff to change this project, but they won’t do it unless we collectively direct them to do it.  If you do contact them, keep it constructive.  Tell them your preferred solution and give them your reasons for including adaptive reuse.  If you don’t have a lot of time to be gabbing with public servants then at least shoot off a quick email professing strong support for adaptive reuse of the Fire Station.
• Comment on the Draft EIR.  The City has not prepared this yet.  When they do, you can bet the farm I will have a link posted as well as some tips for effective comments.
• Talk to Your Fellow Riversiders. I can’t stress how terribly important it is to connect with your local friends and neighbors about protecting this City’s history and culture.  We are at a critical era for Mid-Century Modern architecture.  We have the opportunity to save the best examples in the city now, but popular opinion is slow to catch up with the appreciation for these buildings.  It happened this way for other styles: Art Deco, Moderne, even Queen Anne Victorian.  That’s why I started this website - Modernism in Riverside needed an embassy to get it past the “ugly stage” experienced by many of our beloved architectural styles and movements.

And now it’s late.  I was only going to get on here to compose a quick blog to announce that the Fire Station was listed, and now I’ve gone and done all this.  Well, accept my warm appreciation to you all for your support, and thanks for caring about our ultra-mod spaces and places.

Posted in Advocacy | No Comments »

Historic Resources along I-15 from Mira Loma to Murrietta - information requested

I was asked by a consultant for Caltrans if I would post this request for information on my blog, which I am happy to do.  Although I grew up in Norco, I spent those salad days blissfully unaware of buildings aside from the shelter they brought.  When I moved there with my family in the late ’80s they were just opening I-15 through Norco, which is really strange for me to think about.  Anyway, if you know of some supa-mod buildings near the alignment of I-15 from Mira Loma to Murrietta (I think technically from the SR-60 interchange to the SR 215 interchange)  Then read the information posted below:

 HISTORICAL RESOURCS ALONG PART OF THE I-15 FREEWAY?

Our environmental consulting firm, ICF Jones & Stokes, is evaluating buildings to determine whether they are “historical resources” on behalf of Caltrans. We are evaluating buildings 1958 and earlier along a stretch of the I-15 Freeway, on about one half mile on either side of the freeway, beginning at the north roughly at the 60 Freeway, running through Norco, Corona, Murrieta and Mira Loma,  and ending at the south near where the I-15 and 215 freeways converge. We, a team of architectural historians, are reviewing tract maps and aerial photographs, contacting and using historical information from private and municipal libraries in Riverside County, and of course using the web for specific and contextural material. But nothing replaces the value of people’s eyes and ears, and we would be very grateful for any information, about especially Mid-Century residential subdivisions, or insights you may have into that APE, or Area of Potential Effects.  Please contact Senior Architectural Historian and Project Manager Carson Anderson, 213 627 5376 x 263, canderson@jsanet.com

I try my darndest to stay focused on modernism in the City of Riverside, but would love to hear about/see mod stuff in other parts of the county too, so pretty please, with sugar on top, put me on your cc line when you do contact these nice people, k?

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

William Krisel show at the MODAA Gallery, Culver City 10/17

krisel-back-3.pdf

See also PSMODCOM’s collection of historic photographs of the work of Palmer & Krisel…

Posted in architects | No Comments »

TechniCutter!

I finally got back out recently with the 4×5 for another photo. This one is of Cutter Pool at RCC, which was constructed in 1958.

I took the picture from the adjacent hillside in order to take in the entire complex. I think some more detailed shots are in order, but that will have to wait.

I understand that RCC is planning a major expansion of their swimming facilites, including a 65m-long pool, a diving tower, grandstands for 800 people, and facilities for competition swimmers. As a swimmer, I am very excited and hope to see the plans become reality. They are supposed to begin construction in 2009, according to a cached version of a write-up prepared by the college.

I’m also glad to read in the same online source that they will keep the existing building and pool. I think it’s a cute building, with its accordion-shaped canopy and brick veneer. Here it is colorized in Photoshop…

Posted in institutional | No Comments »

Oy, my eyes!

It just occurred to me that the past few posts are like a wall of words. That shows how remiss I’ve been in supplying the site/blog with fresh photographs. Please don’t go away, there will be more pictures soon, I promise. I have a new 4×5 of RCC’s Cutter Pool building, from a perspective that may disappear in the near future. Also in the works are pictures of and information about the Magnolia Palm Apartments (now Condos) at the corner of Magnolia and Arlington.

Posted in Personal | No Comments »

1st Annual Riverside Cultural Heritage Board Practicum

Today I attended a very good practicum session put on by the City of Riverside Cultural Heritage Board at the recently renovated Arlington Branch Library. The event was sponsored by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the keynote speaker was Donovan Rypkema on the economics of historic preservation, sustainable development, and white elephant buildings. It was a very dense but stimulating talk and I thought it really added a positive, solutions-based dimension to the Citywide discussion we’re having regarding economic development and historic preservation. If you weren’t one of the seventy-odd people who attended (or gave up on taking notes in the fast-paced discussion) the City taped it and I believe they will have it available for viewing somehow. Also, he has a book called “The Economics of Historic Preservation” published by the National Trust. I was very happy to see Councilman Rusty Bailey there, as well as Planning Director Ken Gutierrez, but I would have liked to have chained the entire staff of our Redevelopment department to chairs in the room. Maybe we can persuade Rypkema to return at some point, perhaps as a consultant to help us craft projects downtown that make economic, preservation, and environmental sense.

The whole session had the air of a revival, with the green glass of the library’s palladian windows providing a glow to the energy in the air. Rypkema is a compelling speaker, and although he goes through the facts and figures of his presentation rather quickly he does not shy away from hammering home the important points that will stick with you long after forgetting specifically how rehabilitation brings a city greater economic growth per dollar in terms of jobs, household income, and property value.

I have one quibble, and it’s that he’s not really sympathetic to our building stock of the recent past. Communities back east that developed a century or two ago often have a built-in stock of taller urban buildings that probably nobody really debates are historically and/or architecturally significant, even if some people contend it is economically infeasible to reuse them. Many of our major western cities saw their major development after the first and second world wars, when automobile-driven patterns gave birth to the sprawl that anyone gaga over smart growth reviles. Yes, we do have millions and millions of postwar resources, and most of them do not fit the sort of profile that fits Rypkema’s model of historic density so perfectly. I would contend that does not necessarily make them any less sustainable or historically important than the buildings that were constructed a century ago. Rypkema related a story in which someone in Phoenix rather ham-handedly explained to him that the sheer numbers of their post-war resources lent weight to their importance in the community, which he took (uncharitably, I think) to mean the person was advocating a “building petting zoo,” a ridiculous concept to everyone outside of Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller.

Whether it’s historical chauvinism brought on by unfamiliarity with the developing scholarly perspective on recent past resources or an overly narrow scope focused on a traditional concept of density, I think Rypkema is too dismissive of postwar resources and their potential use in citymaking. I only bring it up because I think this attitude could have disastrous consequences for western cities, particularly my favorite one. Think of the incredible sense of place one gets when shopping in Magnolia Center, the one-story, sprawling retail shops between Jurupa Avenue and Arlington Avenue along Magnolia. The potential for small business incubation cited by Rypkema as a positive potentiality for historic buildings is already alive in these small shops. They are human-scale, centrally located amidst Riverside’s major streetcar and automotive suburbs. Most of them were designed with distinctive architecture representative (though not all exceptional examples) of the Mid-century modern aesthetic, and feature expansive glass and aluminum storefronts that entice both pedestrian, motorist, and cyclist in to view the wares. What is more important to me is that together with the surrounding neighborhoods they form the core of mid-century Riverside, and mid-century Riverside is as important as early Riverside when it comes to defining the city’s historic architectural character. You can’t just plop down a dense mixed-use project on Sunnyside with no regard for the important retail district already there, because it will destroy the intimate sense of place created by the mid-century buildings that are already there. And that is not preserving an architectural petting zoo, rather it is an authentic space based on the continuing realities of the residents of surrounding neighborhoods and the small business owners who have served them.

One more thing, and then I’ll give it a rest: It seems to me that suburban communities designed for automobiles get a bad rap among sustainable development adherents. They’re not walkable, they sprawl, and because of this they are unsustainable. Their sheer ubiquity and unsustainable foundation overshadow any potential historical or architectural importance. So let’s knock down all those 60s and 70s tract homes already and put the mid-rise mixed- use condos we want there, right? Well, wait a minute… are we envisioning a future where we can only walk everywhere, truly? Why can’t we use all that handy road infrastructure for smaller, more sustainable personal vehicles, or -gasp- bicycles? What about working within the established built environment to plant COMPATIBLE retail and commercial within walking/biking distance? How about we start a sensitive infill program focused on obsolete parking lots? It’s clear that Cities with most of their roots in the recent past will have to come up with creative urbanizing solutions that don’t always look like the stuff that has worked in older Cities. And they don’t have to abandon the notion that their history is important to do it.

Well, maybe I’ve picked a straw-man fight, and Rypkema would actually agree with me.  It seems like there is a lot more room to agree than disagree, and after all, the guy’s got to be provocative to get people thinking about his message.

Posted in Commercial, Resources | 2 Comments »

Tuxie’s Juices

I finally got around to trying out Tuxie’s Juices, and if you can’t have burgers and fries, at least you can get a most excellent smoothie! You can watch them blend up all fresh fruit right in front of you, in a good combination that yields an even-textured, cold but thoroughly drinkable smoothie. They also sell sandwiches (under the heading “Tortas”), Mexican snacks (including quesadillas, nachos, and something very spicy looking I’ve never seen before), Dreyer’s ice cream, strawberries and cream with granola, and veggie juices. I’ve been missing Emerald City Smoothie up in Canyon Crest ever since they closed their doors last year, and Juice It Up is a poor substitute indeed. If they can stay in business through this rough economic climate, I think the husband and I have new destination for casual bike rides or walks with the dogs.

I got a large strawberry/mango smoothie for $4.25, and it was more than enough for me. A small is $3.50. They take all major credit cards and will also take phone orders (951) 781-1048. It also looks like the classic car night is back, there is a poster up on the window with details.

When I asked the owner about whether or not he plans to light up the Tuxie’s sign, he told me that he does sometimes in the evenings, but only while he’s open. He cited expense as the major reason he couldn’t have it on longer or more often. That got me thinking about what the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency and the Cultural Affairs Department’s ongoing restoration project called LUMENS that helps fund restoration of the historic neon signs and art throughout LA. Perhaps through Riverside’s Redevelopment Agency and/or Riverside Public Utilities we could create a fund for the maintenance and lighting of our own historic neon signs, in exchange for some kind of conservation easement to protect their future along our main automotive thoroughfares.

We do so much in this City to help big developers and businesses succeed in Riverside. I’d like to see more small businesses like the couple running Tuxie’s Juices get some assistance, especially when their interests intersect with the interests of historic preservation.

Posted in Commercial, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Stand Up and Be Counted!

There has been a spate of op-ed pieces about the Main Branch Library lately. Kathy Allavie started the run with her editorial, “A boxy monstrosity”. I believe the piece attempted to co-opt the preservation movement by suggesting that when preservationists mean modern is significant, they are talking about post-and-beam case study houses by Neutra et al, and that a modern building should “look good” and “fit in” to be significant. What? I guess it’s nice to be able to use totally subjective standards as proof that your opinion is a fact. And if it isn’t a certain kind of modernism (though Neutra made some fine houses), it isn’t worth saving? Oh come on!

Steve Lech, president of the Riverside Historical Society responded by giving Ms. Allavie the criteria she requested. I thought he did a good job of explaining what was special about the library and why her opinion underscored a real challenge modernism faces - aesthetic chauvinism and widespread apathy towards the next generation of historic architecture.

Dan Bernstein kicked matters up a notch Tuesday by adding outright hostility toward the library building, suggesting we could get the Bush administration to blow it up by pretending it was a North Korean nuclear reactor. I don’t usually read his column, but I happened on it in the cafeteria at work and saw that he was talking about the Main Library. I realize he’s trying to be funny, but I’ve been too discouraged by all the negativity about the library and downtown modern buildings in general to find it even smirkworthy.

I don’t think I’ve yet found a decision-making body in Riverside who has any real sympathy for Mid-Century modernism, and it’s sad because I hear from a lot of people my age who appreciate this stuff and think the library is neat. Allavie thinks the rising interest in modernism is nostalgia from boomers who are misty-eyed over their childhood, but I think she’s completely off the mark - it’s the generations hence who have grown up with these buildings as fixtures in the landscape and absorbed the lessons they have to teach about ideas, optimism, and community. As with schools, libraries are among the first architect-designed buildings children get to experience as their own, and this library with its monumental, classical form is a temple of literacy, given to them by a generation that believed they could put a man on the moon and do much more.

So far I’ve found that UCR has the only other monumental New Formalist buildings in Riverside that could rival the Main Library. I love walking through that campus, it feels like a place where a person could invent something important or challenge stale ideas. But none of those buildings are downtown. The County Law Library comes close to rivaling the Main Library, but it is a later example with perhaps a different context. So there it is. You may have found examples of New Formalism that you find more compelling - if so then share.

If you agree that the existing Main Branch Library is valuable to Riverside’s architectural heritage, you should say something now, before any expansion plan that would demolish or obscure it gains steam. Write a letter to the editor of the Press Enterprise, call your councilperson, speak up around town. Hopefully it doesn’t devolve into a silly popularity contest, but if enough people can convey coherently why they like the Main Library just the way it is, maybe the Kathy Allavies of this City will actually begin to “get” it and become more circumspect about the project at hand.

Posted in Advocacy | 6 Comments »

More signs, urban Sproul

I couldn’t resist the play on words, even if “urban Sproul” doesn’t really make sense. Anyway, I managed to make a few pictures during the whirlwind month of June. It’s slim pickins’ though.

/>

Check out the grid pattern on the roof of Sproul! Giants could have a rousing game of Go on the rooftop.

George’s Burgers may be the best example of a mid-century burger stand in Riverside. There, I said it. Can you show me a better one? Tuxie’s has the animated sign, but George’s has the intact-tastic freestanding building.

Posted in Commercial, institutional | No Comments »