Archive for the ‘Blatant editorial’ Category

Fleishhacker Burns and the future of the Mothers Building

Tuesday, December 11th, 2012

After decades of neglect, the Fleishhacker pool building suffered from a major fire on Saturday, December 1, 2012. The city may be investigating the cause of the fire, deemed suspicious, but most believe that squatters, escaping the wrath of winter storms, likely caused it.

Fleishhacker Pool Building Fire

Fleishhacker Pool Building Fire


Now there’s a rush to eradicate the building’s remains. On December 5, 2012, the Department of Building Inspection issued an emergency order to “abate the public nuisance” by directing the Recreation and Park Department to file for permits for demolition. The latest I’ve heard is the bulldozers could move in as early as tomorrow.

The real tragedy probably isn’t last week’s fire, or even the interior destruction done by vandals, graffiti artists, and the homeless—damage which escalated significantly in the last five years or so. This fight to save the last piece of a unique urban recreational center was lost slowly over decades.

I have sympathy for the people working at the San Francisco Zoo and the Recreation and Park Department. Over the past ten years both agencies have had to tackle great public debates and debacles—tigers escaping, elephants ailing, coyotes in the parks, beach and road erosion, questions and scrutiny over native plants, sewage treatment plants, recycling center evictions, artificial turf soccer fields, rowdy concertgoers, and privatization of parkland—while wrestling over budgets and trying to sell bond ballot measures. But while over the years there may have been pitches to restaurateurs, gym owners, and even the people responsible for Burning Man to take over the pool building, the city failed to safeguard and adequately plan a future for a historic structure in its care.

So now, once again, we’re in a familiar place. Questions of preservation and our architectural heritage have to be wrestled over in crisis, when there are apparently no good options. Shoulders are shrugged, a once beautiful structure is deemed beyond repair as the wrecking ball arrives, and the public gaze again moves towards “revitalization” (building new complexes, museums, office towers, and LEED certified glass and steel boxes) rather than restoration.

As it seems too late for the Fleishhacker Pool House, we need to salvage what we can. Physically, that might mean what’s left of the decorative dolphin moldings over the doorway lintels, but more broadly, we now need to put the city’s feet to the fire on the other major historic building on zoo property—the Mother’s Building.

Mothers Building mosaic

Mothers Building mosaic

Built in 1925, the Mothers Building is officially named the Delia Fleishhacker Memorial Building in honor of Herbert and Mortimer Fleishhacker’s mother. Designed by architect George W. Kelham, the building was intended as a place of respite for the mothers of children enjoying the Fleishhacker playfield and pool. For many years, the sandy-colored building stood welcome for zoo goers when the entrance wound down sloping paths from Sloat Boulevard. Beautiful WPA-commissioned Noah’s Ark themed murals by Helen Forbes and Dorothy Pucinelli decorate the interior while mosaics by Helen Bruton are set in the entry.

The building has needed restoration for decades and has been closed to the public since 2000. Unfortunately, a leaking roof, since repaired, damaged parts of the murals a few years ago.

Like the Fleishhacker pool building, the Mothers Building also finds itself a ward of several guardians: the San Francisco Zoo, the Recreation and Park Department, and the San Francisco Art Commission. At the very least, studies have to be conducted to determine the current state of the building and the repairs needed to make it again a vital part of the city’s cultural landscape, especially now as a new playground is planned nearby.

Let’s move this project up on the agenda now, while attention is temporarily focused on this part of town. E-mail Tanya Peterson, Executive Director and President of the Zoological Society (tanya@sfzoo.org) and Philip Ginsburg, Executive Director of Rec and Park (Philip.Ginsburg@sfgov.org) and tell them that the Mothers Building and its art work – murals and mosaics – need to be restored.

The Seductiveness of Paper

Thursday, July 26th, 2012

When I read Raymond H. Clary’s two fine books entitled “The Making of Golden Gate Park,” (the first covering up to 1906, the second to 1950), I couldn’t help but seethe along with Mr. Clary over the continuing depredations to what San Francisco used to call “its most precious possession.” Dreaded philanthropists have always plagued the park with “gifts” in the form of buildings and monuments and museums and clubhouses (and now artificial turf soccer fields), replacing as much quiet nature as they can. Clary fantasized about having the power to remove every structure: “If one could do that, there would still be a woodland park. But if one were to remove every tree, shrub, blade of grass and body of water, it would be a desolate place, even with the highly touted ‘culture centers’ that now disgrace Golden Gate Park.” (This was in 1987. Thankfully, Mr. Clary didn’t have to see the new de Young Museum go up.)

San Francisco Bulletins from the 1890s

San Francisco Bulletins from the 1890s

When I read Nicholson Baker’s book “Double Fold” in 2001, a similarly righteous anger and energy spark inside me. Mr. Baker, a novelist, detailed in the book how libraries “modernized” (and saved shelf space) by microfilming and then destroying original copies of books and historical newspapers. The colorful artwork of the New York World’s Sunday supplements were reduced to fuzzy black and gray on microfilm reels, while the originals were pulped or sold to be cut up by dealers of “What the front page was on your birthday” curios. David Gates, in a New York Times review, had similar feelings as me in reading the book: “I’d repeatedly scrawled ‘Whew!,’ ‘Yikes!’ and ‘Jesus!’ in the margins, sometimes two and three times a page.” Baker went so far as to purchase tons of bound newspapers when the British Library put them up for sale, having to rent a warehouse in New Hampshire for $26,000 a month to store them. (Finally, Duke University took them off his hands.)

Cover of "The World on Sunday" by Nicholson Baker and Margaret Brentano

Cover of "The World on Sunday" by Nicholson Baker and Margaret Brentano



So when I was at the San Francisco History Expo in March of this year I was jarred and delighted to see my good friends Ron Filion and Pamela Storm had on display a bound set of the San Francisco Call from the 1890s. The couple told me they had not just the one bound book of old newsprint—which was an impressive thirty inches long by twenty-three inches wide by two inches deep—but twenty-two equally massive volumes back at home, salvaged from a culling at the San Francisco Public Library years before.

San Francisco Call, September 1899

San Francisco Call, September 1899


There’s great wonder in seeing original versions of these old newspapers, having the tactile experience of feeling and seeing paper, of being able to easily turn and riffle through an edition, scan quickly over a page to pick out items, drink in the color washes on Sunday art pages. I found an 1899 article I had used in writing my book on Carville-by-the-Sea, but instead of the murky shades that I had viewed on microfilm—almost unidentifiable as illustrations—now I could see real photographs and pick out specific houses.

Carville photograph from 1899 SF Call article

Carville photograph from 1899 SF Call article


Ron and Pamela, who have over the years created one of the region’s great genealogy sites at sfgenealogy.com, obviously felt the same way about these old marvels as I did. Seeing my enthusiasm, they asked if the Western Neighborhoods Project would be interested in being the new caretakers of these ephemeral beauties. The collection took up a lot of space in their home, and both were willing to let it go to new guardians.

Nicholson Baker had been one of my heroes, and if he could take on several thousand volumes, we could take twenty-three. As I try to write grant applications, plan the next member walk, update our Facebook page, and transition our nonprofit’s government-assigned DUNS number to a new online system (don’t ask), the dusty tomes tempt me daily to immerse myself in the news of San Francisco from the nineteenth century. It requires clearing off a lot of desk space to open one pulpy volume of the Call or the San Francisco Bulletin (which has fewer graphics, but is much more manageable in size.)

They do take up a lot of room, fill the air with dust when browsed, need extremely delicate handling (book repair classes in my future?), and are perhaps fairly useless as other copies are digitized in full resolution for the Web (browse and search the Call up to the 1910s on the Library of Congress site). But they are such a great delight.

Our great thanks to Ron and Pamela for their generosity, and to everyone else out there who still loves paper.

New DeYoung and Academy of Sciences Buildings Compared

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

Architect Glenn Lym’s video examining Golden Gate Park’s new museum buildings does an excellent job crystalizing my feelings.

The new De Young may be a nice piece of modern “stark-itecture”—provocative and daring and artistic—but it exudes hubris and disdain for the public park it stands in: “I was paid for by wealthy stylish people and I’m going to impose myself on every view of western San Francisco. Good luck finding my front door!”

The Academy, on the other hand, feels like part of the park without shying away from being interesting and inviting.

Take a look at Glenn’s video and see what you think. It can get a bit technical in parts with architectural language, but the graphics make things very clear.

The Fair Fourth Estate

Sunday, October 11th, 2009

The San Francisco Chronicle tossed out an editorial today on preservation that began with this fictious line:

“Sorry, we’ve reviewed your request to tear down a head shop and are denying your permit. A panel of architects in untucked shirts and spiky hair think the structure is a brilliant evocation of 1960s city life and should be saved.”

What a very spot-on representation of preservationists. The Chronicle only forgot to mention we all wear fashionable eyeglasses and that we throw like girls.

Nothing like name-calling to precisely dissect a difference of opinion. The gratuitous drug reference with the head shop was particularly nice.

The paper proceeds to just as fairly trash the new preservation commission, talk of “the next urban war,” and somehow find a way to praise the former toothless Landmarks Advisory Board (which the Chronicle always hated).

You know what kind of people want to preserve San Francisco’s architectural heritage? San Franciscans (spiky-haired or not).

The people who email WNP because they’re concerned about a cottage being torn down or an old school being razed are people who live nearby, or grew up on the street—regular working-class people with no broader agenda to stop progress.

But it’s easier to blame delays on fictional egg-headed hipster elitists than the out-of-town developer, the drive-through investor who buys a property to turn it into two “luxury condominiums” (and then takes off to the next vulnerable cottage), or a city department that doesn’t review the merits of its buildings before putting new construction out to bid.

We wonder if the Chronicle will be so against “pickling the past” in another preservation movement: that of keeping the money-losing and increasingly irrelevant newspaper industry alive.

You think we have a Trash Problem?

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

Sharon building

Put this in the “things weren’t better in the old days” file. Picnics at Children’s Playground apparently got a bit messy in the early 1900s.

Thanks to the sfpix.com site for the photo.