Blogging Bayport Alameda

August 3, 2022

Checking it twice, part 14 (page 3)

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:03 am

Nearly there, people.

Lay, Kenneth Edward Jr. A Master’s Report: Contemporary Design Philosophy in American Architecture. College of Architecture and Design. Kansas State University. 1966.

Probably to shore up the “International” design theory but what is interesting about this report was this part:

Which is interesting because in the City of San Francisco report from the other day it noted that, in San Francisco at least, the Second Bay tradition architecture was built mostly for the wealthy not not for the “common man.” This also is a bit of a detraction from the narrative in the nomination which focuses on the school being in a way that harmonized with the site (which is a key of one of the architecture movement, I can’t remember which one but it was one in the salad that was thrown at this project but it’s debatable about whether the Alameda school was placed perfectly into its surroundings) but this claims that International style divorced the building from the site. Anyway this is what happens when you have a lay person like me throwing every single thing against the wall and not necessarily understanding the subject matter with any sort of real expertise.

Lowry Foundation, assistance from George Blood USAF Retired. This is a person, it’s cited improperly if it’s a public interview. Private interviews are not supposed to be cited.

Monteagle, F.J. The Coney Island of the West. East Bay Regional Park District/ Robert W. Crown Memorial State Beach, [1977].

It’s probably about Neptune Beach, I have not read this but whenever Neptune Beach comes up I feel it’s my duty to remind everyone that Neptune Beach was segregated.

Museum of Modern Art, New York. “Built in USA: 1932-.1944.” 1944.

Not sure what relevance this has it appears to be just a book of homes and floor plans.

National Archives, San Bruno, CA.
Records Group 248: War Shipping Administration.
Records Group 178: U.S. Maritime Commission, West Coast Division.
Records Group 291: Records of the Federal Property Resources Service.
National Archives 2, College Park, MD.
U.S. Maritime Commission. 1936-1950.
Records Group 178. Construction Contracts, Planning Records and Reports, 1941-1945.
Records Group 178: Photographs of Training Stations and Ships, 1939-1944.
Records Group 178: Central Correspondence Files, 1936-1950.
Records Group 178: Neptune Beach, Alameda, CA.
Records Group 178: Donald McKay.
Records Group 178: Government Island, Oakland, CA.
Records Group 178: Architectural and Engineering Drawings.
Records Group 248: Records of Captain Granville Conway, 1942-1946.
Records Group 248. Records of the War Shipping Administration.
Records Group 178: Maritime Training Subject Files.
Records Group 178: Progress Reports.
Records Group 178: Neptune Beach.
Records Group 178: Acquisition of Property in Alameda, CA
Records Group 178: Alameda, CA.
Records Group 178: Regional Construction Office.
Records Group 178: American Institute of Architects.

Honestly I think these are just here for filler because if the nominating party had found anything significant from these files we’d know about it, but there’s a neat set of images from Fort Trumbull which to my unrefined eyes, looks a fair bit like the McKay site:

4 Comments »

  1. On the one hand, its good to know NARA has records on Neptune Beach. On other hand, we usually cite the specific document, not the entire RG.

    Definitely checking these out on next trip to DC.

    Also, you can reach out to archivist to get those Finding Aids, if not listed. Still, it wont tell you about specific documents in file—thats what citations help with.

    Comment by Rasheed — August 3, 2022 @ 7:36 am

  2. Yesterday somebody said, “only people who were paid to say the Maritime Officers Training School it is not historic have said it’s not historic” except those who support the wellness center while “Everyone else thinks it’s historic.” Others called Lauren a liar.

    Here is a list of experts who have officially opined the maritime center should NOT be a national historic site:
    – 1995, Page & Turnbull, architectural firm providing conservation services for historic buildings, hired by owner GSA
    – 2003, Arthur Layne, federal Historic Preservation Officer
    – 2003, Dr. Knox Mellon, department head, California Office of Historic Preservation
    – 2020 and again 2021, Page & Turnbull hired by the City of Alameda for updates
    – 2022 July, Beth Savage, GSA Historic Preservation Officer, adding it’s much worse now than the 2003 California decision
    – 2022 July, Christopher Koeppel, federal Assistant Director representing the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (they advise the President and Congress)

    Facts:
    – Many predate the wellness center by decades
    – All the individuals are specialists paid to identify and preserve historic sites

    The opinions of Page & Turnbull are of particular interest.
    – In 1996 after citing the factors for and against, their opinion was, “the Maritime Service Officers School, Alameda does not appear eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) because of lack of integrity.”
    – After an update review In 2021 “It is Page & Turnbull’s opinion that the Alameda Federal Center property remains ineligible for listing in the National Register as a district or group of buildings.

    Page & Turnbull is in the business of reviving and preserving such sites, so they opined against their own economic interest. The folks who authored these reports credentials are impressive, including architects, historic preservation consultants, an author of books on architecture and one with a PhD in anthropology.

    Comment by pro-wellness center — August 3, 2022 @ 10:01 am

    • Yes but the list of experts who say the maritime center SHOULD be a national historic site is equally impressive:
      -Carmen Reid
      -William Burg

      Comment by Apple Strudel — August 3, 2022 @ 10:20 am

      • Regarding William Burg, maybe. People assume he is supposed to be a gatekeeper, but per their web site, his role is to assist applicants. It reminds me of an experience with LA County small claims court. Somebody there did a terrific job helping me with lots of coaching. It seemed beyond the “call of duty.” She explained that her role is to be as helpful to me as possible because lawyers are not allowed but they need to make the court hearing as efficient as possible. She or a peer would have done the same for the person on the other side.

        Has anybody reached out and asked for his help on how to oppose the nomination? Wish I had but too late now.

        Comment by pro-wellness center — August 4, 2022 @ 10:56 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: