Blogging Bayport Alameda

August 2, 2022

Checking it twice, part 13 (page 4)

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:02 am

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, “Modern Movement 1925-1950”, August 16, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/modernmovements.html

These are the parts in the nomination that this link is supporting:

However the link, while discussing “modern movement” architectural styles does not reference an “International ‘moderne'” style. It does separately reference “International” and “Moderne” as distinct styles although there is a fair amount of overlap between the two. Ironically if you just read the descriptions of these they could describe any number of new, modern buildings which crop up everywhere these days which immediately is declared “ugly.” It makes me wonder if you throw a sepia tone and some noise on a photo of a modern building and ask people to judge it if they think it was built in the 1930s and 40s if they’d find it less ugly. Maybe say it was designed by Mies van der Rohe or something.

These are the identifying features of the Moderne style:

And the International style:

“Photograph 1952.“ OMCA Collections. Oakland Museum of California, 2021

This is a photo of Jack London Square in black and white, it names Harry Bruno as Larry Bruno.

Having trouble sourcing this online but sounds duplicative to article we already have: Rosenbaum, Art. “Maritime School–Alameda Training Base Prepares Officers For Huge Merchant Fleet.” Oakland Tribune Yearbook, 1944.

Sanborn-Perris Map Co. Fire insurance maps of Alameda, California, 1897, 1910, 1932, 1948, 1950, 1955, 1987.

I don’t think these are used, at all, in this nomination but it was cited in the 1996 Page and Turnbull report so the nominating party just threw it in.

San Francisco Planning Department. Modern Design Historic Context Statement Case Report; San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935‐1970 Historic Context Statement. Feb. 2, 2011.

Much like the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission link above this is just to prove historic style. But there are no references to “International ‘moderne'”.

This appears to attempt to support the Second Bay Tradition style, here are the references in the nomination:

There’s this interesting bit in the footnotes about the conflict between determining the First, Second, and Third Bay time periods, it seems weird that someone without a background in architecture or historical architecture is seen as someone who can definitively pin down the period and style of a highly altered set of buildings:

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Annual Report, 1972.

It’s not clear if this is here because of a reference to Ballena Bay or because Harry Bruno was a member of BCDC in 1972.

3 Comments »

  1. Thanks Lauren, for keeping after this. I think there is a real chance that the SHRC will approve the application (hope I’m wrong).
    I wrote a letter in opposition, which I sent by email to SHRC today. I plan on reading it into the meeting record on Friday, August 5th. Below is a cut and paste from the SHRC website.

    If you wish to participate by teleconference, email calshpo.shrc@parks.ca.gov before the start of the meeting. The phone number and passcode will be provided by return email. If you are in need of special accommodations, please call the Office of Historic Preservation at (916) 445-7052.

    The SHRC invites comments on the nominations from the public either in writing or at the August 5, 2022 meeting. Written comments can be sent to State Historical Resources Commission, 1725 23rd St, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95816-7100 or to calshpo.shrc@parks.ca.gov and must be submitted by 9:00 AM on Wednesday, August 3, 2022.

    Comment by Jim Cummons — August 2, 2022 @ 7:21 am

  2. Your column states posters can “say what you want.”

    Just wondering- do you think it adds to your column when your friends in favor of building the Wellness Center make crude online remarks directed toward opponents, angrily claim in their own postings “ you are not anonymous” seem to think they know the names of posters, and threaten libel suits against posters who disagree with them? Are these the positive progressive changes they are bringing to Alameda?

    Comment by Mirror — August 2, 2022 @ 7:25 am

    • But nothing about calling someone a fraud? That’s okay to you? That was going too far. You can disagree without being disagreeable.

      Comment by Check Yourself — August 2, 2022 @ 7:41 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: