Red flags, part 10

So this last post will just wrap up a few additional problematic pieces in the nomination that are, supposedly, to go toward establishing Harry Bruno as a significant architect, I mentioned that I was having trouble sourcing the contention that Harry Bruno worked on the Watergate Apartments with William Wurster. From the nomination:

The majority of William Wurster’s papers have been archived at UC Berkeley, by the way William Wurster also has a gold medal from the AIA. One really great resource on the site is an excel spreadsheet with the list of projects he had worked on/was a part of etc. and so forth. As you can see there’s even a section for “Collaborators.” In the section for Watergate there is no listed collaborator. Not Harry Bruno, not anyone. If you go through the list you’ll see that the project list is notated pretty thoroughly.

I also did more research on the “Residence of author Alice Tisdale” purportedly at 315 Cortsen Road in Pleasant Hill.

What I found was that there was a second house built on the property but it is now privately owned, from the Rodgers Farm nomination:

Additionally, the address of the new home, which may or may not have been built by Harry Bruno because it’s not cited anywhere but on the Pacific Coast Architecture Database which I’ll address shortly is not 315 Cortsen. And it’s not called the “Alice Tisdale House” it’s the Hobart House. And I’m not sure why the nominating party keeps calling the author Alice Tisdale, it’s not even as though Tisdale is her maiden name which was Nourse. She married Earle Tisdale Hobart, so just shortening the name to Tisdale is simply odd. Anyway, their new home is the building numbered 755 on the rotated Google map:

According to the nomination the fence line indicates the property covered by the nomination, the privately owned and occupied Hobart House is not within that property line.

And finally the worst part of all of these little omissions and slight changes to obfuscate the real information and make it difficult to fact check the information contained within the nomination is the seeding of bad information into what, were, reputable information repositories online. The Pacific Coast Architecture Database is supposed to be a well sourced repository of information but it allowed the nominating party to seed her bad information into this database to bulk up her nomination because the evidence it stood on without it was so flimsy:

If you want to email the keeper of the database his info is here.